Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?
For starters, he or she would explain that there is no short-term fix for gasoline prices. Prices are what they are as a result of rising global oil demand from India, China and a rapidly growing Middle East on top of our own increasing consumption, a shortage of “sweet” crude that is used for the diesel fuel that Europe is highly dependent upon and our own neglect of effective energy policy for 30 years.
Cynical ideas, like the McCain-Clinton summertime gas-tax holiday, would only make the problem worse, and reckless initiatives like the Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep offer to subsidize gasoline for three years for people who buy its gas guzzlers are the moral equivalent of tobacco companies offering discounted cigarettes to teenagers.
I can’t say it better than my friend Tim Shriver, the chairman of Special Olympics, did in a Memorial Day essay in The Washington Post: “So Dodge wants to sell you a car you don’t really want to buy, that is not fuel-efficient, will further damage our environment, and will further subsidize oil states, some of which are on the other side of the wars we’re currently fighting. ... The planet be damned, the troops be forgotten, the economy be ignored: buy a Dodge.”
No, our mythical candidate would say the long-term answer is to go exactly the other way: guarantee people a high price of gasoline — forever.
This candidate would note that $4-a-gallon gasoline is really starting to impact driving behavior and buying behavior in way that $3-a-gallon gas did not. The first time we got such a strong price signal, after the 1973 oil shock, we responded as a country by demanding and producing more fuel-efficient cars. But as soon as oil prices started falling in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we let Detroit get us readdicted to gas guzzlers, and the price steadily crept back up to where it is today.
We must not make that mistake again. Therefore, what our mythical candidate would be proposing, argues the energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., is a “price floor” for gasoline: $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, which is still half the going rate in Europe today. Washington would declare that it would never let the price fall below that level. If it does, it would increase the federal gasoline tax on a monthly basis to make up the difference between the pump price and the market price.
To ease the burden on the less well-off, “anyone earning under $80,000 a year would be compensated with a reduction in the payroll taxes,” said Verleger. Or, he suggested, the government could use the gasoline tax to buy back gas guzzlers from the public and “crush them.”
But the message going forward to every car buyer and carmaker would be this: The price of gasoline is never going back down. Therefore, if you buy a big gas guzzler today, you are locking yourself into perpetually high gasoline bills. You are buying a pig that will eat you out of house and home. At the same time, if you, a manufacturer, continue building fleets of nonhybrid gas guzzlers, you are condemning yourself, your employees and shareholders to oblivion.
What a cruel thing for a candidate to say? I disagree. Every decade we look back and say: “If only we had done the right thing then, we would be in a different position today.”
But no politician dared to do so. When gasoline was $2 a gallon, the government never would have imposed a $2 tax. Now that it is $4 a gallon, the government should at least keep it there, since it is really having the right effect.
I was visiting my local Toyota dealer in Bethesda, Md., last week to trade in one hybrid car for another. There is now a two-month wait to buy a Prius, which gets close to 50 miles per gallon. The dealer told me I was lucky. My hybrid was going up in value every day, so I didn’t have to worry about waiting a while for my new car. But if it were not a hybrid, he said, he would deduct each day $200 from the trade-in price for every $1-a-barrel increase in the OPEC price of crude oil. When I saw the rows and rows of unsold S.U.V.’s parked in his lot, I understood why.
We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy. Ultimately, we need to move our entire fleet to plug-in electric cars. The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.
Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn’t it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn’t that just be amazing?
This will be waiting for me when I get home this evening courtesy of UPS. The MSRP for this HDTV is 1499$. Its currently on Amazon for 1249$. I bought it from Costco for 999$ w/ free shipping. Woot. Award Winning Green Features The innovative Eco TV (42PFL5603D) is a high-definition LCD television that delivers superb picture quality while minimizing power consumption.
Philips ECO TV Power Saving Features: Dimmable Backlighting technology combined with:
Ambient Light Sensor and Active Content Monitoring
Low standby mode at only 0.15 watt
Consumer selectable Power Saver Mode
Chemical/Hazardous Substances: Meets EU RoHS standards
Carton Packaging: Made from a combination of recycled material and materials from Sustainably Managed Forests.
5000 Series Design Collection A new family of products which surprise and delight by the way they look, behave and interact. A consistent, iconic signature creates distinction over the ranges. Embodied by the 5000 series LCD flat TV, distinctive and timeless, designed as a focal point for the family, yet discreet rather than dominant.
Full HD LCD display, with a 1920x1080p resolution The Full HD screen has the widescreen resolution of 1920 x 1080p. This is the highest resolution of HD sources for the best possible picture quality. It is fully future proof as it supports 1080p signals from all sources, including the most recent like Blu-ray and advanced HD game consoles. The signal processing is extensively upgraded to support this much higher signal quality and resolution. It produces brilliant flicker-free progressive scan pictures with superb brightness and colors. Invisible speakers with incredible surround An invisible sound system that blends perfectly with the design of the cabinet. Optimal acoustics with horn shaped acoustical reflector for mid and high frequencies. It gives a clear and spacious sound stage complementary to the rich viewing experience. HD Natural Motion for ultra smooth motion in Full HD movies Philips invented HD Natural Motion to eliminate juddering effects that are visible with movie based picture content. HD Natural Motion estimates motion in the picture and corrects juddering movements in both broadcast and recorded movie material (such as DVD and Blu-ray Disc). The resulting smooth motion reproduction and excellent sharpness take the viewing experience to a higher level. HD Natural Motion removes judder from SD and HD pictures, including 1080p, for a motion performance that surpasses the cinema. EasyLink: easy control of TV & connected device via HDMI CEC The Full HD screen has the widescreen resolution of 1920 x 1080p. This is the highest resolution of HD sources for the best possible picture quality. It is fully future proof as it supports 1080p signals from all sources, including the most recent like Blu-ray and advanced HD game consoles. The signal processing is extensively upgraded to support this much higher signal quality and resolution. It produces brilliant flicker-free progressive scan pictures with superb brightness and colors. Pixel Plus 3 HD for most sharp and clear pictures Pixel Plus 3 HD offers the unique combination of ultimate sharpness, natural detail, vivid colors and smooth natural motion on all qualities of HD, standard TV signals and multimedia content, for high definition displays. Each pixel of the incoming picture is enhanced to better match the surrounding pixels, resulting in a more natural picture. Artifacts and noise in all sources from multimedia, standard TV and highly compressed HD are detected and reduced ensuring that the picture is clean and razor sharp. Integrated Dual Subwoofers for deep and powerful bass
Built-in ATSC & QAM tuner for reception of over-the-air and unscrambled HD cable programs.
4 HDMI inputs for full digital HD connection in one cable HDMI makes an uncompressed digital RGB connection from the source to the screen for the ultimate picture quality. HDMI intelligently communicates the highest output resolution with the source device. The HDMI input is fully backward compatible with DVI sources and includes digital audio. HDMI uses HDCP copy protection. With 3 HDMI inputs on the back and 1 HDMI on the side of the TV you can connect multiple HD sources, for instance an HD settop box, a Blu-ray player, and game console or digital Camcorder. Your TV is fully prepared for the HD future.
Settings assistant for effortless personalized TV settings Settings assistant for effortless personalized TV settings. The new settings assistant personalization wizard guides you to personalized settings with unparalleled ease. It includes not only picture, but the complete viewing experience, including sound settings. The wizard shows a few screens with easy to choose options to select the essential settings. The TV performance is set to the your personal preference without difficult terms or settings, and this very quickly.
Dolby Digital Output for connection to a home theatre system Output for connection to a home theatre system
Multimedia Applications Playback JPG photos and MP3 music using the onboard USB accessory port
Dual Subwoofers Integrated Dual Subwoofers for deep and powerful bass
Picture / Display
Aspect ratio: Widescreen
Brightness: 500 cd/m²
Dynamic screen contrast: 29,000:1
Response time (typical): 5 ms
Diagonal screen size: (inch): 42 inch
Panel resolution: 1920x1080p
Picture enhancement: Pixel Plus 3 HD , 3/2 - 2/2 motion pull down , 3D Combfilter , Active Control + Light sensor, Dynamic contrast enhancement, Progressive Scan , HD Natural Motion
Viewing angle (horizontal): 178 degree
Viewing angle (vertical): 178 degree
Supported Display Resolution (all at 60 Hz)
Computer formats 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1280 x 768, 1280 x 1024, 1360 x 768, 1920 x 1080i, 1920 x 1080p
Video formats: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
Sound
Equalizer: 5-bands
Output power (RMS): 25W
Sound Enhancement: Incredible Surround
Sound System: Dolby Digital (AC-3) , BBE
Built-in speakers: 4
Convenience
Child Protection: Child Lock+Parental
Control Clock: On main display, Sleep Timer
Ease of Installation: Autostore
Ease of Use: 4 favorite lists, Auto Volume Leveler (AVL), Channel list, Settings assistant Wizard, Side Control
Remote Control: TV
Screen Format Adjustments: 4:3, Auto Format, Movie expand 14:9, Movie expand 16:9, Super Zoom, Widescreen, unscaled (1080p dot by dot)
Multimedia Applications
Multimedia connections: USB memory class device
Playback Formats: MP3, Slideshow files (.alb), JPEG Still pictures
Tuner/Reception/Transmission
Aerial Input: 75 ohm F-type
TV system: ATSC, NTSC
Video Playback: NTSC
Cable: Unscrambled Digital Cable -QAM
Tuner bands: Hyperband, S-Channel, UHF, VHF
Connectivity
AV 1: Audio L/R in, YPbPr
AV 2: Audio L/R in, YPbPr
AV 3: CVBS in, S-Video in
HDMI 1: HDMI v1.3
HDMI 2: HDMI v1.3
HDMI 3: Analog audio L/R in, HDMI v1.3
HDMI-control (CEC features): One touch play, Power status, System info (menu language), System standby
Front / Side connections:Audio L/R in, CVBS in, Headphone out, S-video in, USB, HDMI
Audio Output - Digital: Coaxial (cinch)
Dimensions
Set Width (inch): 41.2 inch
Set Height (inch): 25.4 inch
Set Depth (inch): 3.5 inch
Set width (with stand) (inch): 41.2 inch
Set height (with stand) (inch): 28 inch
Set depth (with stand) (inch): 10.3 inch
Product weight (lb): 60.32 lbs (with stand), 49.3 lbs (without stand)VESA wall mount compatible 400 x 400 mm
Accessories Tabletop swivel stand, Power cord, Quick start guide, User Manual, Registration card, Remote Control
Product Description 1920 x 1080p full HD pixel resolution29000:1 dynamic contrast ratio16:9 widescreen aspect ratio5ms motion response500cd/m brightness Pixel Plus 3HDBuilt-in analog/digital tuner (NTSC/ATSC/QAM)USB connector for easy instant multimedia playing25-watt speakers and digital audio output3 HDMI inputs for easy full HD connectivityIncludes remote and swivel stand
Edit: This post was previously two posts but to make it easier to follow the whole story, I've edited them into a single post that was better formatted. I apologize for my long winded, and probably, poor written explanation. I'm a Web Designer/Content Manager - not an English Major (and I never liked Shakespeare anyway).
Original Post - May 12th, 2008
Let me walk you back to April 15th, 2008. I had just started a new job & just gotten my application approved to my new apartment that I would be moving into on May 15th, 2008. Trying to make sure that I took care of scheduling all of my new utilities well in advance, I called the Comcast building representative for my new complex (as my leasing agent told me to do). I told him which services I wanted and explained to him that I would not be moving into my new apartment until April 15th and that, if possible, I wanted to have them come on May 17th, a Saturday, and schedule a hookup of my new television & internet service. I also told him how I would need two single stream or one multi-stream CableCard for my HD Tivo. Having heard horror stories from fellow Tivo owners, online, about getting Comcast to successfully install Cable Cards or much less admit to you being able to get them (or spending an hour on the phone with a rep who doesn't know what they are) I was pleasantly surprised when, without batting an eye, the rep told me it would be no problem to have CableCard(s) sent out.
Very pleased, I hung up the phone, opened my Google Calendar & scheduled the appointment for that day.
Fast forward to this morning, May 12th, 2008.
I receive a call on my cell phone, while sitting at my desk at work that was marked restricted via caller ID. I answer the phone and a person, whom I can barely hear, tells me he is a Comcast service tech and wants to verify that I was at my apartment because he is on his way to install my new Comcast service. Exasperated I tell him that...no....this is not ok, as I don't live there yet. I explained that I called a month ago to schedule a hookup on the 17th and that my time window was from 9:00 am until noon. He said...oh ok and was about to hang up when I stopped him. "Wait Wait," I said. "Are you going to come Saturday still to connect my new service." He answers, "I dunno." Pause. I ask, "Well - I was told, a month ago, that it would be May 17th between 9 and 12. Should I call customer service to verify this?" He said, "Oh yes yes. Goodbye" and hung up.
I immediately dug through my email to get the contact number for the Comcast building rep for our complex and I called him.
The conversation went as such:
"Hello"
"Uh, Hi. I'm calling to verify that my scheduled hookup appointment is still Saturday May 17th between 9:00 and 12:00. I just received a call from a tech who was on his way to my apartment to hookup my service except this isn't correct. I scheduled it for the 17th."
"Ummm....can I call you back at this number in several minutes?"
I then explain to him that the number he is seeing on his caller ID isn't my actual desk number - but the main number for my employer. I then try to give him my desk line and he says "One moment sir, I need to pull over so I can take down your information." Uh - since when do Comcast reps drive around????
I give him my information and he says he will call me back later once he can look up my info. I tell him, worried, "I called a month ago to schedule this hookup." He sounds doubtful, "I don't know if we have any times available still on Sautrday." Grrrrrrrr
THATS WHY I CALLED A MONTH AGO TO SCHEDULE IT YOU IMBECILE!!!!!
COMCAST CUSTOMER SERVICE SUCKS
(Edit from May 21st: Can't you tell how frustrated/pissed off I was? Keep in mind we had planned to move the following weekend (16th & 17th) and this date had been approaching for several weeks, with the stress building. This news wasn't helping. )
Update - May 14th, 2008
Wow - a lot has happened since Monday. Let me bring you up to date. Immediately after the posting below, I twittered my displeasure as well. I then remembered that Comcast has a Twitter account called Comcastcares. I sent an @ message to the account, linking to this post and giving them a brief summary of the issue. About an hour later, the person behind the account (Frank), replied to me requesting that I email them (he supplied an email address) explaining this issue in detail. I linked them to this blog post and re-explained the issue in the body of the email.
About an hour after this I received a call from Comcast Corporate in Philadelphia PA asking me to explain the issue. He said that he wanted to see that this is resolved and promised to call the local Comcast office here and then give me a call back Monday evening or Tuesday morning. Monday evening passes and I hear nothing.
Tuesday, I am out to lunch and I receive an email on my blackberry. It is from a different person at the local Comcast office, but someone at their local headquarters office in Manassas. The gentleman said he was informed about my problem and had cleared it up with the local office, ensuring me that my original scheduled install would happen on Saturday, May 17th, 2008. Once I arrived back at my office, I realized he had left me a voicemail as well, saying the same thing. I called him back, leaving a voicemail saying that I appreciate his call and that I was out to lunch, which is why he missed me. I replied to his email as well, just to make sure he got my message. I stepped out of my office to meet with a co-worker and upon my return, found that he had called once more. I emailed once again letting him know I had gotten his message and that I appreciate his prompt reply. I then replied to Comcastcares on twitter, letting Frank know that someone had gotten in touch with me (well, two someones actually) and that I was surprised and pleased with their response. He thanked me. I told him I would follow up, post Saturday, to let him know how it went. Thinking this was the end of it, I went home
This morning I arrived in my office to find out a THIRD person from Comcast HQ had contacted me at 5:20 pm yesterday from a 215 area code. According to google, 215 is PA so this must be their Corporate HQ once more. I just left the gentleman a voicemail assuring him that I had been contacted and that I was aware my appointment had been correctly rescheduled for Saturday.
Let me just say that Comcast is a huge ISP that has many strikes against them. Their local & regional customer service leaves something to be desired. Their shady means of monitoring and capping network traffic is anti-net neutrality and I think they leave something to be desired in that department. That being said, I am THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED by their response to my issue. Their use of social networks via Twitter to seek out customers with problem and respond to them is a breath of fresh air amongst the common means of corporate customer service. Having received 2 follow-up calls from their Corporate HQ in PA and 1 from their Regional HQ in Manassas has left me with the feeling that they really wanted to fix my issue and make sure I knew that they had taken the steps to do so. If only all of their customer service was like this. What happens to all of the users who AREN'T on Twitter like I am? No doubt, they are left at the mercy of the seemingly under trained local CS reps. It does seem, though, that people at Comcast Corporate HQ with some authority have recognized this is a problem and are taking means to fix it. I know that once companies grow, there are detrimental silos created within a company where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Clearly the Right Hand, in this case, is trying to fix this issue via innovative means. Cheers guys - you're doing a good job.
Friday, May 16th Let me first take you back to Friday afternoon. Steffanie and I are packing the moving trucks, the both of us having took the day off to do so. I got a call from Comcast; It was an automated message confirming my installation appointment for the following morning between 9:00 am and noon. I hung up and told Steff that it was just the automated Comcast reminder. We go back to work.
Saturday, May 17th
Steff and I get up bright and early, despite our exhausted state from the day before - having went to bed around 1:00 am the night before from a very long day of moving. Marlo was due sometime between 8:00 am and 11:00 am to deliver our new couch. I got up at 7:00 to be ready for them to get here, and sure enough, around 8:15 they called. Went downstairs and helped them get it inside the loading dock, up the service elevator and into our apartment. They left around 8:40 and I began preparing for the Comcast technician to arrive. I setup the TV on the TV stand and hooked up my TivoHD to it. I setup the TV in the bedroom (which was due to receive an analog connection - not digital) and prepared our router in the "Office" (2nd bedroom) for the modem. It took me until 9:30 to finish all of this, and I was hoping that during this time the tech wouldn't arrive yet, as I hadn't had time to get all of this done until then.
Having finished all this, we resumed unpacking the other 30-40 other boxes packed in every bit of free-space around the apartment. I kept checking the clock every little bit, and as the morning wore on, it was fast approaching noon. The time window for the tech to get there was 9-12 so I was beginning to get worried that he wouldn't show. Alas, me fears were unfounded as he arrived at around 11:45 - having called me about 20 minutes before and letting me know he was on his way.
At 11:45 he walks in with his equipment to immediately tell me that he was unable to locate any Cable Cards that morning before leaving for his service calls. He asked me if an HDTV digital converter box would be sufficient. I told him that I was pretty sure that it wouldn't be, as the TivoHD specifically says it needs CableCards. Thinking about it more, I asked him what he meant by HDTV digital converter box and he held up the very very infamous Craptastic™ Scientific Atlantic box that Comcast is notorious for pushing off on their customers, something that is very well known in the tech enthusiast world as one of the most horribly designed devices to ever exist. I then explained to him that, no, this would not work as the whole point of a Tivo was for the CableCards to be able to change the channel on their own for the Tivo so as to be able to record different programs when Steff or I weren't there. He then nods in understanding and begins to work on the other tasks.
Because our apartment complex is new, having only just opened earlier this year, no one has ever lived in our unit before. The technician took about 15 minutes walking in every room of our apartment looking for a main routing station panel for all of the cables in our walls. After he and I were unable to locate one, he guessed (and was correct) that it was located behind the main panel in the living room - the supposed location one would put their main TV. He removed the faceplate from the outlet, found the junction, and began putting ends on the coax.
Once he finished with this, he asked where I wanted to put the cable modem. I showed him the office and explained that I had my own router/network, and that he only needed to setup the router on a certain table & provision it, and I would then hook it into the router & get the network setup. He began to work on this issue, which took a while as the first 2 cable modems he had with him would not acquire a signal. He had to go down to his truck to retrieve another, coming back a bit later with it.
All of these tasks had taken about 2 hours time. During this time, and I cannot remember exactly when, I emailed Frank at Comcastcares, of whom I corresponded with earlier in the week due to the scheduling issues. I had meant to email him very shortly after I found out that the tech did not have our CableCards, but I got caught up in helping the tech out that I had forgot. It wasn't until the tech headed down to his truck that I remembered. so I drafted an email to Frank. At this point, due to not being able to setup the CableCards, I expected the tech to come back shortly with a working router, set up our internet, and then leave - probably well before I received a message back from Frank. To my surprise, this was not to be.
Within a few minutes, I had an email on my blackberry:
Is the technician still there? Can you ask him to have his supervisor call my cell?
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Frank Eliason NCO Customer Service Manager
"Wow!" I thought. Not wanting to talk about the technician within hearing distance, I silently mouthed a word to Steffanie and handed her my blackberry so she could read the message. She saw it and smiled. I took the blackberry back from her, and turned to walk into the other room.
"Excuse me sir. I know this is going to sound unusual, but I have been in communication with one of your colleagues who works in Pennsylvania for your corporate office and he just emailed me telling me to have you have your supervisor call his cell. The Technician, stared back at me, I guess a little surprised. I handed him my blackberry so he could see the message myself...signed, Frank Eliason, NCO Customer Service Manager. The tech, without saying a word, removes his company cell & places a call to his dispatcher, kind of unsure of himself, but explaining to his supervisor what just happened and gave him the number. I smiled, thanking him once he got off the phone, and took my blackberry back. I immediately emailed Frank to let him know that I did as instructed, not really believing the local supervisor would call Frank. I get an email message back from Frank:
I spoke to him already and I have called a few other people. I will let you know. We will get one to you ASAP and I am trying for today.
Frank Eliason NCO Customer Service Manager
Once again, I was shocked. Really - at this point I should cease to be surprised due to the way Frank had helped my earlier issue with the scheduling snafu. I had actually found a person with the authority to do something about people's problems who actually gave a care to customer's issues at Comcast. Something I didn't think was possible.
I wrote him back:
Ok Frank - I appreciate it.
Joel
The tech continues to work, and 9 minutes later, I get this:
I just got off the phone with some local people. They are working to locate one and get it to you.
I will keep you updated.
Frank Eliason NCO Customer Service Manager
Not 2 minutes after receiving this, the tech gets a call from his dispatcher. The dispatcher says something inaudible about CableCards. The Tech responds to the dispatcher with something I didn't hear. I email Frank:
Tech is still here working on my inet connection now. Heard some correspondance between someone in local office and him talking about cablecards.
Forty minutes later, the tech finishes working on the internet. He then packs up his things and just as he is getting ready to leave, he gets another call. The dispatcher asks him where he is and if he can come to xxx location. The tech responds, saying he is only 10 minutes from there. After getting off the phone, he turns to me and tells me he is off to get the CableCard (multistream) and then will be right back. I smile and thank him, offering him some more sweet tea that I had given him earlier while he was working. He heads out the door w/ a to-go cup in hand just as I receive this:
They will
be bringing one over today.
Frank Eliason NCO Customer Service Manager
Smiling I resume unpacking things from boxes, until the technician returns. About 30 minutes later, he arrives back w/ a CableCard in hand. I offer him a seat on the couch and we go to work. We insert it into the #1 slot. He reads off the serial number, model number, and some other things from the card to someone at the local office over the phone. We wait for channels to start "coming in" or appearing in the channel test mode in the tivo menu. It takes about 15 minutes before the first one's start to appear. The tech explains to me that this will somtimes take a long time, he estimated 45 minutes to 24 hours, which I was skeptical about. The tech stood up and we shook hands. I asked him his last name so I could write Frank back & tell him his name & ID number so I could tell them how polite, and patient he was with me that day - knowing that my particular problem must be a pain in the ass.
At this point Steffanie really needed to head out to go shopping for some things we needed for the new place. We departed. At this point it was 4:03pm when I wrote Frank. The tech had spent from 11:50ish until 4:00 dealing with us.
We arrived home that night very late - around 11 pm. I checked the Tivo - no dice - the same lack of channels as before. I decided to wait a bit longer, until around 1:00 am. At this point it had been 9 hours since the CableCard was provisioned. I decided that if it was still getting in channels, as the tech said, I should have been seeing a small amount start to appear after every few hours. Given that there had been no change, in 9 hours, I spent about 20 minutes researching on the Tivo Community forums until I found this post from someone in Arlington from back in January who was having a problem very very similar to mine. I wrote Frank, letting him know that new issues had arisen. I detailed the issue, linked to the above forum post, and then proceeded to thank him profusely for all the help so far. I told him not to bother getting back to me until it was convenient for him because of the account that it was so late, and that it was the weekend.
Sunday, May 19, 2008
I received a reply the next day:
For some reason I am not able to access your information to reset the card. I will have someone do it in the morning.
XXXXX, Can you follow up with this? Follow the trail below; we need to send a hit to the cable card.
He had handed me off to someone on his team who, apparently, had some sort of technical expertise/experience in dealing with CableCards.
Monday- Wednesday, May 20-22, 2008
I begun a new email thread with this new person over the next 2 days (Monday and Tuesday). We eventually figured out that the technician hadn't provisioned my card correctly. As of Monday he called me at work to tell me this and told me to check it that night. I did so but it still wasn't working. I emailed him back and also twittered to Frank. The next day I got another email from the new person and he told me he was handing me off to someone locally who could trouble shoot directly with me once I arrived home. I got a call a short time later from this new local person. I thanked her and we setup a time (Wednesday at 6) when they would call me back at home to help me. I arrived home that night (Tuesday) to find that I HAD ALL OF MY CHANNELS! I immediately wrote an email to Frank/new person & twittered to Frank. Apparently, on a hunch, Frank told the other person to "hit" my card with a "setup" signal again and this worked to solve my issue. I told them that the phone call on Wednesday at 6 wouldn't be necessary (although I still got it, but it wasn't a big deal as I just thanked the man and told him to have a good night). After 10 days of email/twitter/phone tag, my issues were resolved and everything worked as it should.
Comcast needs to give Frank a promotion and hire about 30 people to work for him. He gets things done. Last week about this time I was DREADING being a Comcast Customer, as I have no choice for my area. This week, I still don't think that Comcast is the ISP I would like to have (I want FIOS) but I feel a LOT better about it knowing that Frank is there, should I ever need him.
Lesson of the week? If you're a Comcast customer and are having issues getting the service you ordered/were promised, just send a little note to Frank. He's got your back.
Despite the occasional claim by the Bush administration that the US has a broadband policy, the truth is that the US only has a broadband policy if you consider "doing nothing" to be a policy. When you're convinced that any form of government regulation, policy-setting, or program only mucks up the market, this makes sense; if you look at other countries and find that nations without a plan "will fare worse than if they had smart broadband policies," the continued refusal to do anything meaningful looks willfully ignorant.
A major new report on broadband policy from the nonpartisan Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) suggests that government action alone won't produce a broadband panacea, but that leadership from the top and a carefully-targeted set of policies can do plenty of good. After doing detailed case studies of nine countries, the report concluded that "those that make broadband a priority, coordinate across agencies, put real resources behind the strategy, and promote both supply and demand" do better than those which do nothing.
Critics of the current US approach to spurring broadband deployment and adoption point out that the country has been falling on most broadband metrics throughout the decade. One of the most reliable, that issued by the OECD, shows the US falling from 4th place in 2001 to 15th place in 2007. While this ranking in particular has come under criticism from staunchly pro-market groups, the ITIF's analysis shows that these numbers are the most accurate we have. According to an ITIF analysis of various OECD surveys, the US is in 15th place worldwide and it lags numerous other countries in price, speed, and availability—a trifecta of lost opportunities.
With an average broadband speed of 4.9Mbps, the US is being Chariots of Fire-d by South Korea (49.5Mbps), Japan (63.6Mbps), Finland (21.7Mbps), Sweden (16.8Mbps), and France (17.6Mbps), among others. Not only that, but the price paid per megabyte in the US ($2.83) is substantially higher than those countries, all of which come in at less than $0.50 per megabyte.
The ITIF warns against simply implementing the policies that have worked for other countries, however, and it notes that a good percentage of the difference can be chalked up to non-policy factors like density. For instance, more than half of all South Koreans lived in apartment buildings that are much easier to wire with fiber connections than are the sprawling American suburbs. The report calls for going beyond the "either-or" shouting matches between the "market fundamentalists" and the "digital populists" to embrace a set of pragmatic principles that should help the US improve its ranking.
These include more favorable tax policies that encourage broadband investment; making more spectrum available for broadband, including the white spaces; extending the Universal Service Fund program to cover not just rural telephone service but rural broadband) supporting state-level broadband initiatives like Connect Kentucky; and keeping broadband usage free from all taxes.
Several of these initiatives have been proven in countries like Sweden, which has pumped $800 million into subsidies for broadband deployment; for a country the size of the US, that would come to some $30 billion. Needless to say, no such major infrastructure investment has been forthcoming from the federal government. But Sweden has also targeted the demand side of the equation, subsidizing personal computers that businesses purchase for employees' home use. This kind of a program is also important in the US, where broadband availability runs ahead of actual broadband usage.
And for those who wonder exactly how other countries have implemented their policies, the report concludes with detailed case studies of the countries in question. While lengthy, the entire thing makes good reading for anyone interested in broadband policy questions. A choice to make no changes to the current setup is a choice to leave billions of dollars on the table.
Have you, like so many other users, experienced problems with Twitter in the last couple of days? Not getting updates from all the people you’re following, but only a handful? The problem seems to be lying with Twitter cache.
Here’s a quick fix for the problem. Simply find some person you’re not already following, follow them and then unfollow them. Refresh your Twitter page and voila, your Twitter cache should now be restored, and you should be getting updates from everyone.
It has been a good while since twitter has had serious uptime issues. The last time it happened was...well....since this. Well - Twitter is up to its old tricks again. It isn't offline per say, but it might as well be. As othershavepointedout Twitter has been having serious issues since Saturday, April 19th. The service has been online but has not been displaying tweets from some users on their followers' timelines.
I first noticed this about midday Saturday as I was at PodcampDC with my beautiful girlfriend, Steffanie, watchin Andy Carvin and Jim Long, of NPR & NBC respectivley, do a presentation on the power of twitter as a news gathering and conveying mechanism. I would estimate that PodcampDC has about 100 people in attendance. I would say about 30 of us were Twitter users. At various times during the day I would make tweets about PodcampDC happenings or see Andy or Jim use Twitter theirselves but their updates wouldn't hit my feed. I has a feeling in the back of my head that something was going on but was so preoccupied with the day's events that I didn't pay much attention to it. After the event was over with, Steff and I ran some errands & preoccupied ourselves for the rest of the day. It wasn't until the next day, Sunday, that I started seeing a few posts on Techmeme about it. This type of error we're seeing reminded me of the problems Twitter had several months back when people like Merlin Mann, Leo Laporte, Robert Scoble, or Jason Calacanis couldn't add people as friends OR have people see their updates. It seems that a lot of the people having messaging problems now are people with lots of followers. It seems like a potential database issue tied to accounts with large sql fields? Just guessing.
Anywho - I'm writing about this to help get the word out to my followers. As I make this post it will go out to Twitter. Hopefully those that are blissfully unaware of Twitter issues at the moment will see the title/link & read it and help spread the message. (Hi followers :)) In the meantime Twitter, the company, has remained mostly silent on this issue preferring to take the old corporate methodology to dealing with the problem - pretending it doesn't exist until they fix it. They did acknowledge the problem at their twitter status account but you only got the message if you follow them (which I didn't - as I didn't know the account existed until i saw another blogger write about it) and I doubt a lot of people got it even if they DID follow it, as that is the problem in the first place.
Now we know why none of the major carriers showed up for Thursday’s open FCC meeting at Stanford University: Who wants to take on Larry Lessig, the lion of Net Neutrality, in his own den?
Class was in session when Stanford law prof Lessig delivered a powerful lecture on the need for neutral networks, telling the assembled FCC chairman and commissioners to their faces that they were part of a 10-year-long failure by the agency to “make a clear statement of policy” about how infractions against the open, end-to-end connectivity of the Internet would be policed or enforced.
Lessig’s key points — which included the assertion that the historic openness of the Internet has been the key to its economic boom — are important to record, since they are very likely to become key talking points for Net Neutrality proponents as the battle over potential neutrality regulation heats up during the current congressional session. But the lack of a viable opponent in the arena made for a somewhat lukewarm event, with more than half the auditorium’s reported 716 seats going empty. Those who were present cheered mightily for Lessig, while only issuing soft “boos” for Republican FCC commissioners Robert McDowell and Deborah Tate, whose brief remarks basically indicated their opposition to any Net Neutrality regulations.
Unlike the other assembled panelists, who had just a few minutes to present their specific-interest cases, Lessig was given all the time he needed to make a strong case for the need for clear network neutrality policies, either from the FCC or Congress. Two of his stronger points, which you can expect to see repeated, were one, that Net Neutrality principles have been the historic base of the Internet, and have been responsible for its unbridled competition and growth. And two, that providers should be governed by clear rules that make it more expensive for them to restrict network access than to provide broadband that doesn’t differentiate or prioritize different traffic types.
The FCC, Lessig said, should pass rules that make it more profitable for service providers to behave than to misbehave. “You have to make it so playing the games is not a good business model for them,” Lessig said. “If we really didn’t have a reason to worry that they were playing games [with network management], then what they did inside their networks would be of less concern.”
Though invited by FCC chairman Kevin Martin, all the major Internet service providers — AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, among others — declined to participate in Thursday’s open meeting. Comcast, which waded into a debacle on several levels at the last such open meeting at Harvard, was slammed by several panelists Thursday, including by Robb Topolski, who is credited as being one of the first to detect Comcast’s disputed P2P blocking activities.
Comcast’s activities, Topolski said, “are non-standard, and not accepted by the industry.” And Jon Peha, a computer engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon, disputed Comcast’s claims that it wasn’t “blocking” traffic, part of an seemingly unsolved question that Lessig said was at the heart of the problem.
“The most outrageous thing is that [the FCC] can’t get the facts straight,” Lessig said with regards to the Comcast controversy, expressing wonderment that a government body like the FCC was still somewhat in the dark about what Comcast was or wasn’t doing. “The least we should be able to do is get the truth about what is happening,” Lessig said.
Looks like that seemingly-desperate two month extension XM and Sirius gave each on the merger agreement paid off after all -- federal regulators have finally approved the $5B deal. The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division says that after "thorough and careful review" (we'll say -- it's been over a year), it's determined that allowing the two satellite radio companies to merge "is not likely to harm consumers." The deciding factor appeared to be the proprietary hardware needed to receive both XM and Sirius; since consumers who shell out aren't likely to switch, the DOJ doesn't think the marketplace is all that competitive to begin with, which makes the impact of a merger relatively small. In fact, the DOJ says the merger could actually benefit consumers, who might see lower prices as the result of more efficient operations, broader programming options, and faster rollouts of new technology.
Of course, it's not quite all over yet -- the FCC's approval is yet to come following its own historic delay and NAB'srabble-rousing, but most analysts say the FCC will follow the Justice Department's lead and approve the merger as well. Now the big question: will consumers be able to use their existing radios to get all the stations or not? We'll let you know -- we're trying to find out all we can.
Actual DOJ Press Release
Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on its Decision to Close its Investigation of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.'s Merger with Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. Evidence Does Not Establish that Combination of Satellite Radio Providers Would Substantially Reduce Competition
WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division issued the following statement today after announcing the closing of its investigation into the proposed merger of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. with Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.:
"After a careful and thorough review of the proposed transaction, the Division concluded that the evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed merger of XM and Sirius is likely to substantially lessen competition, and that the transaction therefore is not likely to harm consumers. The Division reached this conclusion because the evidence did not show that the merger would enable the parties to profitably increase prices to satellite radio customers for several reasons, including: a lack of competition between the parties in important segments even without the merger; the competitive alternative services available to consumers; technological change that is expected to make those alternatives increasingly attractive over time; and efficiencies likely to flow from the transaction that could benefit consumers.
"The Division's investigation indicated that the parties are not likely to compete with respect to many segments of the satellite radio business even in the absence of the merger. Because customers must acquire equipment that is specialized to the satellite radio service to which they subscribe, and which cannot receive the other provider's signal, there has never been significant competition for customers who have already subscribed to one or the other service. For potential new subscribers, past competition has resulted in XM and Sirius entering long-term, sole-source contracts that provide incentives to all of the major auto manufacturers to install their radios in new vehicles. The car manufacturer channel accounts for a large and growing share of all satellite radio sales; yet, as a result of these contracts, there is not likely to be significant further competition between the parties for satellite radio equipment and service sold through this channel for many years. In the retail channel, where the parties likely would continue to compete to attract new subscribers absent the merger, the Division found that the evidence did not support defining a market limited to the two satellite radio firms that would exclude various alternative sources for audio entertainment, and similarly did not establish that the combined firm could profitably sustain an increased price to satellite radio consumers. Substantial cost savings likely to flow from the transaction also undermined any inference of competitive harm. Finally, the likely evolution of technology in the future, including the expected introduction in the next several years of mobile broadband Internet devices, made it even more unlikely that the transaction would harm consumers in the longer term. Accordingly, the Division has closed its investigation of the proposed merger."
ANALYSIS
During the course of its investigation, the Division reviewed millions of pages of documents, analyzed large amounts of data related to sales of satellite radios and subscriptions for satellite radio service, and interviewed scores of industry participants.
Extent of Likely Future Competition between XM and Sirius
The Division's analysis considered the extent to which the two satellite radio providers compete with one another. Although the firms in the past competed to attract new subscribers, there has never been significant competition between them for customers who have already subscribed to one or the other service and purchased the requisite equipment. Also, competition for new subscribers is likely to be substantially more limited in the future than it was in the past.
As to existing subscribers, the Division found that satellite radio equipment sold by each company is customized to each network and will not function with the other service. XM and Sirius made some efforts to develop an interoperable radio capable of receiving both sets of satellite signals. Depending on how such a radio would be configured, it could enable consumers to switch between providers without incurring the costs of new equipment. The Division's investigation revealed, however, that no such interoperable radio is on the market and that such a radio likely would not be introduced in the near term. For example, in the important automotive channel, such a radio could not be introduced in the near term due to the engineering required to integrate radios into new vehicles. The need for equipment customized to each network means that in order to switch from XM to Sirius, or vice versa, a subscriber would have to purchase new equipment designed for the other service. In the case of a factory-installed car radio, switching satellite radio providers would have the additional disadvantage of requiring an aftermarket radio that would be less integrated into the vehicle's systems. Data analyzed by the Division confirmed that subscribers rarely switch between XM and Sirius.
As to new subscribers, XM and Sirius sell satellite radios and service primarily through two distribution channels: (1) car manufacturers that install the equipment in new cars and (2) mass-market retailers that sell automobile aftermarket equipment and other stand-alone equipment. Car manufacturers account for an increasingly large portion of XM and Sirius sales, and the parties have focused more and more of their resources on attracting subscribers through the car manufacturer channel. Historically, XM and Sirius engaged in head-to-head competition for the right to distribute their products and services through each car company. As a result of this competitive process, XM and Sirius have provided car manufacturers with subsidies and other payments that indirectly reduce the equipment prices paid by car buyers to obtain a satellite radio. However, XM and Sirius have entered into sole-source contracts with all the major automobile manufacturers that fix the amount of these subsidies and other pertinent terms through 2012 or beyond. Moreover, there was no evidence that competition between XM or Sirius beyond the terms of these contracts would affect customers' choices of which car to buy. As a result, there is not likely to be significant competition between XM and Sirius for satellite radio equipment and service sold through the car manufacturer channel for many years.
The Division's investigation identified the mass-market retail channel as an arena in which XM and Sirius would compete with one another for the foreseeable future. Both XM and Sirius devote substantial effort and expense to attracting subscribers in this arena, with both companies offering discounts, most commonly in the form of equipment rebates, to attract consumers. Retail channel sales have dropped significantly since 2005, and the parties contended that the decline was accelerating. However, retail outlets still account for a large portion of the firms' sales, and the Division was unable to determine with any certainty that this channel would not continue to be important in the future.
Effect on Competition in the Retail Channel
Because XM and Sirius would no longer compete with one another in the retail channel following the merger, the Division examined what alternatives, if any, were available to consumers interested in purchasing satellite radio service, and specifically whether the relevant market was limited to the two satellite radio providers, such that their combination would create a monopoly. The parties contended that they compete with a variety of other sources of audio entertainment, including traditional AM/FM radio, HD Radio, MP3 players (e.g., iPods®), and audio offerings delivered through wireless telephones. Those options, used individually or in combination, offer many consumers attributes of satellite radio service that they may find attractive. The parties further contended that these audio entertainment alternatives were sufficient to prevent the merged company from profitably raising prices to consumers in the retail channel – for example, through less discounting of equipment prices, increased subscription prices, or reductions in the quality of equipment or service.
The Division found that evidence developed in the investigation did not support defining a market limited to the two satellite radio firms, and similarly did not establish that the combined firm could profitably sustain an increased price to satellite radio consumers. XM and Sirius seek to attract subscribers in a wide variety of ways, including by offering commercial-free music (with digital sound quality), exclusive programming (such as Howard Stern on Sirius and "Oprah & Friends" on XM), niche music formats, out-of-market sporting events, and a variety of news and talk formats in a service that is accessible nationwide. The variety of these offerings reflects an effort to attract consumers with highly differentiated interests and tastes. Thus, while the satellite radio offerings of XM and Sirius likely are the closest substitutes for some current or potential customers, the two offerings do not appear to be the closest substitutes for other current or potential customers. For example, a potential customer considering purchasing XM service primarily to listen to Major League Baseball games or one considering purchasing Sirius service primarily to listen to Howard Stern may not view the other satellite radio service, which lacks the desired content, as a particularly close substitute. Similarly, many customers buying radios in the retail channel are acquiring an additional receiver to add to an existing XM or Sirius subscription for their car radio, and these customers likely would not respond to a price increase by choosing a radio linked to the other satellite radio provider. The evidence did not demonstrate that the number of current or potential customers that view XM and Sirius as the closest alternatives is large enough to make a price increase profitable. Importantly in this regard, the parties do not appear to have the ability to identify and price discriminate against those actual or potential customers that view XM and Sirius as the closest substitutes.
Likely Efficiencies
To the extent there were some concern that the combined firm might be able profitably to increase prices in the mass-market retail channel, efficiencies flowing from the transaction likely would undermine any such concern. The Division's investigation confirmed that the parties are likely to realize significant variable and fixed cost savings through the merger. It was not possible to estimate the magnitude of the efficiencies with precision due to the lack of evidentiary support provided by XM and Sirius, and many of the efficiencies claimed by the parties were not credited or were discounted because they did not reflect improvements in economic welfare, could have been achieved without the proposed transaction, or were not likely to be realized within the next several years. Nevertheless, the Division estimated the likely variable cost savings – those savings most likely to be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices – to be substantial. For example, the merger is likely to allow the parties to consolidate development, production and distribution efforts on a single line of radios and thereby eliminate duplicative costs and realize economies of scale. These efficiencies alone likely would be sufficient to undermine an inference of competitive harm.
Effect of Technological Change
Any inference of a competitive concern was further limited by the fact that a number of technology platforms are under development that are likely to offer new or improved alternatives to satellite radio. Most notable is the expected introduction within several years of next-generation wireless networks capable of streaming Internet radio to mobile devices. While it is difficult to predict which of these alternatives will be successful and the precise timing of their availability as an attractive alternative, a significant number of consumers in the future are likely to consider one or more of these platforms as an attractive alternative to satellite radio. The likely evolution of technology played an important role in the Division's assessment of competitive effects in the longer term because, for example, consumers are likely to have access to new alternatives, including mobile broadband Internet devices, by the time the current long-term contracts between the parties and car manufacturers expire.
The Division's Closing Statement Policy The Division provides this statement under its policy of issuing statements concerning the closing of investigations in appropriate cases. This statement is limited by the Division's obligation to protect the confidentiality of certain information obtained in its investigations. As in most of its investigations, the Division's evaluation has been highly fact-specific, and many of the relevant underlying facts are not public. Consequently, readers should not draw overly broad conclusions regarding how the Division is likely in the future to analyze other collaborations or activities, or transactions involving particular firms. Enforcement decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and the analysis and con
clusions discussed in this statement do not bind the Division in any future enforcement actions. Guidance on the Division's policy regarding closing statements is available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/201888.htm.
