John Hendow

In a previous post I pointed out some shortcomings I associate with Comcast and had a large number of people reply here, on Facebook or directly to me. As a follow up to that discussion I want to point out that only 2 days after I posted my article, I received a comment from George Lunski, a Comcast corporate representative. He took the time to respond to my posting on a point-by-point basis. His responses are shown below in boldface with my comments in regular text.

1. Our compression is minimal. Our system reviews the video quality before and after compression to ensure the highest video quality. My experience as a customer is that many channels are artifact-laden and blocky. This varies per channel, and apparently based on time of day. This is most noticeable with sporting events; soccer games / football games are notoriously challenging for compression algorithms because the grass field is interpreted as being a repeated color area, and is refreshed less often. I believe George when he says their video quality is monitored automatically. It would be inefficient – and largely pointless – for Comcast to have humans monitor every feed around the clock. However, I suggest some means of fairly immediate feedback… perhaps a menu option that allows us to report “this channel’s video / audio quality is not satisfactory”. With a massive user base, you would have people providing very useful shaping. For this matter, how about a feedback mechanism that allows your users to say “air more shows / less shows like this”, rather than just making inferences based on viewing statistics. Imagine getting your focus group data from your actual demographic rather than a statistically valid sample…

You have a 2-way communication platform and broadband. Let your users tell you something about how the system works for them, and assign trouble tickets if you start seeing reports of problems. Comcast is accused or being indifferent to its customers. Here is a clear mechanism for addressing that criticism and for tuning your network to user feedback using the existing infrastructure.

2. I don’t disagree with you. We are working towards a new GUI and are hoping to start minor upgrades this year and complete makeover next year. Hooray! The appearance of the GUI is secondary compared with my concern about responsiveness (see below), but it’s something that really should be polished up. Your competition for GUI design is the internet and handheld devices like the iPhone. Your customers are experiencing highly polished interactive data screens that are easy and actually fun to use.

3. We are also working to improve the speed and responsiveness of all makes and models of our digital cable boxes. If the screen/box continues to freezes, I would recommend replacing the box and verifying the proper signals are being received. I experience this symptom on both of my cable boxes (both of which have recently been replaced), and had it with my previous cable boxes. This has been reported by many users and is shared anecdotally during gripe sessions. It could possibly be the signal, although I have had it tested. If there is some way for me to test this, I’d be happy to assist.

Again, your competition is the rest of the internet / mobile device universe. Nothing else in my entire household is this unresponsive, and I live in a pretty large world of technology. If my cell phone acted this way I would take it back and find another device (or carrier). I can view full-screen HD video content on my computer. I can surf the web with very little delay when loading huge complex interfaces. Why is there some kind of semaphore lock / busy wait associated with getting another few hundred characters from the server? If it’s insurmountable, you need to consider some options… maybe build a chrome-less web browser to contain the entire delivery system. That way you could use standard HTML / XML to manage the interface.

4. Comcast is currently testing creating a more ‘interactive’ television viewing experience. I do not have any further details or ETA. Nice! This seems like an obvious feature for the cable industry and I’m sure it’s been in the works. I’ll look forward to seeing what they come up with.

5. We appreciate the feedback. All content providers, including Comcast & FiOS, have these types of exclusivity in many markets throughout the country. They are sometimes done by the local franchises in order to allow either company to be present. A issue neither company can resolve. Regional exclusivity doesn’t improve the customer experience. My point is that having a single choice isn’t good for the industry. Competition is absolutely necessary to help drive innovation. I’m not suggesting that Comcast (or any company) needs to be the undefeatable champion for every aspect of technology and deliver flawlessly forever. But I am suggesting that exclusivity can lead to inaction and customer dissatisfaction. Want another example? Examine the customer backlash AT&T is experiencing in the wake of the WWDC. If you are the sole provider, you need to surprise and delight your customers at all times (and even then they might grumble). AT&T is finding themselves in the unenviable position of having exclusive rights to the most desirable technological device in history, and being unable to offer support for its most anticipated features. Consequently many customers are saying they’ll wait until another carrier enters the market (perhaps next year) and then immediately switch. If there is competition and you demonstrate a dedication to quality and value, your customers are more likely feel they are making a good choice.

In case of Comcast vs FIOS, I’m not convinced I’m getting good value because there isn’t anything else for me to compare it to in my area. My friends with FIOS say it’s not without its issues, but they like it enough that they have continued to use it. To me this sounds like an opportunity for Comcast to demonstrate something about its belief in quality. Customers without choice are not loyal customers.

6. Comcast Digital Voice uses a dedicated network to make calls. Skype does not, there for Internet Congestion and/or failure can result in a less enjoyable phone call. True. Skype is not the highest quality voice experience and their customer support is nonexistent. But $40+ per month for digital voice? This is not eating up Comcast’s network bandwidth and is a low value-add service to customers. It should be much less expensive (perhaps $10 per month) as an incentive for subscribing to Comcast digital cable and high speed broadband services. In another post I described how I recently parked a phone number and have it forwarding to my cell phone. This is a $10 per month service, and the company (Number Garage) isn’t bundling the service with any other monthly fee. I recognize that unlike Comcast, they aren’t attempting to recoup an investment in cable delivery infrastructure and that they are delivering the calls to an existing phone account, which I pay for separately. But it’s an example of a service that provides high value and their very existence as a competitor may help drive change within the industry.

– – –

George surprised me with his quick response to my questions. I appreciate the dialog and hope Comcast considers my points. Any further responses will included here.