This document -- originally written in February 2007 and updated in October 2007 -- shares information I've collected over the past 14 months about Comcast cable TV rates in the neighborhoods annexed by the City of Issaquah in March 2006 (eg, Greenwood Point, South Cove, etc).
Comcast charges those neighborhoods significantly higher rates for Basic Cable (as well as all of the add-on cable TV packages) than it charges other residents of Issaquah.
If you live in a neighborhood annexed by the City of Issaquah and would like to know what your rates could/should be, here is a copy of Comcast's rates for the City (as of Dec 2006).
NOTE: This document has been superseded by a new website: http://issaquahtv.com
On November 8, 2005, voters in the Greenwood Point, South Cove, and other neighborhoods in what was then known as the Greenwood Point PAA (Potential Annexation Area) of unincorporated King County overwhelmingly approved annexation to the City of Issaquah. On March 2, 2006, these neighborhoods officially became part of the City of Issaquah. These areas contain approximately 1084 housing units with an estimated population of 3,176 and now comprise roughly 17% of the city's total population.
You can read more about the original annexation study on the City of Issaquah website. More information on the annexation campaign is available on the South Lake Sammamish Association website.
Comcast sent residents in the Greenwood Point/South Cove neighborhoods a letter in August (dated August 11, 2006) which said, in part:
Recently Comcast Cable received notification that the Service Address referenced above was annexed into the City of ISSAQUAH. We are in the process of updating our billing system to reflect this change. Each franchise authority (city or county) makes an agreement with Comcast that allows us to do business in the community. Some franchise authorities have fees, such as access fees and city utility fees that others may not. In addition, the prices may also vary from area to area due to many community specifics (i.e., size of system, median income, number of subscribers and number of channels received). The franchise agreement is specific to each individual community and it is critical that our customer accounts properly reflect the city/county area in which they live.
DEPENDING ON YOUR BILLING CYCLE, THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL TAKE EFFECT BETWEEN 60-90 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER:
- Your account number will change. (Please contact your financial institution if you utilize a bill paying service.)
- Your service prices, fees and taxes will be adjusted to reflect appropriate calculations for the City of ISSAQUAH.
In order to properly adjust your account for a change in service prices, we will disconnect your old account and connect your new account. You should not experience a service disruption. In addition, you may see a prorated section on an upcoming bill.
There will be no other changes to services that you are currently being billed for. If you have any questions once you receive your corrected billing statement or experience technical difficulties, please contact our customer service office at 1-877-824-2288.
I have posted a photocopy of the complete letter here.
Order Placed for Cable Television Service (September 2006)
In September, after looking at Comcast's cable television services and rates online, I decided to make the switch from satellite to cable. I placed the order online, and one of the interesting things about the online ordering process -- which is no longer true today -- was that after entering my street address (4126 187th Ave SE) on the first screen, the second screen asked me if it was King County or Issaquah. I selected Issaquah, but out of curiosity, I also tried King County, and that was when I noticed that the county rates were much higher.
I called Comcast to try to confirm the Issaquah rates, but I could not get a clear answer, other than that sometimes special promotions were available online. They gave me a tracking number (791.3001491) for my question, but I never received an answer. I eventually submitted my online order with the expectation that I would receive Issaquah rates, since I had just received a letter from Comcast which said exactly that.
However, when I received my next cable bill, the rates were not Issaquah rates -- even though my account number had been changed, as per the August 2006 letter.
Issaquah Cable Commission Discusses Comcast Issues (October 2006)
On Thursday, October 26, 2006, I attended the City of Issaquah Cable Commission's monthly meeting (the minutes from that meeting are here) to find out why Greenwood Point/South Cove customers were still paying more than City of Issaquah customers for the same cable TV service -- in some cases, over $25/month more.
Prior to this meeting, I looked through the Cable Commission's minutes from past meetings, and there were a few references to this issue. For example, at their March 22, 2006 meeting, they noted:
The South Cove/Greenwood Point rates will not be the same as the Issaquah rate until the King County franchise expires. The South Cove/Greenwood Point rates would be approximately $10 per month. There is a state law dealing with annexations that deals with that specific point. Smith will get that law from the City Attorney and also will write a letter to Comcast asking what the termination of franchise date is.
But I could not find any follow-up information. When I asked about this issue at the October meeting, I was told that Commission had concluded that the annexed areas are entitled to the same rates as the rest of the city, but that Comcast disagreed, and that forcing Comcast to comply might require legal action. However, the Commission did not suggest it would be taking any action -- in fact, it indicated a reluctance to do so, in part because of the potential expense. The minutes go on to say:
[Commission member Jordan] explained the current issues with Comcast regarding rates and the “most favored nation” clause, and that the Commission will need to determine how to proceed. [Jeff Parsons] was invited back to the December when Comcast’s representative will attend the meeting.
Unfortunately, the December meeting, originally scheduled for December 6, 2006 and then rescheduled at the last minute to December 7, was cancelled entirely. I found out in January, in an email from Tim Smith, the City of Issaquah's Media Specialist and Commission Liaison, that a face-to-face meeting with Comcast did take place at some point in December, but there is no record of this meeting on the Commission's website. All I know about this meeting is what Smith told me in his January 22, 2007 email:
"The Commission met in December with Comcast for its annual meeting. The annexation was not a major point of conversation."
Also, in case you're wondering what the "most favored nation" clause refers to, it's a reference to the following section of the city's cable franchise agreement:
9. RATES AND CHARGES:
The City reserves the right under this Franchise to regulate all rates and charges by the Operator, to the full extent permitted by applicable federal, state and local law and regulations. Independent of this reservation of rights, Operator represents and warrants that its rates and charges to customers in the City will not, during the term of this Franchise, be less favorable than those in any other TCI system in the State of Washington.
In other words, Issaquah enjoys the lowest rates of any Comcast (formerly TCI) cable system in the state, by the explicit terms of the franchise agreement.
A copy of Issaquah's cable franchise agreement is here.
On my October 8, 2006 cable bill, my franchise fees were $13.24. On my November 8, 2006 bill, the franchise fees were reduced to $6.44.
Although my fees were changed at this time, my service prices were not. This is not consistent with Comcast's letter from August, which said that my "service prices" and "fees" would be adjusted to reflect the rates within the "City of ISSAQUAH."
Note that franchise fees appear to vary according to cable package. I have what Comcast calls Basic Cable plus the Platinum Package. Customers with a smaller package, such as Limited Cable, would presumably pay an even lower franchise fee.
Also, my November bill still listed my "Franchise Authority's Name and Address" as: King County Office of Cable Communications, 700 5th Ave Ste 2300, Seattle, WA 98104-5002. This is also inconsistent with the above letter, which said "The franchise agreement is specific to each individual community and it is critical that our customer accounts properly reflect the city/county area in which they live."
Letters Sent to Comcast (January 2007)
After several fruitless phone calls to Comcast in December and January, I sent Comcast two certified letters -- one to Comcast Client Services and another to their Billing Department. Both letters explained that I was formally disputing the charges on my monthly cable bills; ie, the difference between the City of Issaquah rates and the rates Comcast was charging. I included:
along with a statement that the City of Issaquah Cable Commission supported my claim (which they did verbally at their January 24, 2007 meeting).
I also requested -- again in writing -- that Comcast cancel the automatic payment feature on my account, and then I included a check for only the undisputed amount of my cable bill.
To contact Comcast Client Services:
Comcast Client Services
1323 34th Ave E
Tacoma, WA 98424
Fax: 425-918-1215
Or their offices in Everett:
Comcast Cable - Client Services
900 132nd St. SW
Everett, WA 98204
I also have contact information for a person in the Client Services Everett office who actually knows something about our situation:
Shauna
1-888-824-8288 ext 27003
And the Comcast Billing Dept:
Comcast
P.O. Box 34744
Seattle, WA 98124-1744
Last but not least, you might also want to CC Tim Smith, the City of Issaquah's Media Specialist and Cable Commission Liaison, with your Comcast correspondence, via email:
and/or letter:
Tim Smith, Media Specialist
City of Issaquah
P.O. Box 1307
Issaquah, WA 98027
A copy of the letter I sent to Comcast Client Services is here.
Letter Received From Comcast (January/February 2007)
A Comcast representative named Shauna at Comcast Client Services called me on January 31, 2007 to acknowledge receipt of my letter, and to explain why my rates had not been adjusted. She said she was quoting email from another department within Comcast, so I asked for a copy of the email. She sent me a letter containing the following explanation:
In the City of Issaquah there are two Comcast legal entities owning and operating the cable system. The first is Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. that owns/operates/administers the Franchise in the City, that allows for the reduced Issaquah rates. The second is Comcast of California/Colorado/Washington I, Inc. that owns the cable plant within the South Cove annexation area in which the customer lives. In this area, the former King County rate apply due to the following: annexations can change County/City jurisdiction over parts of our cable plant, but not require the transfer of assets and change in the operating terms/conditions from one legal entity (owner) to another legal entity (owner). The annexation area was legally operating under a valid King County Franchise which has a different rate than the City of Issaquah Franchise. State Law allows existing Franchisees to have their Franchise/Contract recognized and continued by the new jurisdiction for a period of 7 years or until the original franchise expires, whichever is less. The franchise for the annexation area is due to expire on February 16, 2010. The customer's rate is correct, because the former rates continue. The annexation area is not eligible for the reduced Issaquah rates.
This explanation notwithstanding, they did admit to some "confusion" regarding the rates in our area, and they offered me a one-time credit of $202.92. I'm not exactly sure how this amount was calculated, but I would encourage other homeowners who are similarly confused to request a similar credit.
I also have some observations about Comcast's (new?) position on our rates:
I've also requested more information from Comcast about the applicable "State Law" that they are referring to, because the interpretation of this state law is probably what the entire issue hinges on. I believe the members of the Issaquah Cable Commission know more about this claim too, because at their January meeting, one of them talked about a law that they claimed applied only to "utilities" but which Comcast claimed applied to "cable systems" as well. Don't quote me on this though -- hopefully when the Commission releases their minutes from the January 2007 meeting, they will have a more precise explanation.
A photocopy of the complete January letter from Comcast is here.
I tried to inform people in the annexed neighborhoods about this issue throughout February and early March, through homeowner association newsletters, a "letter to the editor" in the February 27, 2007 Issaquah Press (accompanied by an article written by reporter Jon Savelle), and KIRO 7 evening news coverage by reporter Alison Grande.
I also encouraged neighbors to attend the February 28 Issaquah Cable Commission meeting and tell the City what it should do, if anything. Suggested questions included:
The meeting was held at:
Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 6:30pm
City Hall - Coho Room
130 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA
I attended this meeting, as did one other concerned household. Below is a copy of the "Citizen Comment" section of the minutes (the complete minutes are available here).
The minutes are a much-abbreviated version of the hour-long discussion. In short, the Commission continued to voice its unanimous support for our position (ie, that we are being over-charged), but the Commission also chose to continue its policy of inaction on this matter.
Everyone present, myself included, was sympathetic to the Commission's desire to avoid confrontation and expensive litigation while it renegotiates a new franchise agreement for the entire City. However, it was still frustrating that there was not a single substantive action the Commission was willing to take on our behalf, other than the hope that the City's new franchise agreement would resolve the issue. That "hope" could evaporate, however, if Comcast ultimately decides it is more advantageous for them to continue charging us King County rates until 2010, as they already claim they can do; Comcast has backpedalled once on this rate issue, so there is no guarantee they won't do so again.
Also, I was a little baffled by Mr. Forkner's comment, which I have heard him make on several occasions, that "Comcast is meeting performance standards and providing expected service," and that there is very little the City can do as long as it is meeting those standards. The implication of that comment seemed to be that this rate dispute did not rise to a level that merited much concern, at least in Mr. Forkner's view. A more worrisome implication is that if the City, as Mr. Forkner seems to think, is in such a weak negotiating position, then Comcast has little incentive to do anything the City asks.
Vice-Chair EMRICK called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
1. CITIZEN COMMENT
Jeff Parsons updated the Commission regarding the issue of South Cove’s rates being higher than the rest of the City of Issaquah. He sent a letter to Comcast by Certified Mail to Client Services and the Billing Department, disputing the difference in his billed charges and the rate that should be listed on his bill. Client Services called Mr. Parsons and sent him a follow-up letter. The letter stated “Here is the explanation of the Franchise agreements in Issaquah we spoke about today. Please call me if you have any further questions, and I will try to get the answers for you. In the City of Issaquah there are two Comcast legal entities owning and operating the cable system. The first is Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. that owns/operates/administers the Franchise in the City, that allows for the reduced Issaquah rates. The second is Comcast of California/Colorado/Washington, Inc. that owns the cable plant within the South Cove annexation area in which the customer lives. In this area, the former King County rate apply due to the following: annexations can change County/City jurisdiction over parts of our cable plant, but not require the transfer of assets and change in the operating terms/conditions from one legal entity (owner) to another legal entity (owner). The annexation area was legally operating under a valid King County Franchise which has a different rate than the City of Issaquah Franchise. State Law allows existing Franchisees to have their Franchise/Contract recognized and continued by the new jurisdiction for a period of 7 years or until the original franchise expires, whichever is less. The franchise for the annexation area is due to expire on February 16, 2010. The customer’s rate is correct, because the former rates continue. The annexation area is not eligible for the reduced Issaquah rates. Thank you, Shauna, Client Services Comcast Cable 888-824-8288 ext 27003.”
Parsons: To sum up, Comcast states the rates on the bills are correct and that the rates would continue unchanged. Those rates are higher than the rest of the City of Issaquah. Comcast did give Parsons a $202 credit for any confusion, but did not lower his monthly rate.
Parsons: Question: In reviewing the minutes from January about how the issue would be addressed when the franchise was re-negotiated, what guarantee is there that Comcast will go along with any negotiated rate change for 2008? They could choose to keep the rates until 2010. Billing discrepancies from March 2006 forward still need to be addressed.
Parsons: How does the community pursue this going forward? Comcast believes they are correct. What will the City do? Forkner stated that a committee met with Comcast in October and Comcast was very strong that they were correct. Comcast was willing to re-negotiate South Cove’s Franchise at the same time as the Issaquah Franchise, and they could receive the same contract at that time. Being in a law suit with Comcast at the time of negotiations would not be to the City’s advantage.
Parsons: When will the decision be made to determine that the Commission will not move forward to correct the issues? When will the position be taken by the City? The longer the City does not make that decision citizens can continue to correspond with Comcast on their own with the possibility of receiving remuneration.
LUECKING - Just because the Commission does not pursue legal action does not mean we agree with Comcast’s decisions.
Citizen: stated there is a $20 a month difference in the rates. South Cove’s rate is $49.25. Issaquah’s rate is $30.18. By the time the Commission negotiates, the franchise it will cost newly annexed areas approximately $500 or more.
Citizen: Consider adding wording in regards to dispute resolution in the next franchise.
Forkner asked Smith to call Terry from Comcast to attend a public meeting. Smith stated he would like to request rate cards from every jurisdiction in the state. EMRICK suggested asking Terry for the rate cards.
Citizen – stated he knew the cable rates when he moved to South Cove – but it’s the principal. Comcast needs to abide by the franchise.
Forkner stated that Comcast is meeting performance standards and providing expected service. The only issue the Commission has with them is the discrepancy in the franchise regarding rates of annexed areas.
Parsons – can a letter go out to annexed people regarding the cable issue? Many people are not aware of the situation. Consensus was that the Commission should meet with Terry/Comcast before a letter is considered.
Forkner stated that Comcast is a utility because they provide broadband service, and that is a utility.
Parsons stated that the invoices that the citizens in South Cove receive still list King County Office of Cable Communication and invoices should say Issaquah. Smith will check on that.
The Commission will obtain a copy of the South Cove Franchise.
Smith received several e-mails from citizens to Comcast. Parsons will continue to correspond with Comcast on his own and research how to make the people of South Cove more aware of the situation.
Citizen: Does Comcast ever give citizens new channels? Smith advised that Comcast does add channels, but they are in the digital tiers.
Citizen: dislikes Comcast’s Special Addition. Smith suggested that Comcast tries to give citizens a local feel.
EMRICK gave visitors a chance to share their views on Channel 21.
Parsons: Unable to obtain the Channel line-up. Smith will check on that.
Citizen Comment closed 7:40 p.m.
After Comcast sent me their January 31 letter (above), I called them to ask two follow-up questions: 1) What statute were they relying on when they referred to "state law," and 2) why did my bills still list King County Office of Cable Communications as my franchise authority?
The answer they gave to the first question: Washington statute RCW 35A.14.900. However, this statute appears to apply to "public utilities", whereas in Issaquah v. Teleprompter, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that, at least in that case, cable television is not a public utility.
The answer to the second question was, essentially, that it was being taken care of. However, after eight months and repeated claims from Comcast that this is or has been corrected, my bills still list King County Office of Cable Communications as my franchise authority. Our franchise fees have been paid to the City of Issaquah for at least a year now, so Comcast apparently knows who our franchise authority is -- they simply won't say so on our bills.
No substantive action can be discerned from the Commission's minutes regarding the rate dispute through October 2007; it may have been discussed during the Commission's many Executive Sessions, but those are closed to the public.
However, one can discern some substantive inaction. There was an action item at the end of the February meeting: "Invoices that the citizens in South Cove receive still list King County Office of Cable Communication and invoices should say Issaquah. Smith will check on that."
That action item appeared unchanged in the March 22, 2007 minutes (along with several other outstanding action items). It was not mentioned in the April 26, 2007 minutes, but it reappears in the May 24, 2007 minutes as a still-unresolved item: "Invoices that the citizens in South Cove receive still list King County Office of Cable Communication and invoices should say Issaquah. Smith will check on this. – Terry at Comcast is having this changed".
The issue disappeared from the June 28, 2007 minutes, but reappeared in the August 30, 2007 minutes: "Invoices that the citizens in South Cove receive still list King County Office of Cable Communication and invoices should say Issaquah. Smith will check on that. – According to Terry Davis it was fixed, but at the public hearing we found out it wasn’t – Smith will follow up with Terry. He will ask some coworkers to see if it is resolved."
It seems clear that, as of October 2007, and still no movement on this issue, Comcast has been either completely incompetent or extremely deceptive in their handling of this matter.
Every month this year, without exception, I have inserted a letter with my bill that details the charges I am disputing, along with a check for all undisputed charges. Except for the first such letter in January 2007, Comcast has not replied to any other letters, or even acknowledged that there is a disagreement between Comcast and the City of Issaquah. Instead, Comcast simply adds another $5 late fee to each new bill, followed by separate letters threatening to disconnect my service.
As of October 2007, after several phone calls with Comcast this month, I'm told that my account is being reviewed by "Lisa" in Executive Customer Care, and that the matter has also been forwarded to Terry Davis, the Director of Government Affairs and Franchising for Comcast. However, there has been no word from either of these people. The only real information I have is that unless I pay all past-due amounts immediately, my service will likely be disconnected on or around October 31.
I'm always struck by the automatic assumption of Comcast customer care representatives that whatever is printed on my bills or displayed on their screens must be correct, and that for me to disagree with them can only mean that I am being unreasonable (ie, as if there couldn't possibly be any other explanation).
I plan to attend and raise several issues, foremost among them:
Here's where the meeting will take place:
Thursday, Oct 25, 2007 @ 6:30pm
City Hall - Coho Room
130 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA
Last updated October 19, 2007 by Jeff Parsons.
