Cable Franchise Enforcement History
Examples of MHCRC Regulatory Action:
Verizon
Failure to Provide MetroEast PEG Access Channels
January 2009 - The MHCRC unanimously voted to schedule a a formal hearing,
in accordance with MHCRC Rules of Procedure, for February 23, 2009 in order
to make a determination on a potential franchise violation with respect to
Verizon’s failure to include MetroEast PEG channels as part of Basic
Service when Verizon began offering cable service to subscribers in its Gresham
service area on November 25, 2008 (Service Date).
Customer
Service Standards - Notice Requirements (2006-present)
MHCRC VOTES TO FINE COMCAST $43,899 FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS OF OCTOBER
’07 SERVICE CHANGES ( MHCRC Preference is that Penalty Amount be Credited
on Affected Subscriber Bills)
In connection with failing to adequately notify subscribers of the loss of
several cable channels which moved to more expensive digital tiers in October
2007, and as part of an ongoing effort to hold Comcast accountable for its
services to more than 150,000 subscribers who live in Multnomah County, the
Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission (“MHCRC”) unanimously voted
to assess Comcast $43,899 for violating the 30-day customer service notice
requirement of franchise agreements overseen by the MHCRC on behalf of Multnomah
County and the Cities of Portland, Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview, and Wood
Village (“Jurisdictions”).
Section V of the Customer Service Standards requires that Comcast provide
subscribers with 30-day advance written notice of any changes in rates, programming
or channel positions.
Company/Subscriber
Service Agreements (2003-2005)
In early February 2003, the MHCRC requested that Comcast provide proposed
changes to any service agreements affecting area subscribers in order to have
an opportunity to review/discuss with Comcast. While the Company did not give
MHCRC staff this courtesy, a local news reporter provided staff with Comcast’s
new privacy policy. Following review of the policy, the MHCRC prepared a five-page
letter to Comcast requesting further detail on its efforts to protect subscribers’
personal information and to justify its privacy policy against federal law
and local franchise language. The MHCRC continues to monitor Comcast’s
adherence to local, state and federal privacy laws and is actively pursuing
options to help protect subscriber privacy. To read more about Comcast's Privacy
Policy and the MHCRC investigation click here.
Franchise
Fee Payments (2003)
The MHCRC pursued regulatory and legal processes to ensure correct accounting
for franchise fee payments under the franchises. After Comcast refused several
written requests for quarterly reports of cable modem revenue, the MHCRC,
relying on the information-gathering authority under the franchise, proposed
Order 2001-09 which established a format for quarterly reports of cable modem
fee revenue and directed Comcast to provide reports in the format specified.
Comcast complied with the Order.
Performance
and Construction Bonds (2003)
The MHCRC initiated a process for securing current performance and construction
bonds from Comcast in accordance with the Franchises. MHCRC staff identified
the franchise requirement and missing documentation and, with legal counsel
oversight, worked with the company to bring this franchise obligation into
compliance.
Cable Customer
Service Standards (2001-2002)
The Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission completed two separate actions assessing
$300,000 in fines against AT&T Broadband for failing to comply with cable
customer telephone answering standards. The company waived its right to a
formal hearing to contest the determination.
Related Documents:
