Comcast's phone support department is the *worst*, WORST, I've ever dealt
with. I think they are outsourced, they have to go by a script, and many of
them probably hardly know what a computer even is. Once I called because of
a problem on their network, and I told the person on the phone that there
was a problem on their network, and I pinned it down to a couple of routers
where the problem may be, and she responded, very sternly, "Sir, WE DON'T
HAVE ANY ROUTERS"
In any case, if you manage to get the call escalated a couple of times
(after lying about rebooting your computer 47 times), you'll get someone
good. Also, there are some good people who read this list. But calling
their phone support to get anything useful is like trying to squeeze blood
from a rock.
-jay
* You might want to try and Social Engineer this one a little bit. In your other email you had mentioned someone in their call center suggesting you call the local cable company about the server (or such).
Now I'm not suggesting anyone lie ... or such a thing ... but say you called the local office on a cold sales call asking for the person that handles their data networking. As you work your way through that try to find out who is the Head Engineer(s). From there try to find out who handles the CMTS equipment (Cisco uBR?) equipment in the local office Head End, and likely who handles the network including routers and switches and such.
You might even try emailing the domain Technical Contact and explain who you are and ask them if there is an Engineering or Network Administrative contact for the local head end of your city.
Nope, most of the complaints here seem to be about technical support.
As far as networking problems, I think most folks on NANOG would agree
that to run a stable network, the network needs to be designed and
operated by a single organization.
As a customer quite frustrated with support, I have to support Brandon about a centralized authority for routing and other common services such as mail. I can appreciate the issue of customer support for a residential service starting with level 1's whose only level of clue over Joe Sixpack is a flipchart. What frustrates me is the inability to escalate, and the lack of communication between customer support and the real operations folk.
Nobody's perfect. When I was a Verio customer, I sometimes was able to get things escalated, but there was a time or two where I wound up appealing to Randy Bush. If I do call upon a colleague like that, I like to think that I've thought through the issue and have either a diagnosis or a solution -- perhaps a better procedure for Level 2 and up.
It's a tough world (and I'm not singling out Comcast). If I were paying for an OC-192, you'd better believe I'd get clueful support. With what I pay for residential broadband, there's only so much support budget, and I recognize many of the incoming calls ARE from lack of end user clue. But, it still strikes me that proper escalation of a user with a technical explanation is in the long-term interest of the service provider.
Semi :-), I sometimes wonder if Level 1 should automatically escalate a customer that says certain magic words. Hey, if we are going to talk about magic, I want a spell that lets me turn anyone who doesn't know what a traceroute is into a frog. Let them ribbit rather than ping.
> I wouldn't recommend that actually. The local folks do not have any
> control over the IP infrastructure, they only handle the HFC plant.
Do you think that may have anything to do with the complaints cited here?
Nope, most of the complaints here seem to be about technical support.
As far as networking problems, I think most folks on NANOG would agree
that to run a stable network, the network needs to be designed and
operated by a single organization.
I guess it depends on your geographic definition of an organization. I think it makes sense especially in larger organizations to have a centralized reporting structure and to geographically centralize other functions such as network monitoring and ordering. However, I don't believe it's often in customers' or an organization's best interests to move technical expertise to a national NOC. I've been on both sides of the fence, and there are good examples of organizations that maintained a centralized reporting structure while maintaining a local market technical base (Mediaone was a good example of that model).
From what I've seen, the closer you get to the customers (those ultimately paying our salaries), the quicker things get escalated and resolved. Unfortunately, one large national change management center often ends up becoming a bloated, self-sustaining entity that quickly grinds innovation and responsiveness to a halt. Call me crazy, but I'll take a qualified engineer in the same state any day to a multilayered bureaucracy 500 miles away (or in some cases, a nation away) to get the job done efficiently.
You'll be surprised how quickly things are fixed or projects are tackled when you have a regional director's credibility on the line because his market's churn rate or MTTR or reliability numbers start to falter.
With control should come responsibility. In my opinion, placing direct pressure to bear on a market's ability to achieve their goals (with no excuses, and no finger pointing at a faceless NOC somewhere else) often strengthens this relationship to the advantage of the customers to which it provides service and to the shareholders as well.
>> As far as networking problems, I think most folks on NANOG would agree
>> that to run a stable network, the network needs to be designed and
>> operated by a single organization.
I guess it depends on your geographic definition of an
organization.
Perhaps that's where our opinions diverge. I never meant to imply that
there was any relationship in this matter to geography. I strongly
believe, however, that everyone with the passwords to the routers report
to the same relatively flat organization (i.e. to find the person in
management who is responsible for the whole thing shouldn't take going all
the way up to the CTO or CEO).
I think it makes sense especially in larger organizations
to have a centralized reporting structure and to geographically
centralize other functions such as network monitoring and ordering.
Indeed.
However, I don't believe it's often in customers' or an organization's
best interests to move technical expertise to a national NOC. I've been
on both sides of the fence, and there are good examples of organizations
that maintained a centralized reporting structure while maintaining a
local market technical base (Mediaone was a good example of that model).
I don't disagree here, but like both of us have said, those technical
bases MUST report up into the same, relatively flat structure.