Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 Telecommunications Customer Survey Agenda Item # TRUCKEE ,,O E DistrictPublic Utility; Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Alan Harry Date: August 29, 2006 Subject: Telecommunications Customer Surrey Why is this item before the Board? At your meeting of June 21st the Board met with Mr. Todd Morris of Satisfaction Development Systems regarding the focus of a new telecommunications survey. Mr. Morris has summarized the information gathered that evening and is scheduled to meet with the Board on September a to ensure that the proposed focus is in line with the Board's wishes. A copy of the SDS summary is attached for your review. Background/Summary At your special workshop held March 29, 2006, staff was ask to investigate the availability of market research firms capable of conducting a telecommunications customer surrey to receive insight from District customers as to their current use of internet, cable or satellite television and voice services, their satisfaction with current internet, cable television providers and voice providers, and their intent to switch to similar competing services if provided over a FTTU backbone owned and operated by the District. On May 174'you voted to contract with Satisfaction Development Systems(SDS)to conduct such a survey. At your meeting of June 21st Mr. Todd Morris of SDS met with the Board to better understand the Board's focus for the new survey and to prepare a review of the type of research to be conducted. In late June the Board received a letter from Mr. Pete Able, VP, Community & Government Relations, Suddenlink (previously Cebridge Connections) requesting that the Board take specific steps, including allowing Suddenlink to provide input and guidance to SDS in the design of the survey instrument. A copy of this letter is attached for your edification. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board review the attached document provided by SDS for discussion during your September a regular meeting. At that time it is recommended that you give SDS authorization to prepare the District's new telecommunications survey instrument and conduct the survey in a timely manner. Further it is recommended that the Board thank Mr. Able for his comments, and respectfully decline their request for involvement in the survey process. TRUKEE DONNER PUD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSESSMENT SURVEY SUMMER 2006 - RESEARCH STUDY DESIGN BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM TDPUD BOARD -JUNE 21, 2006 Following is a review of the workshop to discuss the research survey to be conducted this summer by SDS Research. The primary focus of the survey will be to gather quantitative data from PUD customer's regarding perception of their current telecom services (Telephone, Cable and Internet) and to determine the level of interest PUD customers have in the PUD offering these services. Overall Assessment: • Should the PUD be involved in offering telecom services? • Is competitive telephone, Cable or Internet service needed in the PUD service area? • What are customers' current telecom needs and how will these needs change in the future (within the next year)? • Are telecom needs being met by current service providers? Telephone: • What is current level of satisfaction with AT&T? • Based on current rates, what is perceived value? • What is the likelihood that customers will change phone service if offered through the PUD? • At what price would customers consider changing providers? Internet: • Does customer connect to the Internet? If not—will they soon? - Dedicated line to Internet? • What is current level of satisfaction with service provider(Cebridge, SBC(AT&T), Lake Tahoe Online, AOL, other)? • Based on current rates, what is perceived value? • What do customers need most that is missing from current service? • What is the likelihood that customers will change Internet service if offered through the PUD? • At what price would customers consider changing service providers? Cable: • Does customer have Cable TV service? Satellite service? • What is current level of satisfaction with provider (Direct TV—Dish Network)? • Based on current rates, what is perceived value? • What do customers need most that is not offered by current provider? • What is the likelihood that customers will change TV service if offered through the PUD? • At what price would customers consider changing providers? Demographics: • Age, income, gender sudden 11trnlik Life Connected`" June 29, 2006 Board of Directors Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, California 96160 Respected Board President and Board Members of the Truckee Donner PUD: Thank you, once again, for your efforts to evaluate community opinions on the subject of broadband services and to take steps that will help ensure the professionalism and objectivity of the associated community survey. To that end — per Mr. Alan Harry's public comments during your June 21 meeting — we understand that neither Board, staff, nor legal counsel will review or have input of any kind on the wording of the survey questions, delegating that task entirely to your selected survey vendor (SDS), with the clear understanding that SDS should design and conduct the survey in a manner that avoids biasing or distorting the results. Additional steps we hope you will consider include the following. • Ask either SDS or an independent, board-appointed third party to verify the integrity of the phone number database provided to SDS. Such verification might include spot-checking the phone numbers to determine if there are any duplicated numbers or other potential errors or distortions. • Clarify the range or ranges used in pricing-related questions. Discussion at the last board meeting suggested survey questions should evaluate participant interest in alternative broadband services if they are priced equal to versus 10% above or below currently available services. The 10% range may not be sufficient to gain useful results. The current TDPUD business plan calls for pricing that is a much as 30-40% more than existing market prices for comparable services. • Allow our company adequate opportunity for input on the written summary of guidance to SDS, prior to that summary being approved for SDS' use in designing survey questions. We understand Mr. Todd Morris was asked to produce this written summary for the Board's review at its July 5 meeting. We may not have a qualified representative from Suddenlink available for that particular meeting and thus hope the opportunity for our timely input on this summary will be afforded either prior to or after the meeting. • Clarify, with SDS, the nature of "completedfincluded" surveys. Mr. Morris has suggested that failure to answer all or most survey questions could disqualify a survey participant's responses. We understand the logic behind this direction, but we hope the responses of survey participants to "core" questions will be included in the results, even if some participants refuse to answer demographic or other "peripheral" questions. In short, it would be helpful for Mr. Morris to better define what will constitute "core" vs. "peripheral" questions — i.e., which surveys will be considered adequately answered and thus included in the aggregated results. Thank you for your consideration, Peter M. Abel Vice President, Community & Government Relations Copies to: Peter Holzmeister, Steve Gross, Alan Harry, Todd Morris, Dave Gilles, Craig Rosenthal