Senators Blast Comcast, Other Cable Firms For "Unfair Billing Practices" (arstechnica.com) 176
An anonymous reader writes: Six Democratic US senators [Wednesday] criticized Comcast and other TV and broadband providers for charging erroneous fees, such as cable modem rental fees billed to customers who bought their own modems. The senators have written a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler asking the commission to 'stop unfair billing practices.'.....Last year, more than 30 percent of complaints to the FCC about Internet service and 38 percent of complaints about TV service were about billing...
Bernie Sanders (Score:1, Insightful)
For PRESIDENT 2016.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bernie Sanders (Score:5, Funny)
BERNIE FOR PRESIDENT 2016
"I'm With Stupid =>" #FeelTheBern
Ah, a Trump fan. You are a moron.
Productive and stimulating exchanges like this are why it's always a good idea to simplify debates on public policy into cartoonishly broad messages of support or antipathy towards particular politicians who might have little or no direct involvement in the issues at hand. This sort of thing really adds something to the discourse, and is always welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a Hillary fan ;)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"It is election time. So they say something that sounds nice to voters"
It's like those hearings they have regularly on pharma prices. A string of witnesses gets to express dudgeon, but nothing ever actually happens. So eventually they will schedule another hearing.
Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is election time. So they say something that sounds nice to voters. Nothing will change."
The 3 laws of political campaigning:-
1: Promise EVERYTHING
2: Deliver NOTHING
3: Blame the other lot
and most important of all:-
0: Don't get caught!
Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score:5, Informative)
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Several of these people have been talking about internet and technology issues for some time, and rather astutely (the Oregon senators), or have taken a very pro-consumer stance against abuse by corporations (Warren, Sanders). None of them are none for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.
Now if you really want to be cynical, bemoan the fact that they don't have enough power at present to accomplish anything versus the majority of (mostly Republican, though not all) legislators who are all too happy to suck up to Comcast/etc and proclaim idiotic things like "Net Neutrality hurts competition" or ranting about how Title II will stifle innovation when we're already getting left in the dust on connection speed by most of the developed world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)...
None of them are [known] for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.
Unfortunately, you're wrong here. All 6 of the Senators you named pushed the FCC ON BEHALF OF COMCAST to have the FCC implement Title II on Comcast's competitors. (Comcast agreed to hinder itself with the Title II restrictions as a condition of their purchase of NBC, then promptly started lobbying to have the restrictions added to the other cable companies as well.)
The Title II plan, which all 6 of these guys support, ISN'T a pay-to-play ban (and thus isn't Net Neutrality), but instead mandates settlement
Re: (Score:2)
This was all covered on Slashdot at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Just cause they wrapped a turd with a pretty pink bow that said "Net "Neutrality" on it doesn't mean it was actually Net Neutrality.
Let's be clear: the GOP bill was NOT net neutrality.
It WAS a turd.
It was one of the most blatant examples of BS legislation naming ever proposed, only surpassed by the Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:2)
How about if you actually talk about what exactly in the bill you disagreed with? Right now, you look like another partisan jackass fighting the GOP establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
To elaborate:
Media Shouldn't Be Fooled By Fake Neutrality Bill Backed By Broadband Industry [mediamatters.org]
IBT: GOP Legislation Would Undermine FCC's Ability To Enact Net Neutrality Regulations. As the International Business Times reported, the legislation proposed by congressional Republicans purports to ban broadband providers from blocking or speeding up certain content, or from charging content providers for faster access -- but in reality, undermines the FCC's ability "to impose stricter regulations on broadband companies" by establishing open-Internet rules. [International Business Times, 1/21/15]
Free Press: GOP Legislation "Undermines The Open Internet It Claims To Protect." In a January 21 statement, Free Press Action Fund noted that the GOP legislation would "declaw the one agency responsible for protecting the public interest in communications," rather than "safeguard Net Neutrality," as it claims to do:
Despite what they claim, this legislation won't safeguard Net Neutrality. The bills instead would undermine the FCC's ability to protect Internet users by removing broadband and wireless companies from nearly all agency oversight.
"The legislation fails at the very thing it claims to accomplish. It prohibits a few open Internet violations but opens the door to new industry abuses. It claims to give the FCC limited adjudication powers but removes the agency's ability to adopt and adapt rules to fit the changing landscape for high-speed Internet access. [Free Press, 1/22/15]
The Hill: GOP Bill Will Undermine Future Consumer Protection Efforts And Prevent Broadband Development. In a January 21 op-ed, experts at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation explained that the GOP legislation would "strip the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of crucial legal authority that protects consumers and small businesses on the internet," by limiting the FCC's ability to "adapt to evolving consumer harms." They also explained that the narrowly-written legislation would "eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband":
Making matters worse, the legislation would leave the FCC powerless to protect consumers from other broadband harms not specified in the bill text, such as those that are already occurring in the interconnection context. When the FCC enacted net neutrality rules four years ago, few anticipated that ISPs would congest their own networks as a strategy to extract fees from edge services like Netflix. But that's precisely what happened throughout 2013 and 2014, according to data collected by the Measurement Lab (a research consortium that includes the Open Technology Institute). The congestion harmed millions of Internet users whose connection speeds slowed to the point of unusability -- but the FCC had no mechanism in place to help these consumers. This prolonged, damaging behavior by multiple ISPs demonstrates why the FCC needs the flexibility to respond to problems as they evolve.
The bill would also eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband. This is a blow to municipalities that want to offer broadband service to their residents, particularly those currently restricted by state barriers to municipal broadband projects. The Open Technology Institute has consistently found that some of the fastest and most affordable broadband service in America comes from cities that have invested in their own infrastructure. Congress should be figuring out ways to support local government. Instead, the Thune-Upton bill prohibits the FCC from responding to communities that have asked for help. [The Hill, 1/21/15]
New Republican Bill Is Network Neutrality in Name Only [stanfordlawreview.org]
But, as written, the Republican bill provides network neutrality in name only. At first glance, the bill purports to ban paid prioritization, throttling, and blocking and applies the same rules to fixed and mobile networks, echoing language used by President Obama[4] and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler[5] to describe their network neutrality proposals. But on closer examination, the bill is so narrowly written that it fails to adequately protect users, innovators, and speakers against blocking, discrimination, and access fees.
A meaningful network neutrality regime requires bright-line rules prohibiting all forms of access fees, application-specific discrimination, and blocking. Unfortunately, the Republican bill is insufficient along each key dimension required to achieve real network neutrality, thereby dramatically departing from the network neutrality consensus that emerged over the past year. Thus, as currently written, the bill does not constitute an alternative to the adoption of meaningful network neutrality rules by the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act, coupled with appropriate forbearance.
Here are some of the problems with the bill.
[note: article goes into a lot of detail, these are just the headings. this is the most thourough of the articles]
1. The bill doesn’t actually ban “paid prioritization” (aka access fees).
2. The “no throttling” rule prohibits only a subset of ISPs’ harmful discriminatory practices.
3. The bill’s exception for reasonable network management does not require application-agnosticism, opening the door to discriminatory network management practices.
4. The bill leaves “user choice” undefined, and this vacuum could be filled by ISPs’ problematic definition of the term.
5. Interconnection is left out of the bill—and can never be addressed.
6. “Specialized services” are vague and largely unregulated, potentially creating a loophole in the network neutrality rules.
7. The bill ties the FCC’s hands—in network neutrality and other emerging broadband telecommunications policies.
As this piece illustrates, the bill would require a significant overhaul to ensure that it adequately protects users, innovators, and speakers against blocking, harmful discrimination, and access fees.
Backdoor Scheme Against Net Neutrality [consortiumnews.com]
But all of this apparently sent chills though the new Republican Congress and key segments of a communications industry that as a whole pumps an average $350 million-plus into lobbying every year and spent almost $100 million on the midterm elections. (Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are three of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics’ top 10 corporate lobbyists).
Together, the ISP companies and Congress have come up with a plan to legislatively derail Net neutrality that would bring a smile to the lips of Machiavelli.
As Hamza Shaban wrote recently at The Verge: “Simply put, the popularity of net neutrality poses a problem for Republicans. While the GOP maintains a general opposition to government rules in economic life, the principle of treating all web traffic equally enjoys wide, cross-partisan support. As it has become clearer that only new regulation can ensure net neutrality, Republicans risk not only appearing as obstructionists, but worse, obstructionists that side with the likes of Comcast.”
So Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce – the two main committees charged with Internet oversight — have introduced legislation that on the surface seems to wholeheartedly embrace Net neutrality. But at the same time, it gives a big thumb’s down to using Title II to reclassify ISPs and effectively neutralizes the ability of the FCC to regulate.
Shaban notes, “By avoiding a reclassification of broadband and working to render the FCC impotent, the new Republican Congress suggests it doesn’t really want net neutrality. It just wants to look like it does.”
Re: (Score:2)
That is better. I retract my other comment in response to your sibling post about this.
Re: (Score:2)
All your references are lefty sources arguing in favor of Title II instead of a paid prioritization ban. Thanks for finding a bunch of articles that support my point.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't change the fact that Republicans proposed passing an actual law to ban paid prioritization and Democrats stopped it because they wanted Title II instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't buy the Republicans doing anything positive for the general populace at the cost of business.
No kidding. I had already figured out that you just wanted to shill for your team and shit on the guys with the other jersey on. Normal people realize that neither political party is perfect and recognize when politicians they support make mistakes. But you're a shill and I understand that.
My comment was directed at serious people who give a shit about what actually happened.
Title II is good for Comcast and bad for their competition, so Comcast lobbied a bunch of Democrats, including these guys, to have
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Gr8Apes, you're in favor of the FCC regulating ISPs under Title II instead of a Congressional Net Neutrality law, right? These 6 Democratic Senators support that position. So you know, Comcast has the same position as the 6 Senators and has been lobbying in Washington for Title II. Comcast isn't your enemy on Title II.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if they put up a bill, it will be changes so much that it will be law to do what they are doing.
Why do they need to pass any new laws to address billing errors? If your cable company is billing you for a service or product that you didn't receive, isn't that just straight up theft? Existing laws already handle this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no it isn't. (Score:5, Informative)
It is election time.
No it isn't, at least not generally. There are six senators that signed on:
Giving Bernie a "0 months until election" that is still an average of three years until these six are up for reelection. It's not election time.
I get that you just don't trust the US elected politicians to do the work of the people. Fine. Feel that way. But don't spew factually inaccurate nonsense because you're either too ignorant of federal elections or too lazy to look it up. Perhaps a bit more civic engagement on your part might help prevent the old business overlords, hm?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have political parties that help members of their party get [re]-elected in the States?
Love the trailing ellipsis (Score:3)
Cue the creepy movie tension music!
"It Came From The Billing Department 2: The Revenge Of Accounts Receivable"
Canal O'Rourke lost his job for trying to report (Score:3)
Canal O'Rourke lost his job for trying to report comcast about billing errors.
I say go for it and if it comes down to it. No easy time for the big shots.
Re: (Score:3)
Conal O'Rourke. Just in case anyone else tries to Google it.
Consumerist stories about Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
One of the stories: Comcast: 2014 worst company in America [consumerist.com].
Comcast: 6 ways to attempt to get customer service (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
6 Things Comcast Customers Can Try To Get Some Actual Customer Service [consumerist.com]
Those things might get you results, but they won't get you service.
Re: (Score:1)
Consumerist stories about Comcast [consumerist.com].
One of the stories: Comcast: 2014 worst company in America [consumerist.com].
When stories like this exist, one has to wonder why they are still legally allowed to be in business. What fucking good is the Better Business Bureau when shit like this rages on for years? Seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The BBB has no authority whatsoever. They are not a branch of the government. They're a non-profit organization.
You want the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) or the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) - why neither of THEM have even barely lifted a finger about this crap so far though is completely beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Customer service is not a requirement for a business.
Seriously, it isn't. If you take a business at it's core to sell a product or service for a profit, customer service is not part of that. (Neither is handling returns, etc).
Of course, the reason businesses do a lot of things that are optional is competition -
They're digging their own grave. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been getting involved with the local government to get fiber to the area and the cable companies keep pushing back "Nah, you don't want that speed". To the point that it's hurting local businesses. Local fiber co-ops and companies are starting up across the state (slowly). The cities that still had municipal power & water mostly have fiber already.
They're not going to be able to keep up with the competition springing up across the country.
More and more people are cutting the cord as well. They could have taken a bit less of a profit and maintained their lead but they decided to double down on
Re:They're digging their own grave. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast was dragging their feet in upgrading our community to fibre, telling us it was going to be years off.
As soon as our town (Upper Marlboro, MD) passed an ordinance granting Verizon a franchise agreement, Comcast suddenly had crews out upgrading. Maybe it was a month or so delay ... whatever it was, they did everything they could to try to get their stuff installed before AT&T could. (and they were shutting down town roads without going through the proper procedures ... so residents were pissed off)
Comcast will do everything that they can to make sure that they have no competition -- even pushing for state laws to ban municipalities from installing their own ... but as soon as it's inevitable that there's going to be competition, they'll do everything that they can to make sure that they keep the customers (and thus, make it less profitable for whoever new comes in).
So (Score:5, Interesting)
More to the point (Score:2)
To hark back to a Tom Cruise film The Frim: 'It's mail fraud'.
No, it's not sexy, but it should be used to nail their corporate nuts to their corporate foreheads.
$6000 (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how much I saved cutting the cord five years ago. Still can't believe I was one of the idiots paying $12,000 a decade to watch TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually nearly right. My now 9 year old car was bought and paid for with cash. What many pay out in car payments is socked away for when I need a newer one. Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
Re: (Score:3)
And let me guess, you also saved $50,000 over the past few years by getting rid of your car and buying a wooden-frame fixie to ride to work too, right?
Great comparison.
At least no one here has to guess as to your fucking inability to discern between a luxury in life and a necessity.
Re: (Score:1)
And let me guess, you also saved $50,000 over the past few years by getting rid of your car and buying a wooden-frame fixie to ride to work too, right?
Great comparison.
At least no one here has to guess as to your fucking inability to discern between a luxury in life and a necessity.
Cars are a luxury - unless you're a candy-ass.
What? Can't be bothered to ride a bicycle 10 miles?
Fatty.
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot believe you seriously posted that. Not everyone has such a short commute. Not everyone has such a short commute on roads that are safe enough to cycle on. Not everyone has such a short commute at times of days when it is light out (brings back to safety point, and lights help a little, but not enough).
It must be nice to live in that world of yours where everything turns out just peachy for you. For the rest of us, we have to own a car. (well not everyone, but many of us).
FYI, I have no issues c
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, not all cyclists are hipsters either... I take offense at that :P
Re: (Score:2)
Get 120 psi racing slicks, they cut through the snow like it was hot butter, I loved riding past cars buried up to the axles in snow! Now ice tends to get exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
Snow Bikes [wordpress.com] are a thing up here in Alaska.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck off.
$100 per month * 12 months is a lot of money to poor people like us. We'll just download the handful of TV shows we want to watch, and utilize OTA HD as well as pirate streams for sports.
Again, fuck right off, and take some of the comcast management with you.
If you are counting pirate streams in your cost reduction analysis then you are doing it wrong.
Comcast offices built like fortresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason for the security is that it's a payment center. Think tens of thousands in cash on hand, with a LOT less of a law enforcement response than if you rob the local bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It adds up quick. If 100 people paid their bill in an average day, and the average bill is $100, that's $10k. Some people are past due, some have higher bills, and some offices do more business than that, so...
With regard to more security than a bank, I believe it. You rob a bank, the feds get involved. You rob the cable company, it's like robbing a liquor store. Take a look at the average check cashing place some day.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for the security is that it's a payment center. Think tens of thousands in cash on hand, with a LOT less of a law enforcement response than if you rob the local bank.
There's lots of places that deal with a lot more money with less security. E.g. Walmart, casinos, et . And those places are a lot more likely to deal in cash and with a lot more people than a cable tv provider where most people mail their checks in.
Re: (Score:2)
No. When I go to a main branch of my bank downtown, they have a LOT more money out in the tills and are a much bigger target (think hundreds of thousands in cash and being a bank it they can't just run it to the bank mid-day). They have just high counters and one security guard who looks to be in his late '60s. No Plexiglas.
Comcast has the security measures because their customer service is terrible enough to inspire violence in regular everyday people (there have been incidents).
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast has the security measures because their customer service is terrible enough to inspire violence in regular everyday people (there have been incidents).
Nah it's OSHA required due to potential work-place violence, they don't care about a few service 'droids, but an OSHA fine involves money.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a local Comcast office?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite: me. They take great care of me. I've got a gigabit ethernet circuit running a thousand miles or so (Knoxville to Houston) that never even hiccups. My 150/20 HFC circuit has seen maybe 30 hours of downtime over the last five years. Pricing on both is quite good (I actually couldn't believe the price on the gigabit circuit).
Their project management does leave a little to be desired (I was VERY frustrated with the PM on the gigabit circuit install---her communication skills were lacking, and she
Happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought my own cable modem, had been using it for over a year when I finally decided to return Comcast's modem. Took it down to their local office and had the customer service rep. check the modem back into inventory and remove the rental fee from my account before leaving. The first month after having it removed everything was fine, there was no rental fee billed, the 2nd month after it re-appeared on my bill and they tacked on an extra charge for the prior month as well as sent a separate mailing notice to inform me they had noticed there was no rental fee on my account and it must have been a billing error on their part but not to worry as they weren't going to charge a penalty, just 2 months worth of rental fees. In order to have the issue resolved I had to call customer service and have them "open an investigation" to check with the local office to verify they had received my old modem back.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was clearly the local office's fault for not entering it into their system that you weren't supposed to get a rental fee...
Except that obviously wasn't the problem, because they did put it into the system, which is why you didn't get charged for the first month. I had similar problems with Time Warner Cable when I bought my own modem. Every once in a while, the fee would get tacked back on and I'd have to call in and complain to get the charge removed. This only makes sense if they have someone
Re: (Score:2)
And then... (Score:1)
a dumbass republican will be elected by the stupid masses and everything the FCC has been trying to do in the last couple of years will be undone. Good bye Net Neutrality. Good Bye title II... Hello corruption.
All would be resolved if we could all lay cable (Score:5, Interesting)
The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete.
I cannot lay cable against my cable company even in my own neighborhood. Last mile internet delivery is granted through local franchises and no one is permitted to trespass these. I can't pay a poll fee. I can't pay a conduit fee. I cannot run cable.
I could very easily run fiber for my whole neighborhood RIGHT NOW giving everyone in my immediate area gigabit internet... on MY resources. The whole city? Obviously not. I'm just some guy. But my neighborhood... easy. But the law won't let me.
And people don't connect this reality with the fact that they get raped by the cable companies.
Imagine if there were but one sandwich shop... imagine how absurdly abusive it would be with prices, service, product quality. It would be bad.
Well, that is what you've done with the exclusive franchise agreements. We don't need to nationalize our ISPs. We need to let more people... ideally everyone... run cable.
Here some unimaginative fellow will say something like "I don't want lots of cables run along my street"... well, if lots of cables are being run then you don't see that because they'll be buried in a conduit.
Next I might get someone saying something like "we don't have conduits right now to handle something that we're not at this moment doing"... to which I can only say "uh duh"... and yet if we changed the rules this sort of thing would become standard. Not literally tomorrow but within a few years.
And what would government control? Well... the conduits. They'd have a network of pipes that people could run cable through and that they'd charge a flat fee to anyone running cable per foot or mile or whatever the proper distance is... The government wouldn't have to keep up with new technology or worry about anything in the pipe especially besides where the pipe went and how much room there was in the pipe for more cable. That's it.
Set America free and the internet issue is GONE. The cable companies in that environment will either offer competitive non-fucking-stupid service... or go out of business. Like a light.
And I won't have to listen to fucking communists talk about how everything would be better if we just let the government take control over everything.
Re: (Score:2)
What "socialist" have you seen advocating to nationalize internet service? I haven't seen any.
The only calls for nationalization I have seen are for health care where the market has clearly failed and a few calls for large banks at the time they had their hands out for a trillion dollar bailout.
Re: (Score:2)
Any of them. You want individual campaigns cited, speeches made, bills put to the floor or what?
Because asking for something like this is really sort of baffling to me.
Why would you be surprised that a socialist would want to nationalize something? That's sort of their go to answer for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a bill put to the floor? Or even a transcript of a Congressional debate? You make it sound as if we have a Congress packed with socialists who might actually have an effect or cause serious consideration, I don't see any.
The closest I see are local governments laying fiber within their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about congress until you asked for a citation and I gave a listing of different options.
Saying I made it sound like congress was full of something when I didn't reference congress at all is a non-starter.
Rephrase your argument of I'm going to assume you're too triggered and I won't be able to have a productive discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, only Congress can nationalize something. The local city council can't do it, now can they? The very word "nationalize" implies the federal government.
Now, you offered bills put to the floor as an option and I picked it, so where are they?
Re: (Score:2)
"The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete."
That is what I said. Now... I never said nor implied congress. I can show bills if you want. But I won't permit you to strawman my position by redefining my words as other than they were.
If you accept that you have no power to change my argument then I can move on. If you refuse to accept that then we really can't go anywhere because
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would like to see the bills please.
Re: (Score:2)
No community can ban access to a public utility (as defined by the state law) beyond reasonable fees to inspect and monitor the construction in the public right-of-way (ROW) for preservation of that ROW. A franchise agreement that purports to enact such a ban is illegal and will be struck down the first time a city tries to enforce it. Not that any city would try to enforce such a claim, it's blatantly unconstitutional.
You don't understand the law, stop commenting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I can't lay cable and neither can any company that doesn't have a franchise license and that is why we have duopoloies.
Stay down.
Re: (Score:2)
not when the license is not generally offered to anyone on reasonable terms.
Lets say I say anyone can do a thing... they just need a license... and then I make a point of never issuing such licenses to anyone except two companies under any circumstances.
That's a de facto ban.
De jure you can make any claim you want but it won't be intellectually honest in the face of a de facto ban.
Look guys... we can jerk each other off until our eyes melt... but at the end of the day the reality is the reality is the reali
Re: (Score:2)
Typically they're required to offer service for the entire city as a condition of providing service to any portion of the city.
The list of conditions is variable and often graft is a component.
As to this question about whether anyone has applied... this is a silly question. You're saying no one in these cities would attempt to offer service at any part of the city? Really?
Regardless, I can link you to Google and Centurylink complaining about franchise license lockout. Its well known amongst anyone paying at
Re: (Score:2)
Failure to provide a win condition is a sign of bad faith.
Noted.
I'll move on. I'm not going to waste my time providing you with endless information while you goalpost move. Failing to lock yourself down means you intended to back peddle and goalpost move. So we're done. You just basically admitted you're arguing in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Win conditions have nothing to do with maturity. Your attempt to goalpost shift the issue to one of courtesy shows that I pegged you accurately.
My intention was to have a productive discussion.
I made a statement.
You contested it.
That started a debate and I then wanted terms for that debate so that it could be productive.
You are squirting ink in the water now and trying to change the subject. Which is fine because it merely reinforces why stating firm conditions that will prevent people from goalpost moving
Re: (Score:2)
Yep and its quiet affordable. I've done the math. I can personally afford to wire my neighborhood. When you say "do you know how much this costs" you're likely talking about an entire city all in one go.
That's like asking "Do you know how much it would cost to build 2000 sandwich shops"... Just talking about me running cable in my own area.
And if it were so expensive that I wouldn't be able to do it, then you wouldn't need to make it illegal to stop me. you do because you know fucking well that I would if I
Re: (Score:2)
Citation on what? The franchises?
Further, the issue is local... but generally consistent throughout the country. The law was federal but it was repealed I think in the mid 90s. Regardless, if you look at what backbone bandwidth costs... basically nothing... you can see that the only justifiable cost would be running from the trunk to the house. The problem with the fee system is that if you then price out the cost of fiber per person... and work in depreciation... The costs drop to something like ten dollar
Re: (Score:2)
Like the food supply, right?
Give up.
Re: (Score:2)
forbidding people to compete by law is not a failure of capitalism.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
... so you're saying there isn't enough capitalism? I would agree... your wording sounded like you were blaming capitalism for dumb things the government does.
If you're saying the issue is that the free market is not being permitted to address the situation by allowing competing interests to force a reasonable product quality standard at a competitive price... then I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
... we're talking about laying cable in a conduit... what exactly are you presuming to hold out as a problem. Flammability? Who is laying flammable cable? Whatever... the point is that maintaining the conduit and providing access to anyone on an equal basis would be an improvement over the existing system as well as be a reasonable thing the government could do without causing them to bounce off their own peter threshold.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, you want to create problems and make a dishonest argument.
Did you think of anthrax cables? Or cables made out of vampire?
Look... you want to be silly... be silly... just know that you've been noticed as silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your concern for my own credibility. That's touching.
Anyway... my point was strong in its original incarnation and there is clearly nothing left to discuss here beside concern trolling apparently on your part. So... are we done here? I think we are...
Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)
funny how "unfair billing practices" is know as fraud when you aren't a corporation.
Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, I don't know why Apple or some other tech company with vast amounts of idle cash doesn't just buy Comcast. I think that customers would be thrilled. At the very least you wouldn't have to worry about incorrect bills and shitty customer service. Not only that, it would be the ideal delivery mechanism for Apple and their products. They could tie it in with iTunes for music and movie streaming.
Maybe it's a bit far fetched but who knows?
Re:Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I don't know why Apple or some other tech company with vast amounts of idle cash doesn't just buy Comcast. I think that customers would be thrilled.
Maybe it's because they know well that there are too many nails in the coffin to make Comcast a good and profitable company. If Google prefers to put a new fiber network I think it's because it's far cheaper to start from scratch on a new technology than to have to deal with legacy thechnology that will have to be mantained for existing users and the new technology that has to be deployed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's that and not the ability to monitor everything going over their links for "telemetry" which is their money faucet vs a large up front capital investment and some maintenance.
I have experienced this constantly (Score:2)
Exactly what happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)
So I filed a formal complaint with the FCC and within days I was called back by Comcast and credited the 12 months of erroneous charges. I highly recommend this path since it was so absurdly easy.
I've very happy to hear I'm not alone in this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was billed by Comcast for a year for a cable modem rental even though I bought my own.
HOW I DISCOVERED COMCAST CUSTOMER SERVICE WAS EVIL INCARNATE
Once upon a time (over a decade ago), I moved between states. Before leaving State 1, I called Comcast and said, "I'm moving. Cancel my service. I'm going to get Comcast in State 2. Should I return my cable modem?"
"No," said the helpful Comcast rep, "Take your modem with you."
I arrived in State 2. The tech who came to set up my "installation" (which was supposed to be free, and said so on the work order) said he'd give me a new modem t
drivel - nothing will change (Score:2)
It's easy for Congress members to Blast the cable industry by day, and pocket donations from the cable industry by night, accomplishing nothing towards consumer protection.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that they're a minority in the senate, both in terms of being pro-consumer/anti-abuse, and in being part of the minority party. Contrast them to the Republicans that are busy decrying Net Neutrality, Title
Just had my internet-only bill jump 40% (Score:2)
No reason given. No announcement or warning. Just boom, new bill.
Why do senators need to be involved? (Score:3)
The last time I checked, fraud, extortion, and theft were all felonies. So stop all the chest-thumping and all the "OMG! the FCC!" nattering, and just enforce the fucking laws fer chrissake. Time to stop pretending that various service providers are somehow different than individuals who commit the same crimes. A corporation is a person before the law? Alright then, treat the corporations like persons - but go ALL the way, and start throwing asses in jails when and where appropriate. Some might say, "but in this case, we can only jail part of the person". I'm fine with that - how 'bout the head? Let's haul CEOs off in handcuffs. That'll cause a lot of second thoughts next time 'ripping off your own customers' is suggested as a viable business model.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm fine with that - how 'bout the head? Let's haul CEOs off in handcuffs."
I say revoke the corporations' limited liability and jail the shareholders.
The other cable fraud (Score:2)
Or is it far more likely that they are trying to make up for lost cable TV revenues (cord cutters) on the backs of all their customers.
If they do have legit increase costs for providing broadband, fine: show all your work to the FCC to justify it.
Could be worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree here. However, I think it requires a multi pronged attach approach. If my memory serves me, a few years back ATT Wireless was being sued by both the FTC and the FCC for the same thing (related to their unlimited data plans). They went to court and tried to have the suits dismissed playing each group against each other.
FTC vs ATT - ATT Claimed they were being investigated and sued by the FCC and requested a dismissal.
FCC vs ATT - ATT claimed they were being investigated and sued by the FTC,
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. The 6 Congresspeople complaining about these billing practices are likely not the same ones who were responsible for the omnibus bill. In fact, they have lengthy track records of supporting consumer rights and good legislation for internet-related stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Just spray the dish down with silicone lube in the fall and the snow slides off; might have to re-sray once a winter.