Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Awarded the Golden Poo Award

ISoldat53 writes "The Consumerist has awarded Comcast the Golden Poo award for the worst company in America. From the article: 'After four rounds of bloody battle against some of the most publicly reviled businesses in America, Comcast can now run up the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and hold its hands high in victory — it has bested everyone else to earn the title of Worst Company In America for 2010.'"

286 comments

  1. Ahem... by Enuratique · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's Xfinity, you insensitive clods!

    --
    A black hole is where God divided by 0
    1. Re:Ahem... by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, because changing the name changes how bad the company really is...lol.

    2. Re:Ahem... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's Xfinity brand assraping, but it's still Comcast's cock doing the work.

    3. Re:Ahem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xfinity: Now Our Name is as Shitty as Our Service!

    4. Re:Ahem... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why's this on idle. It should be front page news. If it were about Microsoft or Apple it would be front page.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Ahem... by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1

      So basically its Xfinity sandpaper, but Comcast cock, now I get it...haha

    6. Re:Ahem... by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Comcrap^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "Xfinity", new name, same crap.

    7. Re:Ahem... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? Not Xe Services? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  2. Surprise Surprise! by DWRECK18 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have dealt with several different cable and internet companies and I have to agree that IMO Comcast is by far the worst. Their prices are outrages when looking at what you get compared to what you pay. On top of that their tech support has been severly lacking. Honestly I am paying $110 for half of the services I was getting from Verizon FIOS and I was paying only $90 from VZ. The only reason I have comcast again is because unfortunately when i moved FIOS wasn't available for my Apartment Complex. Those who defend Comcast really need to look at the price comparisons and customer service reviews between them, FIOS, DirectTV, and hell even Dish network. Now I know a lot of people have local companies that they go through as well FYI I used to have Adelphia before comcast bought them. So in the end YES COMCAST DESERVES THIS AWARD.

    1. Re:Surprise Surprise! by ronocdh · · Score: 1

      The only reason I have comcast again is because unfortunately when i moved FIOS wasn't available for my Apartment Complex.

      I am not chastising you, but have you considered something like 4G wireless or tethering a 3G smartphone connection? I'm just trying to think critically, given that we all hate Comcast, and plan for how best to react to this situation.

      Personally, I'm in center city Philadelphia, and I get 16Mbps/1.5Mbps for $30/month. Suits my needs pretty well, so I'm still feeding the devil.

    2. Re:Surprise Surprise! by DWRECK18 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately my phone drops from 3g to 1x at times in my apt so tethering is out of the question. Plus I have a PS3 and need the broadband connection for my MW gaming, and the amount of downloads I do at times for school and training i really do not want to be working off of a tethered internet. My way around it will be when I move again I will make sure that FIOS or some other service I prefer is available before making my selection of where I move to.

    3. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight. Like I've said before - if, for whatever reason, you find yourself lacking the motivation to punch some babies or kick a sack of kittens into the river, give Comcast a call. After dealing with their awful "customer service", you could go ahead and toss that box of puppies into traffic and still walk away feeling like a saint.

    4. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      http://www.quantum-wireless.com/store/index.php/cellular-signal-boosters-by-application/antennas/indoor.html

      I'm sure you could find better prices elsewhere, but any of those would work. The 3g/4g is carried over the cell signal, so all you need to do is boost the signal.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:Surprise Surprise! by brufleth · · Score: 3, Informative

      In my experience the speeds I get via tethering a smartphone are about an order of magnitude lower than a wired connection and the latency is super high.

    6. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disclaimer: I'm a Vz employee, and yes I'm invlolved with the FIOS build-out.

      Is FIOS available anywhere on/near your street? If Fios is in your area and the apartment owner is willing to sign a contract with us, we will be glad to come in, place cable, retrofit internal wiring etc and make FIOS available to your complex. Believe me, we want all the MDU's (apts/condos/town houses) we can get. . .

    7. Re:Surprise Surprise! by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      I have dealt with several different cable and internet companies and I have to agree that IMO Comcast is by far the worst.

      Starting yesterday I've been doing some remote tech support helping my troglodyte brother-in-law set up his first (!) computer on the Internet and I have to say that Comcast's registration procedure has to be the worst I've ever encountered. He's also paying $5 a month more than I am for broadband and getting a slower connection.

      Sounds to me like the Golden Poo Award was richly deserved.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    8. Re:Surprise Surprise! by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1

      The guy that came to install my cable and internet since they wouldn't let me, couldn't even get it configured because I had a router in place. I had to do it myself to get it working. This guy was a complete tool but atleast I made sure he didn't install shit on my computer with the excuse of "oh well you need this to operate." I love how everyone falls for that whenever some dumb tech from these companies says well I need to install this so your modem will work. This is complete BS since all Comcast or any other service provider needs to do is allow the MAC to contact their network.

    9. Re:Surprise Surprise! by DWRECK18 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, funny enough it is available right next door to the complex at a 7-11 type store. Who do I have to talk to to get this installed, because I HATE COMCAST.

    10. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Apparently you've not dealt with Charter.

      Paying more for less service sucks. Getting even worse customer service also sucks.

      I would take Comcast, er, X-Finity, back in a minute.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    11. Re:Surprise Surprise! by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1

      Nope haven't had to deal with Charter, however if they are worse then comcast then hell they can fall right in line with Adelphia and rest assured more than likely comcast will buy them out soon enough. So all in all wither way were screwed when it comes to cable...unless of course you can get Satelite which has its own issues though the programming and pricing are better, or better yet get FIOS since I never had a problem price wise or customer service wise with them.

    12. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an avid WoWer, and there were times where I'd run instances and have to disconnect from Comcast and connect via dial-up to get a decent enough connection that I could actually participate.

      At my previous place, I had Adelphia, and during "peak hours" the connection was fine. But try and surf the web at 1am, and it took 9 minutes for a page to load.

      Yeah... I'm thinking I'm gonna be switching to DSL shortly.

    13. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also travelled around quite a bit in the past bit (8 different mailing addresses in the last 5 years), and have dealt with a lot of companies during the process. As far as service providers go; Bell South has been by far the worst. Incompetence on multiple levels (spent 6 hours straight trying to remedy a billing error... every month), outright lying about service, and a glitchy connection that they blamed on us living in a house with such ancient wiring (it was built just 3 years prior). You'd get a person on the phone, and after 20 minutes of suffering through their prompt, they'd finally realize that they lacked the brainpower to answer your question, and put you on hold for another 40 minutes while you waited for the next braindead teleprompter monkey to wake up from the nap they were taking. Rinse Repeat. I'd rather deal with Comcast than have to give Bell South another cent of my money.

    14. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a we-want-to-own-the-world-screw-the-competition-mega-corporation they sure didn't make this easy. . .

      More disclaimers: I'm talking about wiring the whole complex here. The property owner/representitive has to agree, give us easement and sign a contract. If they do agree we will put together a work order and send out a crew to wire the complex. This can take a couple of months to get going with approvals etc (remember: mega-corporation), and depending on the size of the complex the actual work can take a few days to a few weeks. But if you're seriously interested and can convince the proper people. . .

      By your Facebook page, you seem to be in PA. The New York sales office is 212-240-5078. I'm in California and could't find anything closer on our intranet. At worst they'll be able to get your closer.

    15. Re:Surprise Surprise! by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just switched from Comcast to Vz FIOS. A quick summary:

      Comcast - the good

      • Stable, fast speeds - 3mbps up/16mbps down was nothing to sneeze at.
      • In eight years of service, my IP address changes 4 times.
      • Received line upgrades automatically as they became available, at no extra cost. Internet service price hasn't changed - even though I started at 6/1 service years ago.
      • Received new channels as they were available

      Comcast -the bad

      • $220/month for phone, all movie channels, 16/3, a DVR and an HD converter. A lot of service, but also a lot of money.
      • "Blast" download speeds are rather deceptive
      • Holy crap are those HD channels compressed.
      • Bandwidth monitoring - I always came in under, but it was close a couple of months; and I've done nothing of questionable legality - Netflix instant watch via PS3 doubled my data usage by itself...

      Verizon the good:

      • Price: $150-160 gets me: phone, a few hundred channels, 35/35, DVR. More channels than cable overall, but not the same range of movie channels: for $15/mo additional (total 165-180) I could fix that.
      • Features: Being able to watch recorded content in other rooms is nice. Widgets are kind of useless - would be nicer if "favorites" could be configured to popup as an overlay (without resizing the screen) instantly on button push. Guide functionality and various small features hands down beats cable. And my favorite: They don't do that stupid "you didn't really want to stop where you pressed stop" "feature" that comcast DVR has started doing.
      • Picture quality: this varies based on the source (for example, local channels often broadcast in HD, but 'on the scene' cameras and whatnot provide low quality), but overall any given HD is much better than the comcast equivalent.
      • Speed: nice. very nice. Having an issue though, where I'm supposed to get 35/35 and am "only" getting 25/25 - given that it's so exact a cutoff at 25, I am thinking I need to call and see if it was properly provisioned. If so, then this may move to the "bad" line items...

      Verizonthe bad:

      • The prices are deceptive, since you're paying $5-20 per additional HD box on an HD converter. ($5 for an SD converter; $10 for HD that can receive DVR from other locations; $15 for DVR; $20 for DVR that can broadcast to other TVs). My $150/mo should have been $120/month, and it wasn't until I was "checking out" that I realized it wasn't. This deception is rampant throughout the web site and the TV commercials.
      • TV speed: a lot of the features in the TV interface seem slow. Displaying widgets consistently takes 3-5 seconds; other times the device seems to get overwhelmed with a backlog of requests and simply dumps all of them. After about 1-2 minutes it starts listening again.
      • Weird controls on on-demand content, specifically from network TV. While I could rewind/FF on-demand movies, I could not rewind or fast-forward on-demand content from NBC.
      • for internet service, they block port 80 incoming (NOTE: for me, they're not... but I don't know if this is a fluke or a change in policy.)

      Overall, in my experience Comcast doesn't deserve the award. Though they are currently outclassed, my own experience with them has been great for years. It's only the price/performance that made me switch; before FIOS was an option, I was happy where I was.

    16. Re:Surprise Surprise! by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If FIOS is ostensibly available in our "area," but according to your system not available to our unit, does that mean we should push the owner of the house? Or is it likely a neighborhood by neighborhood buildout question?

    17. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how it works: When we cable an area for FIOS we put cable up to the property line of single family homes. Those can be hooked up with just a tech running a service drop. Since apartments etc have many tenets but one owner they are a little different. We leave enough fiber somewhere on the street to account for any MDU's (Multiple Dwelling Units, apts/condos/town houses) in the area and we then try to get the property owners permission to cable their complex, we have to have easements etc. If your complex does not have FIOS and it's available in your neigborhood either the owner would not agree or they were never contacted. So, yes, work over the owner/manager!

      And just for the record, the contract they sign with us usually forbids the owner to allow cable TV to upgrade their facilities (cables, hubs) within the property. You know, competition and all that.

    18. Re:Surprise Surprise! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Try Cox Cable pal, and enjoy the pain! Try $156 for 36Gb cap on a 2Gbps connection, goes down at least once weekly, and you call "tech support" and what they do is send out a guy who stands there with a cell phone and says "the shit don't work". Really, they have sub leased the Internet and phone so they have NO control or say!

      Comcrap and their 250Gb cap would be like a dream come true for me pal, so don't think you know pain, I KNOW pain!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Digicaf · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the typical 5GB data cap.

    20. Re:Surprise Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty irritated with Comcast for a number of personal reasons, the main one being for the way I was treated as a top performing sales employee, which is to be expected of any large bureaucratic company that is run by idiots (as I am sure Verizon is also) and I have absolutely no personal motivation to defend them.
      That said, as a former Comcast direct sales person whose job duties required that I speak face to face with 20-30 nonsubscribers a day five or 6 days a week in their homes in a Fios Competitive market, don't believe all of the Hooplah about Fios. There are still a few areas where Comcast has plenty of room to improve, but hands down across the board, it is a superior product to Fios, and about half of the people I talked to that hated the cable company "monopoly" but for some strange reason loved the phone company and couldn't wait for Fios to get there so that they could jump ship, are extremely dissatisfied with the Fios product, so much so that many were even willing to pay the ridiculous early termination penalties to be relieved of their Fios contracts. Based on the feed back which I feel is fair as Fios vs. Comcast is comparing apples to apples, unlike comparing either to satellite, Comcast delivered as much or more than Fios and here is why.
      Comcast On-demand product was superior to Verizons.
      Comcast did not have the hidden fees attached to every monthly bill that Verizon had
      Comcast did not require a contract
      These prices listed above for Comcast and verizon are not a fair representation, at least in my old market $159/month and $5 modem rental, Roughly $10 tax gets Blast internet, all the movie channels, unlimited phone with calling features for the first year, Free install that doesnt take all day and only has a $15 jump the second year and another $15 the third where it levels out.
      I don't remember Verizon having all of those features for $159, but to be fair, the promotions are fairly even dollar for dollar, and If we are going to compare a Comcast regular price to a Verizon promo well thats just assanine becasue Verizons Prices jump quite a bit as well after the promo period.
      Screw J.D. Power, Comcast has completely overhauled their Customer service policies, and while some of the bad is still being weeded out, I have to say the customer service beats Verizons.
      As far as the bandwidth, I have 16mb blast in my home, and I will consistently get speeds up to 24mbps but more or less I am guaranteed to hit 16. Considering in our market more homes have Comcast than Verizon, they can allow as much bandwidth per subscriber as they like, but they do not guarantee a minimum speed and I assure you, once those nodes are populated you will see a drop in speed when the bandwidth is being allocated to more homes.
      Verizon did a much better job of marketing their Fios while comcast did a piss poor job of rebutting. There is a reason that Verizon is delaying the build out plans in many areas, it's because Fios is starting to prove to be a bust.

      Disgruntled ex-employee.

         

    21. Re:Surprise Surprise! by pedro1948 · · Score: 1

      Scumcast is one of the worst companies I have ever dealt with. If I had a choice of a better high-speed ISP, I would already be there. My wife and I are on disability and she gets her check the 4th Wednesday of each month. Last month, we set up an agreement with them to not turn us off 'til the 4th Wed. Needless to say, we were turned off Tuesday, yesterday so they could charge us a re-connect fee. What assholes!

  3. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome!

  4. Defending Champ by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure they won it last year too!

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Defending Champ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No...It was AIG
      http://consumerist.com/2009/05/worst-company-in-america-aig-wins.html

    2. Re:Defending Champ by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      Actually, AIG won last year, owing to their spectacular performance on the economy, and Countrywide won in 2008. In both cases, though, Comcast was the runner-up.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    3. Re:Defending Champ by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      Still, they are pretty damn horrible.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Defending Champ by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised Bank of America didn't win it this year. A lot of people in the comments were complaining that BofA wasn't an option in the voting.

    5. Re:Defending Champ by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      They were, they just didn't make it to the finals. I think either Ticketmaster or Cash4Gold knocked them out. Can't be bothered to look it up though.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Defending Champ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was ticketmaster, and believe me, the comments were 90% anti-BOA, and 5% anti-Ticketmaster.. and 5% random noise.

      Someone fucked with the polling. But then again, these awards aren't really scientific in anyway, nor representative of who really should have won.

  5. Well deserved by strayant · · Score: 5, Informative

    "We'll be there between 8-12, and we'll call you the day of the appointment. If you do not answer this phone call, the appointment will be canceled." - An automated message prior to a service visit from Comcast Yea, CANCELED! So, if I'm on the phone, in the bathroom, or otherwise incapable of answering this idiotic call in a 4-hour bracket, the service is canceled. This has happened to me before, months ago, and I yelled at several people about this to no avail. Today, we actually had a service call for work... answered the phone call, and even after waiting 4 hours, they're still not here. Comcast's only success is ABSOLUTE FAILURE. Someone please take this company away.

    1. Re:Well deserved by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have to agree with this as well though mine from a different side. Sure the guys showed up on time to my apartment but did little to help me. I have HD Cable and there top tier consumer internet in an APT with probably about 20 lines coming from one box on the outside to the rooms in the complex. The line coming into my apt was old and needed replaced as it wouldn't handle the signal required which I knew since I deal with it in the military. The guy that installed my cable told me to make an apt to have the line changed. So after seeing how bad it was I call and tell them hey the initial installer said i need my line replaced please do it. They proceed to send a guy to test the line and tell me its bad, but wait he cant replace it they need to send another guy. Then they send another guy to replace the line but he can't put it somewhere off of the parking lot when there were two of them so hey lets just leave it lie here where it can be cut. Then they send another guy to fix the breaks that kept happening and he too just fixed the breaks and let it lie there. Finally after 1 initial installer and 3 different techs, I had a 4th tech come and fix the breaks once again and this time run the line where all the other lines were so that it was safe from being cut again. Honestly when I tell you the first time that I need new line run and you send three guys to do it wrong we have issues. Hence another reason I hate comcast and wish I could have something else installed into my apartment.

    2. Re:Well deserved by strayant · · Score: 1

      Oh, AND, a sales rep called me to get me to update/upgrade my home internet service. The call went something like this: "Hi, we'd like to update your service to 16 megabytes down", says the sales lady. "MegaBYTES? Are you sure? Typically this is measured in MEGABITS. That's a difference of about a factor of eight, which is rather important to my decision", I say. "Um, well, I'm not sure. It just says "MG"", she says. "MG? As in Mike Golf?", I reply. "Yep, that's what it says here", she states. "Okay, well, that doesn't really help. Can you please find out whether this is megaBYTES, which is unlikely, or megaBITS. I'm surprised that you don't know this, or the difference between the two!", I exclaim. "I'll have to talk to my boss and get back to you.", she says in a defeated tone... "Okay, please do.", I say. 2 weeks later and still no call back... I am so surprised that this company can still exist. Why are they still making money? Moreover, when in the hell is Verizon going to get FIOS to Baltimore City????

    3. Re:Well deserved by strayant · · Score: 1

      I'm considering tin cups and a string network. Anything would beat the torture this company puts its customers through.

    4. Re:Well deserved by akmofo · · Score: 0

      Either is correct grammar nazi. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cancel

    5. Re:Well deserved by FF8Jake · · Score: 1

      They are both correct actually. Google it.

    6. Re:Well deserved by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1

      Well see stupid me didn't do my homework on their internet connections before I agreed to the higher speed because when I was looking for a better deal the ladies words were well you can get 20 Meg down for $10 more a month, I thought well Ok since I do tend to get more than I need regardless of cost since I can't get the better service. But then I talked to a guy on the phone later to try to get better deals and he said I had 16Meg down which I have to say had me confused. His reasoning was well it depends it is officially 16-20Meg. Needless to say I was highly pissed off since I know you never get the full bandwith your promised but honestly dont give me the BS of well its 20 Meg down and then have someone tell me Well its actually 16 - 20.

    7. Re:Well deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pwnt, QQ over grammar moar

    8. Re:Well deserved by Silentknyght · · Score: 0, Troll

      "We'll be there between 8-12, and we'll call you the day of the appointment. If you do not answer this phone call, the appointment will be canceled." - An automated message prior to a service visit from Comcast Yea, CANCELED! So, if I'm on the phone, in the bathroom, or otherwise incapable of answering this idiotic call in a 4-hour bracket, the service is canceled. This has happened to me before, months ago, and I yelled at several people about this to no avail. Today, we actually had a service call for work... answered the phone call, and even after waiting 4 hours, they're still not here. Comcast's only success is ABSOLUTE FAILURE. Someone please take this company away.

      Brush the dust off your geek card and take off your tinfoil hat for a moment and let's have a little thought experiment.

      If you're a service tech, you're in a van driving from appointment to appointment, of which you may have a half-dozen or more in a single day. So, in addition to accounting for a variable amount of time to actually get from points A to B to C, you also have to account for the variable amount of time it will take to set up the service. When the rep arrived at my house, he had to not only figure out WTF the previous owner had done to the wires in the house, he had to reconnect a new wire at the box and run about 200 feet of temporary wire around the house and drill a new entry hole through the cinderblock. They're even coming back out to run a whole new, permanent line using a special digger to route it under my driveway, all included with the $100 hook-up fee.

      Sure, your 2 minutes of hate makes you feel good and all, but call it what you will, installation takes time and all the complexities are simply not predictable enough to give you an exact time. Or rather, not predictable enough to give you an exact time and to avoid charging you more for the time the techs are just sitting on their thumbs. Either way, you're going to pay in time or money. I pick time. You can now commence with your regularly scheduled hate session.

    9. Re:Well deserved by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      Either way, you're going to pay in time or money. I pick time.

      You didn't pick time, they picked it for you. There is currently no option to pay extra for a more specific cable installation time.

    10. Re:Well deserved by mano+the+shark · · Score: 1

      I've had a similar experience with a Comcast service appointment. When I had applied for Comcast internet I provided my work phone number presuming that most business calls would be during the day and I was not allowed to bring my cellphone to the office. After no one showed up during the scheduled time, I called up to find out that they called the listed phone number and if no one answers they cancel the appointment (not explained when I made the appointment). I then made another appointment with my cellphone number added to my account. After no one showed up again, I called Comcast to find out that they had listed the cell phone as a secondary number and only the primary number is available to the technician. I made a third appointment and made sure the cell phone was the primary number, but then later discovered that they entered the wrong area code for my cellphone number even after the service representative verified the number back to me. Fortunately for Comcast they were the only viable internet option in the area and they made their fourth scheduled appointment.

    11. Re:Well deserved by Silentknyght · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Troll" mod while parent's comment that "Comcast's only success is ABSOLUTE FAILURE" gets +5 "informative"? Well, it was expected for the audience, I suppose. Comcast has failings, but one of them is not the length of the window in which a service tech may arrive at the destination.

    12. Re:Well deserved by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      A couple of years back I had an appointment to have a Comcast DVR delivered when I got my HDTV.

      I waited, and waited, and waited. I made sure the phone wasn't in use and that I could hear the outside.

      Nothing.

      I called, they said he was on his way.

      Nothing. 6-7 hours go by, and it's still "he's running late, he's on his way" And the nerve to say "If you're not there when he eventually comes you'll have to wait another week"

      I eventually got through to a manager and out they canceled the friggin' delivery due to lack of hardware, and didn't tell me. They canceled it in the beginning of the day, but 6+ hours later the desk technicians were saying "he's on his way."

      Douche Nozels.

      Verizon hasn't been perfect, but support is a lot better.

    13. Re:Well deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign up for a commercial account. You get a separate tech support line and everything.

    14. Re:Well deserved by cgenman · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember being promised a show-up between 8 - 12 in the morning, so I took half of a day off of work. At 6 PM I got a call saying that they were busy, and would be there tomorrow. I took two full days off work for that damned install.

      Another fun day I had my service cut off due to missing a bill. It was only one bill, but it was legitimately my fault (I was out of work and dreading opening the mail). I paid the rate they quoted over the phone, plus a ridiculous re-connection fee, and they sent someone out promptly to reconnect it. Wonder of wonders, 5 days later it is cut off again. Apparently, the rate they quoted me over the phone was just the first bill that had been missed, and didn't include the bill that had been sent out before the phone call. Because I was still "late," they cut me off just days after paying the bill and re-connecting. Wonder of wonders, they charged me another ridiculous re-connection fee again.

      Needless to say, I have zero sympathy for Comcast anymore. After a few more episodes like this, we finally canceled our service in disgust. ...And they forgot to actually shut off the line. For most any other company I would have done the right thing. Comcast? Not a chance.

    15. Re:Well deserved by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. That sounds a whole lot more expensive than just "noncommercial + appointment" would be, though.

    16. Re:Well deserved by Explodicle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, WTF? It seems like someone just doesn't like what you have to say.

    17. Re:Well deserved by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder, what happens if you use comcast VOIP and it goes down?

    18. Re:Well deserved by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      but honestly dont give me the BS of well its 20 Meg down and then have someone tell me Well its actually 16 - 20.

      Unexperienced sales droid vs experienced sales droid.

      They can't be sure of the speed until it's installed - much like the old modem pools. Too many variables.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Well deserved by DWRECK18 · · Score: 1

      Understandable only to a point. All sales droids should know the facts about what they sell. I used to be in retail and sold computers, I excelled where many failed, since I didn't lie to customers I rarely if ever had a return. I knew what I was talking about so I didn't just read of random BS. Any good company will tell you to KNOW your product before you try to sell to someone. I think this just comes back to Comcast possibly offering poor training to their salespeople.

    20. Re:Well deserved by netringer · · Score: 1

      When I recently had an appointment for CableCARD adds to my newly acquired Tivo Series 3. Comcast robo-called me incessantly! I work from home on a business line and didn't need the literally 4 robo calls reminding me I had an appointment tomorrow.

      I finally called 800-Comcast and waited the 20 minutes to talk to a human.

      "Sir, those are automated calls. We didn't call you." (Doh!)
      If i get ONE MORE CALL not only will I cancel the appointment, I WILL CANCEL MY SERVICE!
      "I will note that."

      The result is my phone never rang again - not even when the tech came, where they usually call to tell you he's on the way.

      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
  6. Well Deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst Cable Company Ever!

  7. Billy Madison: by Kraftwerk · · Score: 0

    He called the shit "poop".

    1. Re:Billy Madison: by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      Dont put it out with your boots, ted

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  8. Comcast is fine by frozentier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no problem with Comcast at all, as long as your internet activities don't reach beyond e-mail and browsing a few web pages every day.

    1. Re:Comcast is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny considering I play WoW, L4D2, and download several 7+GB a week from the Usenet (not to mention my frequent Netflix streaming, my "always on" pandora radio streaming, and the nearly constant downloading from Technet....) and have *yet* to hear a peep from the folks at Comast.

      Hell, I am averaging almost 17mbps down on my 12mbps line.

      No complaints here. Perhaps you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about?

    2. Re:Comcast is fine by strayant · · Score: 1

      ... and when there's a service interruption? With Comcast's failure it's not about how much throughput you get/need... It's about how frequently things go wrong and how the company handles the situation. Troll or otherwise, I think this was still an important clarification. I cannot even tell you how frequently I have to say the words "let me talk to your manager" with this company's representatives.

    3. Re:Comcast is fine by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded you troll lacks a sense of humor.

      Either that or works for Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, or some other cable monopoly.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Comcast is fine by selven · · Score: 1

      There's no problem with rampant civil liberties abuse at all unless your activities don't reach beyond working, sleeping and mundane discussions with your family every day.

    5. Re:Comcast is fine by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Yeah, posting that AC isn't a red flag that you're a Comcast employee or anything. How does it feel to know your employers is the most hated company in America?

  9. Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yep. Comcast is the worst. They also:

    - kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits

    - sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.

    - force users to switch to Digital Cable which is incompatible with VCRs or DVRs

    - And even if said boxes were compatible, the Digital boxes don't allow the user to tape one show while watching another live.

    - Hold a Monopoly and bribe politicians to keep out competitors

    - Bought out NBC Universal, so Comcast can censor any anti-comcast dissent from NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo, Syfy, Telemundo, and so on.

    Worst.
    Company.
    Ever.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by digitalnoise615 · · Score: 1

      Yep. Comcast is the worst. They also:

      - kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits

      - sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.

      - force users to switch to Digital Cable which is incompatible with VCRs or DVRs

      - And even if said boxes were compatible, the Digital boxes don't allow the user to tape one show while watching another live.

      - Hold a Monopoly and bribe politicians to keep out competitors

      - Bought out NBC Universal, so Comcast can censor any anti-comcast dissent from NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo, Syfy, Telemundo, and so on.

      Worst. Company. Ever.

      Err, no. It's quite well publicized that the download cap is 250GB per month - larger than any other ISP in the US with a cap. I have a 16Mbps line - I average 14Mbps. No, you are not forced to switch to Digital Cable - they are changing their signal in order to put more channels in the same bandwidth - something that customers have been asking for for ages - and to stop people from stealing service. You can put something like 16 SD digital signals in the same bandwidth taken up by one Analog channel. The first two DTA's are free (some areas it's 3), each one after that is $1.99 - and this is National pricing. In my area there are 2 direct competitors to Comcast - including AT&T U-Verse (want to talk about crappy service - AT&T has NEVER been known for it's service, and they're even worse now). And finally Comcast didn't "buy out" NBC - they bought a 51% stake. Yes, that means a voting majority, but that doesn't mean they've "bought them out".

      Try getting your facts straight. I've had Comcast for almost 10 years - they've been FAR better than their predecessor in my area (Viacom). They're not perfect, but I've yet to meet a company that is - and I've had far worse experiences with others (here's looking at you, AT&T). Let's face the truth folks - if all, or even the vast majority of Comcast customer's had such horrible experience, they would be hemorrhaging subscribers - but they're not. The fact is, that most customers are happy - they're just not as loud as others.

    2. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      You do realize that TV isn't a life essential service, right? Ditch cable and get yourself an antenna. OTA is free and high-def. Combine that with the internet (legal and not-so-legal sources) and you'll find that most of your entertainment needs are met.

      They only keep raising rates because people keep writing them checks. Cut the cord.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by Boarder2 · · Score: 1

      - Warn users who use over 250GB of data a month. The limit has been in place for months.
      - Sell me 16Mb which I get completely solid speeds at all times during the day, with 3x the upload speed, at the same cost as Qwests fiber service.
      - Get the relics off the analog network, which allows them to use their bandwidth better and offer more channels, and more channels in HD.

      Beyond that, sure, maybe they're an evil company or whatever, but your facts are skewed and not representative of all experiences in all the markets Comcast exists in.

      Maybe it's just me, but I've had nothing but good things to say about Comcast in the Denver metro area. Granted, I've only had to call support twice, and both times it was pretty painful. I don't imagine Qwest is any better, though.

    4. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Uverse is the only good thing to ever come out of AT&T.

      I was originally fearful of getting Uverse, but I get much better internet service than I ever did from Time Warner, and I have no contract and can cancel penalty free anytime. Also, all of my service issues have been handled in a reasonable amount of time.

      P.S. FUCK YOU IDLE, why is my comment writing box like 200 pixels wide?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    5. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's what I did. However, getting internet also requires being a customer of the cable company. Luckily, in my case, that's Cox, not Comcast, but others aren't so lucky. My only other real ISP choice is Qwest, and they're much worse than cable internet.

    6. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I had Qwest internet back around 2004, and they were absolutely horrible. Their ISP was MSN, and the reliability was terrible. Their DNS servers were constantly going down. I complained, and they blamed it on me using Linux. I could have used a different ISP, like Speakeasy, but that would have cost a LOT more money. On top of that, you had to have a landline in order to get DSL service.

      So when I moved, I just went with Cox and never looked back. Now I have Cox internet, and a cellphone (AT&T), and that's it. No Qwest. Last I heard, Qwest was doing so badly that they were bought out by some little two-bit telecom operation out of Louisiana.

    7. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>It's quite well publicized that the download cap is 250GB per month

      Bzzzz. Prior to 2008, the cap was unknown. Instead users would just get a call: "You are in the top 5% of highest users and we are yanking service." When asked to provide a specific number, Comcast never did. - Then the FCC stepped in and said "no no no" and comcast came-up with the 250GB number, only because they were caught.

      .

      >>>No, you are not forced to switch to Digital Cable -

      I received a notice that I either switches to digital cable (i.e. one free DTV box, plus $5 per month for each additional box), or I will lose all channels above 15.

      So yeah I guess technically you're right - I'm nott "forced" to upgrade. I just have no real choice.
      .

      >>>Try getting your facts straight

      My facts are correct. It's just that I don't share your opinion. And that makes you mad. :-)
      .

      >>>if all, or even the vast majority of Comcast customer's had such horrible experience, they would be hemorrhaging subscribers
      >>>

      What part of "monopoly" did you not understand? There's noplace to "flee" to.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You've been modded funny? Hmmm. Well antenna TV does work here, but internet is either Comcast or slow dialup. Not much of a choice.

      By the way I admit bias -

      I hate monopolies. Being a pro-choice kind of guy, I don't enjoy Not having choice. There shouldn't be a monopoly.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      My other bias is that I don't understand people who bend-over and polish the knobs of Corporations or Government politicians.

      But then I recall the stories from the slavery era. Some slaves actually LOVED their masters, even though they were mistreated. ----- And of course some wives will insist they love their husbands, even after being beaten.

      I suppose loving corporate abuse is the same deal. "Yeah I got fined by Comcast, and they raised my monthly rates from $25 to $70, but I still love 'em. They are a good company."

      Thank God I'm not like that.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>each one after that is $1.99 - and this is National pricing.

      Now this is interesting. First off, how would you know it's "national" pricing? I guess you'd only know that if you worked for Comcast, because your average customer wouldn't have any clue.

      Second, you forgot that prices vary from town to town. In my home it costs $63 a month, but in Baltimore the basic Comcast is only $39.99. Likewise, the costs of the DTV boxes vary. The cost might very well be just $2 in Baltimore, but here in the sparsely-populated countryside they are asking $5.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      I received a notice that I either switches to digital cable (i.e. one free DTV box, plus $5 per month for each additional box), or I will lose all channels above 15.

      You get up to 3 free DTAs, and I believe that they are $3/mo beyond that.

      http://digitalnow.comcast.com/About_Digital_Update.aspx

      My facts are correct. It's just that I don't share your opinion. And that makes you mad. :-)

      Well, you're wrong about the DTAs.

      What part of "monopoly" did you not understand? There's noplace to "flee" to.

      Antenna? DSL? Satellite? Wireless broadband?

      In my area there are two satellite providers, Comcast, and over-the-air for TV.

      There is a WiSP, DSL (Qwest) and Comcast for Internet, plus various WWAN providers.

      Obviously this isn't as competitive as I would like it to be. But Comcast is almost certainly not your only option.

    12. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by WindowLicker916 · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded informative? The person obviously has no clue or has their head buried in the sand. The TOS states the limit is 250gb. Comcast offers a tool to track your bandwidth usage as well. Not to mention the limit has been mentioned time after time again right here on /. Can you use your VCR and DVR to change the channel on FIOS or Satellite? No and you never could. Unless your VCR or DVR had an inbuilt IR Blaster. So what's new? Comcast is getting rid of prehistoric analog service and getting with the times to offer more HD services and higher bandwidth. You can't record and watch a differant show without either analog service (which only cable offered until recently) or you rent a DVR which when it goes bad the cable company replaces...or you can pay $400 for an HD Tivo plus $13 a month for tivo subscription...and when your DVR goes bad...guess what? you get to spend $400 again. 25mb internet connect that is actually 5mb? I assume this person fails to realize they are most likely subscribed to a 6mb line and they are receiving the benefit of PowerBoost that bumps them for a short period of time. DSL does not offer this. Bribe politicians to keep competitors out? Get real. Ever heard of a State/City Franchise? Comcast and other companies including phone companies pay millions to the city or state (california is now state) to have this "monopoly" which is actually benefitial the local market. Ease of mind to invest in the very expensive network plus they provide life line services and free services to public schools and government buildings. It's a shame that "informative" people obviously have no clue and neither do the mods. BTW read your flyer more closely...there is a thing called a DTA, get 2-3 for free and each additional cost $1.99. Satelite and fios you pay for EVERY tv a minimum of $6 a month

    13. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by wondafucka · · Score: 1

      Yep. Comcast is the worst. They also:

      - kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits

      - sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.

      - force users to switch to Digital Cable which is incompatible with VCRs or DVRs

      - And even if said boxes were compatible, the Digital boxes don't allow the user to tape one show while watching another live.

      - Hold a Monopoly and bribe politicians to keep out competitors

      - Bought out NBC Universal, so Comcast can censor any anti-comcast dissent from NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo, Syfy, Telemundo, and so on.

      Worst. Company. Ever.

      Worst company ever? What about the East India Trading Company? Slavery, imperialism, despotism.

    14. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by mellon · · Score: 1

      Cox has lower limits than Comcast. Have you actually read the service agreement?

    15. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by tepples · · Score: 1

      So if the choice were Comcast or dial-up, what steps would you take to make the most of your dial-up?

    16. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      force users to switch to Digital Cable which is incompatible with VCRs or DVRs

      WTF!?

      And yes I do have Comcast Digital Cable, and a VCR.

    17. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by whosaidanythingabout · · Score: 1
      I am no Comcast fanboy, or fanboy of anything for that matter, but my experience is somewhat different.

      kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits

      I do have a 250GB/month stated limit in the TOCs of service. I have never exceeded that limit or been "kicked off" the service

      - sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.

      I do indeed get 25 Mbit at my house day-in day out as measured at speedtest.net

      - force users to switch to Digital Cable which is incompatible with VCRs or DVRs

      I have analog cable running to 3 TV sets in my house right now.

      - And even if said boxes were compatible, the Digital boxes don't allow the user to tape one show while watching another live.

      And... TV sucks anyway, why would you want to even record anything on TV today? Literally, the only reason I have cable is because my kids like to watch cartoon network. When they grow up I will likely dump cable TV altogether.

      - Hold a Monopoly and bribe politicians to keep out competitors

      I have no idea about this claim, but some sources would be nice

      I have had Comcast for years now and pity my neighbors with UVerse or other inferior products. Mind you I do not use their internet phone service but do run my Asterisk PBX through the cable modem just fine. I was a a PITA to Comcast for years until they got the internet service stable at my house but now I cannot even remember the last service outage, well it was probably when hurricane IKE blew through here last year. Is Comcast perfect? No, but I will continue sending them my money as long as they provide the right service.

    18. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits

      Undefined?

      - sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.

      My advertised-as-6-Mbit circuit is more like 8-10 and costs about the same as Qwest's advertised 7-Mbit service, which I wouldn't be able to get anyway due to loop length.

      Worst.
      Company.
      Ever.

      Really? Worse than De Beers? Worse than Chevron? Worse than the RDA Corporation? Worse than Weyland-Yutani?

    19. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by luther349 · · Score: 0

      it is public now that it is 250gb a month but they hid that for years. it wasn't until people took them to curt did they admit they had such a cap. they old line used to be the top 2% of heavy users witch made no sense being someone would always be in that 2%.

    20. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Dialup works fine for everything except watching online tv (abc.com, syfy.com, et cetera). Which is why I jumped to higher speed service.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Antenna?

      No cable channels like syfy or cnn

      >>>DSL?

      No.

      >>>Satellite?

      Good for TV, but not useful for internet.

      >>>Wireless broadband?

      In my area it costs $50 for every 200 megabytes (half a tv episode). Not practical.

      Comcast is the only real option for internet. Either that or slow 50k dialup. So Comcast has a virtual monopoly over High-speed net access.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:Almost $800 to watch TV. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Can you use your VCR and DVR to change the channel on FIOS or Satellite? No and you never could.

      Yes you can. The satellite boxes include Timers which will automatically change the channel at preset times. The timers purpose is to help VCR and DVR owners.
      . Comcast boxes also had the capability upto the most-recent firmware update when the VCR/DVR Timers were removed.
      .

      >>> The [revised] TOS states the limit is 250gb.

      Fixed that for ya. The old TOS had no limit, and a lot of customers were banned. Comcast just arbitrarily picked users and said, "You are in the top 5%. Goodbye."

      And of course there was no way to dispute the issue. Many people are still banned under the old rules, even though they only downloaded 50-150 GB and nowhere near the current cap.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  10. It's Craptastic (literally). by Pinback · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, as long as Joe Sixpack and Jeb Nascar continue to pay the monthly bill, Comcast isn't going anywhere.

    1. Re:It's Craptastic (literally). by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm neither, and I keep paying the (internet) bill.

      Why? *Because I have no choice*. Option B is a slow DSL connection from QWest (which, like the other utility monopolies, is not the bastion of customer service or reliability) because I'm not on top of a CO.

      The only saving grace is that the last time Comcast screwed up their network and no idea what they were doing, they uncapped my modem (You know ... because that should fix the 20% packet loss issue 2 hops away) ... and left it that way. So ... I pay the basic internet price and get 20Mbit service.

      (Posted anon because, well, I happen to like getting that deal and my nic is my name)

    2. Re:It's Craptastic (literally). by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      And when Joe Sixpacks all over the country move in mass to another ISP, Comcast will ask for, and receive, bailout money from the government to stay in business.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  11. You said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason I have comcast again is because unfortunately when i moved FIOS wasn't available for my Apartment Complex.

    Yep. This is a fine example of what happens when you allow monopolies to exist. They give terrible service at high prices and laugh in the face of 'Golden Poo' awards because they know most of their clients have no alternative.

    So they suck. And they rake it in.

    A fundamental paradox of capitalism is that in order for the economy to reap the benefits, every business must compete jealously, but no business can ever be allowed to win.

  12. comcast sportsnet chicago IS good and only 20% own by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    comcast sportsnet chicago IS good and only 20% owned by comcast.

    And it's on DIRECTV as well!!!!

  13. Lending their name to a new verb... by Takionbrst · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the gaming community, I've noticed a trend where people will drop offline, then reappear, explaining that they'd been "Comcast'd". Take that as you will.

    1. Re:Lending their name to a new verb... by digitalnoise615 · · Score: 0

      In the gaming community, I've noticed a trend where people will drop offline, then reappear, explaining that they'd been "Comcast'd". Take that as you will.

      And yet I find that most of the people I know who say that either: A) Don't actually have Comcast - they just think they do (wireless, dorm, whatever). B) Their PC or Network is shoddy.

      Gamers are the worse (I am one, for the record). The first reaction is to blame the ISP when something goes wrong. After working in tech support for a gaming pc manufacturer, I saw this first hand. No one wants to believe that the issue is really because they screwed something up on their system. Yet 90% of the time, that's exactly what the issue would be when I would get the call about "Yeah, I can't get online and F-in Comcast says it's not their issue... stupid F-Ks!". Then come to find out that they hadn't kept their system up to date, and as a result the latest what-have-you nailed them and killed their TCP/IP stack. Then they go "But Comcast should've stopped that!". Can't win for loosing.

      Anyhow, 10 Years at this point - and I've not had a single issue with my service. Even when all the BitTorrent crap was going down, I didn't have any problems - neither did anyone I know. All of which leads me to believe that for every "bad" story I hear, there must be far more to it than we know - and there must be far more good stories that we just don't hear about.

    2. Re:Lending their name to a new verb... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      If you suddenly have a connection problem, ruling out ISP failure is the first troubleshooting step. I too, however, have nothing to bad to say about Comcast. It killed my mother and impregnated by dog, but I didn't like my mom and my dog is happier.

    3. Re:Lending their name to a new verb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in 2004-ish, I was the only one who could host games of Starcraft over Battlenet for my friends. They had Comcast and I didn't. Battlenet was vague in its explanations, but it said something about the "latency of the game host" being too high.

    4. Re:Lending their name to a new verb... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      Where did you hear that? It's something that I came up with on my own. Obviously someone else could have come up with the same thing.

      SIdenote: any time we win in WoW arenas because the other side didn't show up, we call it a "Comcast Win".

      The funny thing is that I kept using the term after I switched to Qwest.

    5. Re:Lending their name to a new verb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sysadmins I work with have taken to calling a network connection "Comcastic" when it fails to work or exhibits strange behavior.

      "Hey, the Freenode server's down."

      "No, it's fine, the server's up, but the link's kinda Comcastic at the moment."

    6. Re:Lending their name to a new verb... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I use their "Comcastic!" term (from ads a while back) to describe the frequent connection glitches I get during those periods of my life when I'm using their service. Example:

      [Disconnect]
      [Reconnect]
      Some person: Dude where'd you go?
      Me: Sorry, this connection is Comcastic.
      Other person: Ouch, sorry man.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  14. 2010?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTH? 2010 just started. We have another 7 months for them to sink to new lows, thus setting the bar for oncoming years...

    This prize should not represent the oncoming years expected corporate behavior from past customer atrocities!

    *This message brought to you by ACME products. Not a division of Disney Co.

  15. I love the commercials.. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    .. that make fun of the change to Xfinity.

    I have Verizon Fios, and it's great. They don't block port 80. They don't bitch at me if I download a new Linux DVD ISO. I get all the channels I pay for, and their HD is pretty good (although they've ratcheted up the compression since the infamous frame-by-frame comparison to Comcast... *cough*... Xfinity).

    The on-demand and DVR functions are what I use the most, and I'm generally happy with the service.

    Then again, for $200/month, I expect to be happy.

    1. Re:I love the commercials.. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm a FIOS customer also, first with a business account and later with a consumer account.

      Business FIOS accounts do not block port 80 and give you a large (more than I needed) number of static IP addresses. The only issues I had were (a) the install guy had no idea how to set up the router for static IP addresses. He finally gave up and I did the config after a lot of research and experimentation, (b) Verizon has no idea how to handle service calls for a business account from a residence. In several places in the process you're automatically routed based on your home phone number. Since I had a residence phone, I'd get only so far, and then the next person I'd talk to was a consumer FIOS rep who couldn't help me. Finally after a lot of complaining, a service manager gave me her personal phone number to call when I had issues.

      I finally canceled the business account when we dumped DirecTV (a whole 'nother story) and we got the package deal from Verizon for phone, TV and Internet. My main issue was whether they blocked port 80. I was assured they did not.

      We made the switch and... they block port 80. I know you had a different experience, but I'm telling you port 80 to my house is definitely blocked. I switched my websites to dyndns and got everything running, but it was a hassle and I was down for a few days.

      These days, the service itself seems to be reliable, but I've been through three routers in less than a year. They work for awhile and then just give up. Hard reset doesn't help. I think the local depot in our area must have gotten a bad batch.

      I'm wondering, though -- if you're paying $200 a month, whether you have a business account. That would explain port 80 being unblocked.

      All things considered, I still wouldn't switch to Comcast. Just saying, every company has issues, even though not everyone experiences them.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:I love the commercials.. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      No, I have a residential account. I have the Extreme HD package, everything except Cinemax, 2 DVR boxes (which they rape you on) and 3 of the dumb boxes, the 5/20 internet service, and a basic budget phone line. It comes to just a shade under $200.

      Any ISP that doesn't just give you a raw, unfettered network connection is going to have issues. I ran across one with Fios internet over the weekend when I discovered that their router doesn't do IPSec passthrough properly, and it breaks my IPCop net-to-net connections.

      At least Comcast keeps their boxes on their own network away from your internet access. That's an advantage they have over Vz. They just suck everywhere else...

  16. Customer for ten years... by vjlen · · Score: 1

    ...and still count the problems I've had with them on one hand, including the massive @Home outage.

    Meanwhile, I love the 20Mbps connection that's more reliable that most of my client's DSL and T1 lines. And two years ago they rolled a truck to fix a problem caused by a repair crew working on a different issue about 45 minutes after my phone call.

    1. Re:Customer for ten years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and still count the problems I've had with them on one hand, including the massive @Home outage.

      Just how many fingers do you have on one hand?

    2. Re:Customer for ten years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had Comcast for over ten years too. No problems with the technical service, but their rates are financial rape.

      AT&T U-verse is so much better :)

    3. Re:Customer for ten years... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Oooh! OOO!!! I know!!

      You're a MILLIPEDE!

      What do I win, Alex?

  17. Comcast Here Is My List of Ideas to be better. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comcast Here Is My List of Ideas to be better.

    Lower your prices not that much a but a little bit (The box rent part is the real bad part)

    Don't mess up csn chicago with the nbc take over. But keep up with VS takeing our feed in the playoffs. Also can we get nhl extra in HD next year?

    also open CSN / bears VOD to dish, directv , wow. rcn, and u-verse.

    VS ALT HD ALL SYSTEMS

    Put CSN + back on the DTA's. Why not use INFO SD mirror of INFO HD / CSN + HD and make CLTV full time?

    WOW can have CSN, CSN + and CSN + 2 on analog so why not on a DTA on comcast?

    Good job with letting others have CLTV

    add CLTV HD or at least put in on INFO HD / CSN + HD

    NEXT TIME CSN + 2 HD and not just make it sd only

    Put speed in starter for the full Chicago area why is part in starter and part in sports pack?

    also why is fox movie in the sports pack?

    Let all other systems have the Chicago Wolves games that are cocmast only at this time.

    have a guild that does not look like crap on a HD tv.

    Mirror the HD channels to the same number as SD.

    and one last thing LAY OFF ON THE HD compression!

    1. Re:Comcast Here Is My List of Ideas to be better. by vjlen · · Score: 1

      The impending digital conversion going through the Chicagoland area will fix alot of issues. They still have too much analog clogging up the wire.

      Rumor is the Wolves may go to WPWR full-time next season!

    2. Re:Comcast Here Is My List of Ideas to be better. by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      No no no no. You've got it all wrong.

      They need to CD ALT the VRQ's to NHL the HSN.

      THEN you can WOW CSN the VD through the HD DVR.

  18. Net Neutrality by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For their fight against Net Neutrality alone they deserve the worst company in America award. Anyone that fights against a principal freedom, and takes that freedom away from the public deserves to be held in contempt. No amount of customer service friendliness can ever undo that damage, and that's what Comcast just doesn't get.

    1. Re:Net Neutrality by digitalnoise615 · · Score: 1

      For their fight against Net Neutrality alone they deserve the worst company in America award. Anyone that fights against a principal freedom, and takes that freedom away from the public deserves to be held in contempt. No amount of customer service friendliness can ever undo that damage, and that's what Comcast just doesn't get.

      Right, because the FCC should be allowed to enforce a "guideline" as a rule, when they aren't empowered by Congress to do so...

      Really, that's what Comcast's suit was about. Making the FCC understand that they cannot enforce something that hasn't gone through the rule-making process. If the FCC goes back to the table, and goes through the legitimate process, I'm sure Comcast will piss and moan and try to fight it - they have to, they have shareholders - but in the end, if it's upheld, they will obey.

    2. Re:Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?

      Goldman Sachs and AIG cost taxpayers in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Halliburton and their ilk similarly drained the treasury by profiting from a war(s) they likely had a hand in initiating. And the oil companies have a long history of ignoring human decency in an attempt to rape the third world of a valuable commodity. Hell, Newscorp put so much effort into brainwashing half the country that we ended up electing the most disastrous president in our country's history (not once, but twice, no less.)

      And Comcast is worse than any of them because they may, at some point in the future, want to slow down certain internet connections? Don't get me wrong, Comcast is a horrible company and I cannot wait until I have another broadband option, but they're minor league in comparison to the companies causing significant harm around the world.

    3. Re:Net Neutrality by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      they have to, they have shareholders

      There are plenty of public corporations who do not take the lowest road in the name of their shareholders.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  19. Comcast is xfinity by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

    With all the stupid rubes in America, this does no good. Since their rebrand to Xfinity, idiots (and you wouldn't believe the amount of them) think it's a different company.

    --
    When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
  20. ATT Uverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ATT Uverse... much better service IMO

  21. As a former employee... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are actually proud of this. We used to have meetings on how to screw the customer or limit service calls. The forced digital rollout of the lower channels is the holy grail. if they can force everyone to have to have QAM tuners, then they can force encrypted QAM and simply never do a disconnect again. This will allow them to lay off 90% of the workforce and the last 10% stay as contractors.

    Did not pay your bill? box deactivated and you no longer have cable tv. no need to roll a truck.

    and yes they ARE working on that.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:As a former employee... by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i'm not disputing how evil comcast is or isn't, but why are you talking like it's some evil conspiracy for them to stop serving non-paying customers?

      both dish and echostar will disconnect you. also any cell phone carrier, ISP, the electric or gas company. good luck getting groceries or clothes w/o paying for them.

    2. Re:As a former employee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Honestly this would be a blessing. I contacted comast two months before I was scheduled to deploy for the Air Force. They day of the scheduled termination my cable and internet quit working...

      2 months layter they were still BILLING ME because they "couldn't" stop billing me until some lazy sub-contractor got to my apartment building and physically disconnected the cables. It took 2 calls to customer support, and billing, and finally a letter to the BBB to get them to stop billing me and refund the money.

      E.S.A.D. Comcast.

    3. Re:As a former employee... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      both dish and echostar will disconnect you. also any cell phone carrier, ISP, the electric or gas company. good luck getting groceries or clothes w/o paying for them.

      Actually, in parts of the northeast, it's illegal for the gas company to disconnect non-paying customers during the winter, as they'll freeze to death.

      You can get groceries for free with food stamps or many local churches, and you can get clothes for nearly free from goodwill or salvation army.

      But yeah, I don't see the problem with disconnecting non-paying cable TV customers. The problem is when they try to squeeze and screw over the paying customers.

    4. Re:As a former employee... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not. Im talking like they want to encrypt everything to not have any labor costs.

      not to lower your bill, but to increase dramatically profit margins while eliminating the nasty evil scumbags that have their own DVR. Oh and gain back the charge per tv in the home they used to enjoy.

      Cable box on each TV with it's $5.00 a month charge.. suddenly they have the per TV fee back.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:As a former employee... by rgviza · · Score: 1

      >Did not pay your bill? box deactivated and you no longer have cable tv. no need to roll a truck.
      DirecTV has had this capability for years.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    6. Re:As a former employee... by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      Okay, but reducing labor costs is just another thing that *all* companies do. i'm sorry that your labor was one of the ones that was reduced. I've been there and it's not fun, but blaming companies for engaging in cost-reducing/profit-seeking behavior is like blaming the sun for being warm.

      The per-tv charge is probably in their municipal charters in every market they serve. personally i have echostar and they also have a per-tv charge. $5 month is cheaper than almost anything else I can think of. Some people spend that on coffee every *day*.

      Changing their tech to eliminate competing DVRs might actually be an anti-trust violation. that's the kind of thing that makes me dislike comcast.

      A lot.

    7. Re:As a former employee... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually my labor was increased. when I left for a better paying job, they had to hire 2 people to replace me. I am not joking, they wont pay for skilled labor so they hire 2 unskilled college kids.

      It's all about reducing service to the customer.. WE all know how skilled the Dish contractor installers are. that is the quality you will be getting from comcast. The last two times friends had a comcast contractor show up they screwed up the install because they cant understand the fancy new structured wiring. One caused damage tot he house by drilling new holes for wires instead of using the existing wires that were just installed when the home was built. they installed their garbage grade wires on the outside and drilled through the walls instead of connecting to the provided high grade incoming lead and doing the signal test like a competent installer would.

      It's all about max profit and to hell with QOS.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:As a former employee... by yolto · · Score: 1

      I've had a similar bad experience with Comcast contractors. They came to my house in an unmarked pickup truck, wearing baggy jeans and Roc-A-Wear shirts (unprofessional, IMHO). They they proceeded to start drilling a hole through my living room floor to run the cable without checking what their drill was going to hit. I stopped them before they drilled a hole right into my heating duct.

      When I tried to get cable at my new place, the cheapest option was $63 a month. I told them to screw off and I've lived without cable since. Honestly I don't miss it. Luckily I can borrow wireless from my neighbors (with their permission!) so I don't have to deal with Comcast at all.

    9. Re:As a former employee... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You only need 1 cable box per different program being watched at a time, a remote extender, and some extra wiring. Figure it out.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  22. OK, OK... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Comcast which rips off people and doesn't try to hide it gets this award? How about the banks that ripped people off, demanded bailouts, and continue ripping people off and bonusing themselves to this day? They're fifty times worse, but no one seems to care since they don't hinder us from watching Sunday Night Football.

    Only when the creature comforts like entertainment are affected does someone really seem to notice or care... Golden Poo Award needs to be splattered over the Consumerist's face.

    1. Re:OK, OK... by Applekid · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Golden Poo award is a vote-off between 32 nominees, akin to March Madness.

      Bank of America, Citibank, Chase, Capital One, AIG, were all part, and voted out of the winning.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:OK, OK... by inphinity · · Score: 1

      The polling was open to anybody who could be bothered to make their way over to The Consumerist, and there were many banks and other financial institutions in the early rounds.

      I encourage you to check out the bracket, complete with comments, and next time, maybe you too can participate!

    3. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you reply to a "first post" post?

    4. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess. It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans, despite what certain professional liars may have told you. Sure, the government could have done more to regulate the ridiculous financial instruments invented in the last ten years or so, but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question. Obama did carry on Bush's lame bailout policies, but he also added more oversight, despite Republicans screaming 'socialism' about the oversight but not the bailout itself. You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.

      We know who to blame. This is not this government's fault. This is Wall Street's fault, and the previous administrations, and all the Republican neo-cons who have deregulated everything they could get their hands on over the past thirty years.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I have to have some way to up my karma when I make comments that might be pointlessly modded down by the clueless liberal arts college trust fund baby WoW kids that always end up with the modpoints...
       
      ...and to show the inherent flaws in this retarded site. Check my troll comments. They're there to waste modpoints that would otherwise be wasted modding someone down making a good point. It's quasi-political, and I'm not stopping this practice anytime soon.

    6. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that if the voting were held again now, Goldman-Sachs would give Comcast a run for its money.

    7. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at me, I'm revealing the flaws in this retarded site, by wasting my time on said retarded site. You don't sound bitter at all. Didn't get enough mod points on your old, non-troll account?

      Keep up the good work.

    8. Re:OK, OK... by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      Gold is a soft metal, but I don't think it's that soft unless it's quite hot...

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    9. Re:OK, OK... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess.

      Fat cats? It'd be easier to take you seriously if you didn't use so many talking points.

      It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans

      What does that have to do with assigning blame at our political leaders for bailing them out?

      but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question

      That's cute, trying to place all the blame on Bush, but reality is much more complicated than that. Guess who the evil Republican was that repealed glass-stiegel?

      You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.

      Stop falling for political theater.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Talking points? I'm sorry, I don't do talking points. Was the phrase 'fat cats' on some kind of list you could point to as official 'talking points?'

      Assign blame to the blame-worthy and we won't have a problem. Blame the wrong people, and I'll continue to correct you. If government is at all to blame, it is Bush and the Republicans, and it's only political theater if you disagree with it. The Republicans like to pretend to populism, but financial reform is a popular issue, people support it, but the Republicans can't, for two reasons: 1.) they can't let Obama have any more wins, period. The more wins he racks up, the less electable any of them are. 2.) Republicans are in the pockets of big business, that is their constituency. They will not betray them.

      As for Glass-Steagall and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal, lets look at the voting breakdown, shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png Yeah, what were you saying again? Just as an aside, I have to say thank you, personally, for letting me mop the floor with you in debates again and again, it really makes my day. It's almost as though you enjoy being my bitch in public.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:OK, OK... by digitalnoise615 · · Score: 1

      I used to like the Consumerist, now I can't stand them. And it's a fairly simple reason - they have taken the approach that customers have an entitlement. You know what - the customer is NOT always right. Business are in business to make money - yes, they should treat their customer's fairly, and I will agree (though I haven't experienced it myself) that Comcast hasn't always done such a great job. But as I've said before, if they treated everyone horribly, even without competition, people would drop the service.

    12. Re:OK, OK... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      How did DirecTV make the brackets at all? The rest I understand, but I've seriously never had anything but prompt, outstanding service from DirecTV, especially compared to the horror stories I hear from my friends with cable.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    13. Re:OK, OK... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Sure, the government could have done more to regulate the ridiculous financial instruments invented in the last ten years or so.

      I blame Clinton. The Bank Deregulation Act of 1999 was the catalyst for the events that brought our economy down. He and the House Republicans (figured they had to be involved somehow) agreed to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act which kept those greedy $#^^%* bastards in check.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    14. Re:OK, OK... by skine · · Score: 1, Funny

      Fat cats may not be a talking point, but it is a derisive term showing bias.

      You could just as easily have said:

      The bastards on Wall Street
      The assholes on Wall Street
      The insensitive clods on Wall Street
      The elitists on Wall Street
      The old white men on Wall Street
      The Nazis on Wall Street

      These are just a few examples of words that have automatic negative connotations, meaning that using any of them paints whoever you're talking about as the bad guy.

    15. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a government job.

    16. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the Nazi one, I could see any of those alternatives as being valid labels for the Wall Street Elite

    17. Re:OK, OK... by spookymonster · · Score: 1

      I AM a Wall Street bastard, you insensitive clod! ;)

      --
      - Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
    18. Re:OK, OK... by exabrial · · Score: 1

      Parent post says it right. The answer to Wallstreet's problems is more rules and regulation. Obviously, if they broke the first set of rules, those rules weren't good enough, we just need MORE rules and regulations. These weaslsly scumbags on wallstreet with their fancy ivy league edumuacations are no match for Congress. Every time they find a way to slip through the cracks of the law, we just need the professionals in Congress to step in and make even more regulations.

    19. Re:OK, OK... by aekafan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thats funny. The democrats gave out just as much bailout money as the republicans, and are largely owned by the same agriculture, media and pharmaceutical companies. Seeing your "debating" style as shown, it must be nice to live as such a true believer and political evangelist tool. Go on believing that voting for the other set of corporate tools will work. good luck with that

    20. Re:OK, OK... by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      The main thing it's appropriate to blame the US government for is the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act in 1999. There used to be exactly the sort of regulation needed here, so your wondering about if they "could have done more" is the wrong idea--they used to do more, the question is why they stopped. That law had been protecting consumers against their banks speculating using their money for over sixty years. Its abolishment via the same sort of "things have changed!" thinking that the .com industry was foisting on the world in '99 is a large contributor to why consumers were left even caring about these financial firms going under. The consumer banking and investment speculation sides of these businesses should never have been allowed to get coupled together in the first place, such that an investment risk management failure could ripple into the need for a a consumer-oriented bailout.

    21. Re:OK, OK... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If government is at all to blame, it is Bush and the Republicans, and it's only political theater if you disagree with it.

      It's political theater because you take ONE Senate vote and draw a conclusion from it, exactly as the Democrats hope you will. If you had bothered to read the story I linked you would see that the moderate Republicans that the Democrats need are the ones calling out Monday's vote for what it was -- a political stunt designed to give the Democrats another talking point. The fact that the GOP has a good faith disagreement on the wisdom of setting up a permanent bail out fund apparently does not warrant consideration.

      Yeah, what were you saying again?

      That a Democratic President signed it into law? I should think what I was saying was plainly obvious.

      Just as an aside, I have to say thank you, personally, for letting me mop the floor with you in debates again and again, it really makes my day. It's almost as though you enjoy being my bitch in public.

      Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that both parties share some measure of the blame for our current predicament. You expose yourself as a naked partisan when you refuse to accept this.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      What first set of rules were broken? There were no rules, that's the point. There was no such thing as credit default swaps, or even derivatives, before the 1990s.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:OK, OK... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the loans that they paid off ahead of schedule, with interest?

      Yeah. Big debacle there. If you want to complain about the recovery act, go right ahead. However, it's a bit foolish to single out the single most successful portion of the bill.

      We gave loans to GM and the banks so that they could purge their toxic assets, and get back on their feet with the many legitimately-worthwhile portions of their respective businesses. So far, they've exceeded everybody's expectations, especially GM, which most of us had assumed to be moribund just a few months ago.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    24. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is a great way to run an economy. Likely, the best way. Too bad evil ass companies, that don't give shit about customers other than how much money to suck from their wallets exist, are growing in power thanks to having perverted the legal system in the US so that the "letter of the law" is written in their handwriting.

    25. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I, along with the majority of Americans, see Wall Street as the bad guys.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    26. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      You mean this? Look who introduced it and how much support it had from both parties, and explain why you blame Clinton for it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    27. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, "Wall St" is just an easy target because the industry makes money. Where is the outrage against the loan officers that made these loans and who failed at their primary responsibility of making sure people could afford these loans by verifying income and assets? Where is the outrage against the people who took out these loans with hardly a prayer of being able to repay them- you can't claim ignorance when you are making the biggest purchase of your life, you have a responsibility to understand what you are getting into and asking questions to those you are paying to assist you through the process.

      "Wall St" is a fairly small street in downtown Manhattan, and the role of those firms in this crisis was pretty far down the trough- they couldn't have resold what wasn't already created by other firms in the first place. Could they have stopped it? They sure could have, and so could have the buyer who was in over his head, the broker who essentially sold his clients a financial death warrant, the loan officer who was supposed to stop the broker from selling loans that were way too high risk, and the guy who packaged them up and sold them to the wall st banks could have said "hey the quality of these things is terrible!" And then yes, the big IB's could have also said that these were terrible and refused to buy them, and the people who bought them from the banks could also have stopped buying them. But none of this happened.

      You go ahead and get all worked up about Wall St though, its a lot easier to make a lot of noise on an internet forum about a bunch of white guys in NY, rather than to confront the people in your community, and probably some of your family and friends, that worked in the mortgage or banking industry pushing these loans, or bought houses they couldn't afford, or did cash-out refi's and bought cars, granite counter tops, and flat screen tv's with their imaginary equity, its easier that way.

    28. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      Nothing in this bill has anything to do with a bailout, why would you repeat such a lie?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    29. Re:OK, OK... by humphrm · · Score: 1

      Several banks were in the contest. The winners of each bracket were determined by open votes by their readers. If you don't like the results, vote next time.

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    30. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Democrats are merely influenced by the plutocrats. The Republicans are owned by them.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    31. Re:OK, OK... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats funny. The democrats gave out just as much bailout money as the republicans,

      [Citation Needed]

      Strange. I don't remember the Enron bail out. How did I miss that one?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    32. Re:OK, OK... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Part of the bill aims to set up an "orderly dissolution fund" that will be used to wind down failing firms. I see two problems with this:

      1) It codifies "too big to fail". If a corporation isn't "too big to fail" then why do we need a fund to wind down their operations with? Let them file Ch 11 (or 7) like everybody else has to. If they are "too big to fail" then maybe we should attack that problem at the source?
      2) It will invariably be used for other purposes, just as TARP was and continues to be.

      The final bill will doubtless draw some GOP support. In the meanwhile it's disingenuous to look at a single Senate vote while negotiations are still ongoing and assume that the GOP is simply trying to block all legislation.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:OK, OK... by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      You did read the part about the "Orderly dissolution fund" being funded by the very corporations who may someday be dissolved, correct? About how there's no government money going into it? Oh - I get it - you're against it because it's mandated self-life-insurance for the Corporate Persons.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    34. Re:OK, OK... by thelexx · · Score: 1
      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    35. Re:OK, OK... by GPierce · · Score: 1

      Regulation fails largely because we do not know when or how to regulate.

      Before everything went to hell, the mortgage industry regulated itself very nicely for one simple real-world reason - the investors did not trust the originating bankers any further than they could throw them. (This is semi-historical so don't confuse the way it was with the way it has become.)

      Bankers used to write loans out of their own (depositors) funds. They knew their customers and they knew who was good and who was no so good)

      Investors knew this and if a bank wanted to sell a bunch of loans, they wanted enough documentation to make sure that the bank wasn't going to sell them the junk and keep the good stuff for their own portfolio. When they bought a loan, they also had buy-back provisions. The originating banker had to keep a reserve fund, and if a loan was bad from the start, the originator had to buy it back - and the reserve fund meant that they had to put up enough cash to show they were able to buy it back.

      Fannie May and Freddie Mac insured loans. They charged a fee and they had their own set of rules. They didn't trust the originating bankers or the investors either. At his time, Fannie Mae and Freddia Mac were still private companies even though they were sponsored by the federal government.

      Notice the there is no government regulation anywhere here - just independent businesses who know how crooked the people they are dealing with can be.

      But regulation costs money. These guys were making their own regulations and making just enough regulations to cover their own butts. If they got skinned anyway, they added a few new rules - just enough to fix the problem.

      This is business taking care of themselves. This doesn't protect the public. So you still need some regulation, but not the kind of clusterfuck that the regulatory agencies usually create.

      Since the government isn't paying for regulation out of it's own pocket, there is no limit to the number of really stupid regulations they are likely to pass. And because they don't really know what they are doing, business is usually able to turn that stupidity to their own advantage.

      --

      When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
    36. Re:OK, OK... by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans, despite what certain professional liars may have told you.

      Banks were required by the Community Reinvestment Act to relax their standards for lending to minorities. These were bad loans that federal law required banks to make. The law was originally put in place by Jimmy Carter, and has since been revised back and forth by both Bushes and President Clinton.

      It's not the sole cause of our economy's poor state, but it's a critical factor that has brought us to where we are, now.

    37. Re:OK, OK... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      The fact that the GOP has a good faith disagreement on the wisdom of setting up a permanent bail out fund apparently does not warrant consideration.

      The problem is, the GOP has had "good faith disagreements" with exactly EVERYTHING that's been proposed in the last year and a half. Once they actually start trying to work with the other side, they might be taken seriously. In the interim, their rhetoric shows they have nothing of value to say.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    38. Re:OK, OK... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean the voters don't have their sense of priorities completely screwed up.

    39. Re:OK, OK... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you mean the debt GM paid off with TARP funds? They paid the government back with it's own money.

    40. Re:OK, OK... by Digicaf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I call bullshit.

      Yes, GM did pay back 6.7 billion. Then again, they received about 52 billion. So yeah, go ahead and give them a cheer for paying some back, but they're definitely not the hero's that a lot of people are making them out to be.

      By the way, the losses on the money the government gave GM look to exceed around 30 billion.

    41. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GM didn't really pay anything back. The treasury gave them additional money which they used to pay back the original bailout.

      GM won't succeed until they get rid of their terrible workforce.

      And they certainly won't succeed as a ward of the state sucking on Obama's teat.

    42. Re:OK, OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I agree with your sentiments, I cannot agree with this particular assertion of yours. The entire *political system* is run by the plutocrats. Even if you managed to convince the entire country to vote Democrat forevermore, the plutocrats would still be firmly in control of the nation. Obama did nothing to reduce the amount of tax dollars flowing into the private sector military machine despite his promises to do so. He also did nothing to change the trillion dollar bailout or bring wall-streeters to justice.

      Upon analysis, it seems obvious (at least to me) that there is no material difference between the parties, once you have scraped away the noisy window dressing.

    43. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans

      Wrong. Fannie and Freddy were both involved in giving horrible loans to people.

      You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans

      Right--because if we can't trust greedy human beings running evil corporations, we sure as hell need the greedy^H^H^H^H^H^H senators stepping in to regulate everything...you know, because they'll never reap financial rewards from their legislation...

      Where do people get the idea that corporations are evil but the moment you become Nancy Pelosi or Scott Brown you're suddenly infallible and would never act for your own self-interest?

      We know who to blame. This is not this government's fault. This is Wall Street's fault, and the previous administrations, and all the Republican neo-cons who have deregulated everything they could get their hands on over the past thirty years.

      You're right! It's everybody's fault but your own. Wall Street, the Republicans, the Democrats, and Bush! Every single one of them held a gun to your head and told you to get a bad loan or make bad investments. As a matter of fact, it's their fault you are too stupid to manage your finances appropriately. You invest in a business that you know nothing about? Their fault. Confused about all the strange money-words like 't-bills', 'dividends', 'money markets', 'hedge funds', etc...? It's their fault. You should totally be able to just fork over hundreds or thousands of dollars to anonymous Wall Street-type people and get millions back with no work or effort. If the money vanishes, it wasn't because of your own stupidity...of course not.

      I know several people that lost tens of thousands of dollars in the stock market. They are looking at retirement accounts that are worth less than what they put in over the years. Cry me a river.

      Guess how much I lost in the stock market. Zero.
      Guess how much Goldman Sachs stole from me. Zero.

      Quit whining and be a man. Take responsibility for your own financial decisions.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    44. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Fat cats may not be a talking point, but it is a derisive term showing bias.

      You could just as easily have said:

      The bastards on Wall Street The assholes on Wall Street The insensitive clods on Wall Street The elitists on Wall Street The old white men on Wall Street The Nazis on Wall Street

      These are just a few examples of words that have automatic negative connotations, meaning that using any of them paints whoever you're talking about as the bad guy.

      See also: 'Perp walk' as put on by the FBI, DOJ, ATF, etc...
      See also: 'Pleading guilty/not-guilty' instead of saying 'innocent'

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    45. Re:OK, OK... by ncgnu08 · · Score: 1

      *is still standing and applauding*

      --
      Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
    46. Re:OK, OK... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You did read the part about the "Orderly dissolution fund" being funded by the very corporations who may someday be dissolved, correct?

      So is the FDIC. Does anyone doubt that if the shit hit the fan they would use tax dollars to keep it running? The law already provides a way to wind down failed corporations. It's called bankruptcy.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    47. Re:OK, OK... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Why should they work with the other side? They are in the opposition. More to the point, the other side has shown little to no inclination to meet in the middle. Why would they? They have huge majorities.

      The expectation that the GOP go along with an agenda that would be opposed by most of their base shows a lack of understanding of our political system.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    48. Re:OK, OK... by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      The way the world is perceived by the consumerist an it's community is a bit odd.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    49. Re:OK, OK... by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      While you aren't wrong there is one thing that Wall Street did that made this situation worse: When they saw that the emperor had no clothes they quietly made bets against their customers. I would never recommend something that I wouldn't buy myself and that is exactly what they and the rating firms where doing. I won't even get into the fact that all this fiddling and contorting the market turned a relatively small problem into a huge invisible economy crushing one... no one ever asked them to do that.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    50. Re:OK, OK... by cntThnkofAname · · Score: 1

      Golden Poo Award needs to be splattered over the Consumerist's face.

      That would require making the award at least semi-molten, killing or badly injuring the "Consumerist's" ... tho that might be what ur going for.

    51. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. Fannie and Freddie had the lowest rates of foreclosure of any affected mortgage companies.

      The bastards running corporations are accountable to no one. Even, apparently, their own shareholders. Politicians are accountable to those who elected them.

      I never made a bad investment. But plenty of people were tricked and conned. That's part of the problem: what these banks were doing was illegal.

      Stop blaming the victims and defending the indefensible. No one has the right to lie, cheat, and rob others. Systemic problems need to be solved, not swept under the rug. We need more regulation of Wall Street, and we will get it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    52. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      Read it. It does not force anyone to do anything. It's not a critical factor. You are parroting baqck right wing talking points without understanding the act in question. It's sad, because you even link to a very informative site, as if it proves your point, when in fact, it completely disproves it.

      But, you know, I'm sure that for someone with your obvious handicaps, that is considered a good effort at an argument. Good job, sport. Yay! You're a winner!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    53. Re:OK, OK... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Why should they work with the other side? They are in the opposition.

      Uh, because that's how things get done? Opposition to whom? The American people?

      More to the point, the other side has shown little to no inclination to meet in the middle.

      Interesting point of view considering the health care bill was completely eviscerated in order to meet with some level of approval from the 'Pubs who voted directly on party lines against everything. The clear air act now has no teeth, Obama McWishywashy is now expanding offshore drilling, etc, etc,...seems the left's been working hard against what they believe to be right just to get the 'Pubs to stop saying "no" to everything. Hell, even core beliefs of their "platforms" have been offered up (such as the move to privatize the low orbit space industry) and shot down as irresponsible.

      The expectation that the GOP go along with an agenda that would be opposed by most of their base shows a lack of understanding of our political system.

      And, to suggest that the 'pubs in Congress only represent the 'pubs in their constituency shows your (and their) complete ignorance of what they're supposed to be doing in the Capital Building.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    54. Re:OK, OK... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Meh I read the page right under the one you quoted but I guess it's the same thing. Once they repealled the Glass-Steagull act it was pretty much all over. Citigroup was already in the process of becoming the biggest financial services conglomerate when Grahm and his cronies pushed this through the senate. I blame Clinton because he never should have gone along with them on this. I guess this is all 20/20 hindsight.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    55. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Politicians are accountable to those who elected them.

      HAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    56. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Stop blaming the victims and defending the indefensible. No one has the right to lie, cheat, and rob others.

      Agreed--if they did something wrong, the legal system needs to deal with them. I'm not defending theft. What I am defending is the endless stream of laws the government puts out to help idiots and hinder smart people.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    57. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      Okay, let me put it this way: there is a mechanism, known as 'elections,' that citizens CAN use to hold politicians accountable. If we don't, well, it's out fault. With corporations, there is no real way to hold them accountable.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    58. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      Meh, that's not the purpose of the laws. This ain't no Harrison Bergeron, despite what many nerds believe. But this is a systemic problem, I agree: too many, too confusing laws, not enforced. We need to simplify our legal system so that the common man has access to justice, and so that money will not give anyone an advantage in the system. Then we need to enforce the laws, especially against white collar criminals who cause billions of dollars worth of damage to society.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    59. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Okay, let me put it this way: there is a mechanism, known as 'elections,' that citizens CAN use to hold politicians accountable. If we don't, well, it's out fault. With corporations, there is no real way to hold them accountable.

      There is a mechanism, know as 'your wallet', that you CAN use to hold companies accountable. If we don't buy from them, they go out of business. With politicians, we can vote them out, but the damage is already done. I thought Bush was a good pick almost 10 years ago. After he was elected, it became rapidly apparent that he was not. But the damage is already done. Nothing us poor serfs can do about it.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    60. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Meh, that's not the purpose of the laws. This ain't no Harrison Bergeron, despite what many nerds believe. But this is a systemic problem, I agree: too many, too confusing laws, not enforced. We need to simplify our legal system so that the common man has access to justice, and so that money will not give anyone an advantage in the system. Then we need to enforce the laws, especially against white collar criminals who cause billions of dollars worth of damage to society.

      You've got no argument from me.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    61. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      It is much easier to control government than a corporation. Still, you have a point. It's hard to control the damage when we mistakenly elect an incompetent.

      However, we could have done what the Republicans attempted and impeached him, but apparently, too few Democrats have the balls to try something like that.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    62. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      I think that every ten years or so, the legal system should get a reset, and if we still want a law then the legislators need to pass it again. We need some kind of automatic garbage collection process. Also, let's make jury nullification official and legal. It is the whole reason we have juries instead of letting judges decide. If all twelve random citizens think a law is such bunk that it shouldn't be enforced, then it shouldn't be enforced.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    63. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      It is much easier to control government than a corporation.

      Really? When was the last time a corporation was allowed to change the law to fit its own needs? Sure, they can lobby and find a 'friendly' member of congress to do it for them, but Congress can simply change the laws whenever they want for their own benefit.

      Still, you have a point. It's hard to control the damage when we mistakenly elect an incompetent.

      Exactly--Bush launched the bailout. Huuuuge mistake and abuse of power. Then along came Hopey-Changey and Sheriff Joe verses McMoron and Caribou Barbie. I hate voting for the person I detest the least. Hopey-Changey decided to continue the bailout. But let's face it--McCain would have too.

      Obama says they are big evil corporations--then he bails out the ones that are failing. What?

      However, we could have done what the Republicans attempted and impeached him, but apparently, too few Democrats have the balls to try something like that.

      Both parties suck, and I'm willing to bet that November doesn't make us a freer citizens. We'll still have to chose between Socialism and Socialism-Light.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    64. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      Here is where you and I differ: I support socialism. I'm a proud socialist. What I want to see is everyone guaranteed to get the bare minimum for living: food, clean water, 400 square feet of shelter, and medicine, and we should all bear the cos of providing it, because we all benefit by not having desperate, starving humans around. I'm not a social Darwinist, and frankly, you are either a socialist or a social Darwinist who thinks death is the preferable outcome for those who find no place in the system.

      Social Darwinism is a theory supported by the owning class because it lets them offer 'do what I say, or starve to death' to workers who have no real choice. But what I don't want to see is what we have now: socialism for the very rich only.

      If the government provides the bare minimum, and runs any natural monopolies, but the free market does everything else, I would be a very happy socialist.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    65. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Also, let's make jury nullification official and legal. It is the whole reason we have juries instead of letting judges decide. If all twelve random citizens think a law is such bunk that it shouldn't be enforced, then it shouldn't be enforced.

      Yeah--but look at 11 random people around you. Do you honestly think there are enough non-sheep among them to stand up against tyranny?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    66. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Here is where you and I differ: I support socialism.

      Hence you are a foe... ;)

      What I want to see is everyone guaranteed to get the bare minimum for living: food, clean water, 400 square feet of shelter, and medicine, and we should all bear the cos of providing it.

      And there's the problem. What are you going to do if I quit my job and say "I'm going to sit on my ass and drink beer. Where's my fucking healthcare, shelter, and food?"?

      No really? What do you do with freeloading wastes of space? In your system, I am forced to work to feed them. (And what do you call someone who is forced to work for someone else? Slave.)

      I know where they go in a capitalist system. They either start working, they die, or someone takes compassion on them and helps them out. But compassion has limits too. If someone continues to sit on their ass and drink beer and absolutely doesn't want to help themselves, your compassion will run out.

      because we all benefit by not having desperate, starving humans around.

      Really? How do I benefit by paying for housing for my beer-swilling neighbor who sits in his bathrobe all day on his front porch smoking pot? I'm out $x where $x is a small amount of money coming from me to him--but multiply that times all the wastes-of-space around the country...

      I would be better off if he were not taking up valuable housing space, sucking up valuable medical resources, and siphoning value away from all the other hard working citizens.

      I'm not a social Darwinist, and frankly, you are either a socialist or a social Darwinist who thinks death is the preferable outcome for those who find no place in the system.

      You can't *not* find a place in the system.
      This last year, I fed my family of four for three months off a small garden plot. I spend $20 for seeds, and the rest was the labor of my wife and I. So don't tell me the lazy wastes of space can't feed themselves.

      Social Darwinism is a theory supported by the owning class because it lets them offer 'do what I say, or starve to death' to workers who have no real choice

      Really? No one can tell me to starve to death. If I quit my job tomorrow, I won't have high speed internet, cable TV, a flashy cell phone, or a POS car--but I will have food. There's a difference between 'wants' and 'needs'.

      But what I don't want to see is what we have now: socialism for the very rich only.

      You will never stop that. You will *never* find a society or structure that says 'everyone is equal'. For one, people are not equal. While I may be an awesome network admin, I know nothing about cardiology. If I need a cardiologist, he can ask what he wants for his labor. When he needs a network setup, I can ask what I want.

      People have a built-in desire to better themselves and make better lives for their families. You will always have ego and a fight to be 'on top'. Any government you appoint to 'oversee' this wonderous new society you propose will by definition be 'better' than the common surfs. They will start thinking that they need certain amenities so they can more easily 'help' the people. (Think about Nancy Pelosi needing her own aircraft to get to California because she can't be bothered to travel publically.).

      If the government provides the bare minimum, and runs any natural monopolies, but the free market does everything else, I would be a very happy socialist.

      There's the problem. The government only does one thing well. It's not running an efficient or intelligent business. A government's job is to protect us from other governments or other people trying to rule us. That's why the government is in charge of the military. That's why the government is in charge of defending our freedoms as outlined in the Constitution.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    67. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      There just needs to be one in that twelve in order for jury nullification to work. But you bring up an interesting point: the majority of people are sheep. That's actually a good thing for the species. We need innovators and leaders, sure. But if everyone was an innovator or a leader, nothing would get done. We need a solid core of people who basically just want to do what their fathers did. And those sheep need their leaders to show them what to do when the old ways aren't the best anymore. We basically have a mix of types of people, the proportions optimized by evolution to give our species as a whole the best chance for survival. We don't really need that many leaders or innovators. Leaders and innovators aren't 'better' than the sheep, we all need each other.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    68. Re:OK, OK... by spun · · Score: 1

      If you quite your job and just take the basics, that's fine. Ever hear of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? If people's basic needs are met, other drives can kick in, like the drive for social acceptance, respect and love, and if those needs are met, people will generally self-sctualize, or work on becoming the people they want to be. If society is fair, and working gets you social acceptance, respect, and greater freedom to be the person you want to be, most people will work at something useful even if they don't have to.

      Not everyone has access to land, you know. But I agree: if someone won't work, they shouldn't get their wants met. Just their needs.

      I don't want a society where everyone is equal. That is not fair, people are not equal in practical terms. We're all different. I want a society where the hierarchy is both minimal and natural, where people can not rise above others through coercion, but only through those other's freely given respect.

      Personally, I was not raised to be hierarchical. I was raised to be egalitarian. Although logically I know I am a more useful and valuable person than average, I don't feel that way. I feel that fundamentally, everyone is my equal in moral terms.

      You can look at the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain as a good example of functional, competitive, non-hierarchical society. Income is capped at ten times the lowest rate. Everything is a cooperative. Anyone who wants to is encouraged to start their own cooperative business, and they get support from cooperative banks, marketing, staffing, and business planning firms. It's socialism done right.

      In a society where everyone's basic needs are met, guaranteed, there will be far less pressure from worker's groups like unions to protect the incompetent. Nobody likes getting fired, but nobody likes working with the lazy or incompetent either. In a system where there are no guarantees, it isn't just government that suffers from inefficiencies. Private industries that have outlived their usefulness also hang on tooth and nail, using the power and wealth amassed when they were useful to corrupt the market and stay in business. With real socialism, we could adapt and change more quickly, as whole industries that become useless could be more easily dissolved and the workers retrained to more useful work.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    69. Re:OK, OK... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      If you quite your job and just take the basics, that's fine.

      And what if 40% of the population just quits so they can mooch of the money of the other 60%?

      And what if 80% of the population quits? Are you willing to be in the 20% of people sending their ENTIRE paycheck in to the government to pay for the layabouts?

      Ever hear of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? If people's basic needs are met, other drives can kick in, like the drive for social acceptance, respect and love,

      Because that's what the world needs more than anything, social acceptance, respect, and love.

      You know--instead of hard work, responsibility, and principals. If everyone's laying around doing nothing but respecting and loving each other, who is going to take care of things? While you're lying around, who will stop China or Korea or Panama from coming in and enslaving you?

      and if those needs are met, people will generally self-sctualize, or work on becoming the people they want to be.

      I could care less if you are the person you want to be--or anyone else for that matter. All I care about is if I am the person I want to be...

      If society is fair,

      Whoa--stop there. Society isn't fair. Life isn't fair. People will always be greedy. People always want to do better than everyone else. And to be honest--if I lived in your society and I just came up with the cure for AIDS, no one would get the cure. I have something lots of people want, and I wouldn't give it out without getting something in return for my 'genius'.

      and working gets you social acceptance, respect, and greater freedom to be the person you want to be, most people will work at something useful even if they don't have to.

      So if they're going to work regardless of having to or not (which is incorrect), why not have them work for their basic needs too?

      Not everyone has access to land, you know.

      I know--I'm one of 'em. But I'm working my ass off every day and saving every penny I can. I'm hoping within a year, I can go buy 10 acres and build a house for my wife and kids. That's why I work. Because I want something. But hey--if you and the other socialists on Slashdot really want to put your money where your mouth is, feel free to count yourselves and then figure out how much each one of you owes for my $120,000 house and property--then wire it to me via paypal...

      But I agree: if someone won't work, they shouldn't get their wants met. Just their needs.

      ...? So what's wrong with our existing system? If I don't work, I don't eat, I don't get a house, I don't drive a car, etc... On the other hand, if I get fired, I have friends, and family who will help if I need it. There's also a church full of people who would pay for odd jobs to be done so I can earn some money.

      I want a society where the hierarchy is both minimal and natural, where people can not rise above others through coercion, but only through those other's freely given respect.

      Societal hierarchies are not both minimal and natural. It is human nature to compete and rise above. Your 'respect' is worth absolutely dick when it comes to feeding my family or buying a house. It still means dick if I were to buy a totally unnecessary boat. What matters in this society is the ability to perform a task and get paid for that task. If I can charge $125/hr for my skills and people are willing to pay it--good. I don't care if someone else is only able to flip burgers or mop floors for minimum wage.

      Although logically I know I am a more useful and valuable person than average, I don't feel that way.

      Unless you actually produce or provide value, you aren't 'logically' more valuable than average. Average is flip

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  23. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't have gone to a more deserving company. Comcast spared no effort at inconveniencing me at every turn when I was their customer, which was only because I had no other internet options beyond dial-up.

    This is why choice is so important. Without choice, USA *IS* Soviet Russia.

    Go fuck yourselves Comcast.

  24. I beg to differ by jmickle · · Score: 1

    I would have to say Sallie Mae first for the golden poo Then comcast and then Charter Communications

    1. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have to say Sallie Mae first for the golden poo

      Just pay your student loan and stop trying to skip on it. Deadbeat.

  25. "Why are you stopping your cable service?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were lucky enough to do the reverse - switch from Comcast to Verizon FIOS. I have issues with Verizon too, but the price difference is significant. When I called Comcast to end their service they asked me for a reason. With great satisfaction I replied that they clearly were charging me too much due to their $22M video wall. I made a point of confirming that the agent documented the video wall in their record.

  26. They are not done yet by Tisha_AH · · Score: 1

    Comcast will not rest on it's laurels until it has won the Golden Poo awards for three years running! Then they will place the Golden Poo awards in the corporate lobby.

    After three Golden Poo awards they qualify for the Golden Steaming Pile award where the trophy is four feet tall and comes with logos for their letterhead and stickers for all of their trucks.

    Of course, those of us who are Comcast customers can suggest that they be given special dispensation and a special award granted before the three years running requirement.

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  27. Do they not consider DirecTV to be a company? by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

    Are they not considering DirecTV to be a company? I don't see any possible way Comcast could take this award over DirecTV. Since I switched to Comcast, they have been straight forward with their billing, I get what I pay for, and if my gear craps out on a Friday night I can get it changed out on Saturday. I'm failing to see what's so terrible about them.

    My switch was:
    Qwest DSL (1.5Mb, ~$40/month)
    DirecTV (~$70/month)
    Total: ~$110/month

    To:
    Comcast internet service (22 down, 5 up, typically measures out to 30+ down and 15+ up) (~$68/month)
    Comcast limited cable (channels 2-30, as I was hardly watching TV) (~$15/month)
    Total price: ~$83/month

    Also, DirecTV had the absolute worst customer service I've ever experienced, while Comcast's has honestly been pretty good.

    1. Re:Do they not consider DirecTV to be a company? by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Very similar to my experience, except my troubles were with Dish Network. I have never been treated so rudely. I fired them and got Comcast. I've never had a problem with Comcast. I also do Qwest DSL, which has been just fine. I figure one should NOT "bundle" (which all of them want you to do.) Having all your eggs in one basket: internet, TV, and telco, is not a good thing.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    2. Re:Do they not consider DirecTV to be a company? by PRMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      DirecTV was out in the first round in a direct head-to-head against your beloved Comcast. Frankly, I haven't had any of the problems that you are listing. And it's disingenuous to compare 30 channels against 225 and say "Comcast is cheaper". You could have easily gone online and dropped your DirecTV bill to about $40/month, making your total....$80/month. Wow! Amazing the way that works!

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Do they not consider DirecTV to be a company? by TyFoN · · Score: 1

      Damn you are getting screwed in the US.
      For $68 you can get a 50 mbit fiber connection or a 50/20 VDSL connection here in Oslo.
      Got to love having over 50 ISPs competing

    4. Re:Do they not consider DirecTV to be a company? by BrianRoach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed,

      I've had DirecTV since '96 ... why would ever need customer service?

      (I say this in jest, but the truth is, outside of getting them to send me newer versions of boxes, and when I move ... I never have to talk to them. Because it actually works)

  28. I recommend Comcast by Athens101 · · Score: 2, Funny

    They are rather secure.

  29. Comcast Chicago sucks and has been that way for a by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Comcast Chicago sucks and has been that way for a long time.

    As starting about 3-4 years ago they moved stuff for analog to digital and forced you to get cable box at $5+ /m each.

    Round 1 was analog turn off city of Chicago.

    1.5? was out side of city moving analog stuff to higher level digital with way less analog trun off.

    For align time they have locked in CLTV
    at least now it's open to any system.

    Now they need to open up the Chicago wolves as well. (all games not just a few on WPWR)

    As late as last year they had sci-fi in the high tear digital at the same time when other comcast systems had it in analog / starter.

    they also put speed in sports pack as well. Other systems have in starter / analog.

    Over priced HD and HD DVR boxes $16+ per tv? + higher base rates then Directv?

  30. So richly deserved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost no other company in the history of the world has ever so richly deserved the bestowal of the great and glorious Golden Poo Award!

    Congratulations Comcraptic! You worked very hard to achieve your utterly disgusting record.

  31. Snort! by MarkGriz · · Score: 3, Funny

    When asked for a comment, a spokesperson replied "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the cable company *snort*"

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  32. Hold the presses! by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    "I hear that Monsanto is asking for recount -- http://www.monsanto.com/foodinc/." he said satirically.

    1. Re:Hold the presses! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The thing people complain about w.r.t. Monsanto is GMO plants. Paranoids and Luddites complained that GMOs would spread pollen everywhere and thereby poison the whole world. So Monsanto included terminator genes so that the plants couldn't spread, and farmers and professional whiners screamed about that. At this point, nothing Monsanto does could please any of these people - surprise!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  33. REALLY Consumerist? REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK granted Comcast is horrible and I will never buy service from them, but The Worst Company in America? Has no one heard of Monsanto?

  34. Charter? by kenp2002 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did Charter get honorable mention at least?

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Charter? by crapoid685 · · Score: 1

      Serioulsy!!! Charter blows donkey balls. Comcast must be absolutely terrible.

    2. Re:Charter? by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

      No, but Verizon decided to congratulate Comcast on their win. Although Verizon really shouldn't be gloating since their own terrible service saw them nominated as one of the 32 worst companies and got knocked out in the first round by AT&T.

  35. comcast intimidation by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wrote to a local news host about this but don't know if they ever followed up on it.

    I'd like to preface this by saying I am a former Comcast customer, and switched to Verizon only because they offered (at the time) better performance at a lower price. I think it's good to have multiple companies competing for broadband access and don't wish either company ill.

    That said, last week a Comcast salesperson came to our door. I have a bum leg so wife answered the door, but I could hear the conversation.

    He tried to sell her on switching to Comcast from our current Verizon FIOS account. My wife said no thank you, we will be staying with our current service.

    He wanted to talk about the advantages of switching to Comcast, and she repeated again we weren't interested.

    He tried to hand the flyer to her probably five times during the conversation, and she refused to take it. During this time the salesperson got more and more upset. His voice got louder and louder and he became argumentative "Why won't you look at this? What is your problem?"

    Wife finally had enough and closed the door. At that point, the salesperson screamed at her "You aren't going to have any choice pretty soon! You might as well switch now!".

    Ok, again, I think competition is good, but... what the hell was that?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:comcast intimidation by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

      A good door slam to the face plus a "If you don't get off my property, I'm calling the cops," if he tries to block the door closing would have worked.

    2. Re:comcast intimidation by Kpau · · Score: 1

      He was someone who is going to be beaten if he doesn't make enough "sales", kind of like how they beat the servants if they don't keep your iced tea topped off.

  36. only 1/2 the answer.... by tacokill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    spun, you post on this subject a lot. I am certain, if we ever met in person, we would have a lot to talk about.

    However, your post on this subject is only 1/2 of the story. It is a fact that the Community Reinvestment Act played a part in the loan debacle. Fraud also played a part but I don't hear you complaining about the "liars" who lied on their loan docs.

    To explain "the great recession" without mentioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac role is disingenuous at best. And just so we are clear -- FNM and FMC are 100% government creations. Go read up on the history of those entities and then ask yourself: "does their very existence change the game?". Yes. Yes it does. I am not saying that is a good/bad thing. I am only saying that their very existence - by default - changed how the mortgage market works. I contend it changed the market for the worse because it gave people an abnormally low cost of capital.


    I am hear to keep you honest, spun. You have good ideas and good replies.....but you need to be honest about both sides of the equation. It's not just "greedy, fat cat, republican bankers and politicians" that caused this mess. Plenty of misguided ideology is also responsible.

    1. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please explain how the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans. Go ahead, I'll wait. See, the thing the right wing liars forget, is that all this information is out there and easily available on the Internet, so the lies are incredibly easy to refute.

      The CRA does not give the government powers to force banks to make bad loans, sorry to burst your bubble.

      I am here to keep you honest, too. And I'm doing a far better job of it than you are, my friend. You won't win in that regard, because you see, I already keep myself honest, while you, evidently, do not. I do not live in a right wing echo chamber where bald faced lies are amplified and repeated until the entire cult thinks that black is white.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Your link to the "information" that is "out there and easily available on the Internet" is a pretty picture of charts and graphs, not an explanation of what the CRA is. This is misdirection, intended to get the lazy reader to accept that you have a (presumably correct and relevant) cite.

      Your general attitude exposes you as an over-biased speaker, not an analyst. As such, your statements are opinion, and guaranteed flawed to some significant degree; any relevant nuances will be swiftly ignored, and it's likely large and inconvenient facts would be completely rejected and avoided due to the weakening of your speaking stance.

      In other words, your credibility is tarnished not because of a complete lack of research; but because of biased research methodology and biased presentation.

    3. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why bother? he's a token democrat shill. if he got hit by a bus tomorrow there'd be someone else to take his place.

    4. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      See, the thing the right wing liars forget,

      I do not live in a right wing echo chamber where bald faced lies are amplified and repeated until the entire cult thinks that black is white.

      You can't help but let your own bias slip through, can you?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Informative

      Please explain how the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans.

      As a final follow-up I'll quote Wikipedia:

      The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.

      It doesn't force the banks to make bad loans; however, it does force the banks to make loans in situations where they have determined a greater risk of default (bad loans) and chosen to avoid these risks due to uncertain profitability. Essentially, this ... well, the definitions change now. "Forced to make bad loans" no, nobody says "this paper, this loan is going to default, you know it is, but you must sign it" at all; but they do say "this stack of papers, these applications, you know a significantly higher percentage of them will default, the risks are high, but you must accept them."

      Nobody signs over any loan they're 100% sure will default; but rather than refusing to supply credit they're more than 30% sure will default, they have to supply credit even though they're 70% sure it will default based on their statistical analysis of the community, the particular person's income, the particular person's credit history, and the like. Note that these numbers are qualitative and completely made up; but the relationship (one being higher than the other) is very real.

    6. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you dropped the hate speech, you would be readable.

    7. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by Kimen · · Score: 0
      Presidents, mostly Clinton, via executive orders, required Government controlled agencies (read: Fanny, Freddy, et al.) to dramatically relax lending requirements. So a private business, competing with a government controlled mortgage entity, made very bad decisions in order to compete.

      So, our wonderful government was

      • responsible for creating a mortage system that was completely perverted (Freddy, Fanny)
      • responsible for failing to execute oversight on existing rules and regulations to protect us (ex: Madoff)

      There are evil businessmen out there but they are far fewer in number than folks like "spun" would have you believe. But it is an abusive government that creates an environment were those few bad apples can florish and spoil the entire barrel. Before the government started interfering with the mortage business no banker in their right mind would have ever taking those risks. Our government should simply be protecting us against the "bad guys" and not trying to manipulate and pervert entire segments of the economy.

    8. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 1

      Show me the executive order you speak of.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 1

      Except the whole thing is voluntary, so your point is moot. If the banks don't care how the Federal Government rates them, they have no problem.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can read the act, too. I just put up that pic to show the democrats and Clinton really had no choice, the republicans made sure it was a done deal. I also linked to the act itself in other posts. It does not do what people claim it does, and it was not pushed through by democrats.

      I never try to hide my biases. I make them crystal clear.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is a fact that the Community Reinvestment Act played a part in the loan debacle.

      I'm sorry, but that's absolutely wrong.

      There was never a law that forced any bank to give a bad loan. The reason the standards for loans kept going down and more and more obviously bad loans were given is because there was an insatiable demand for those loans on the secondary mortgage market.

      The investment banks were making so much money repackaging loans that they put enormous pressure on mortgage brokers and banks to make more and more loans, and the loan officers were getting bonuses because of all the "product" being sold. Things like no income-verification loans, and totally doc-free loans, "liar" loans, etc were completely a reaction to the overheated secondary market.

      Despite what you hear from right-wing media, the community reinvestment act had absolutely nothing to do with the explosion of the number of bad loans being made. The law didn't in any way say a bank had to give loans to people who couldn't repay. All the law said was that if two people had the same credit profile and assets, you couldn't deny one borrower over the other on the basis of redlining or race.

      If every single sub-prime loan had failed (and they did not) it would have been little more than a blip on the economy. The total losses would have been in the tens of billions of dollars. However, when the credit-default swap bubble burst, the losses were over a trillion dollars.

      There is no way to honestly claim that mortgage crash had anything at all to do with the government or the Community Reinvestment Act. It is simply not so, and the people who claim that it is are just trying to divert blame for the economic meltdown onto a president who left office 7 years before the meltdown happened.

      I'm sorry I can't post this under my UID because I've already moderated in this thread. But I hear this erroneous meme repeated a lot by conservative talkers and it can easily be disproved by talking to anyone who worked in the mortgage business during the decade when the groundwork for this catastrophe was laid.

      The blame for a few billions worth of bad loans causing an economic meltdown falls squarely on banks that decided that getting rich by being banks wasn't as good as getting rich by becoming investment houses. So they invented increasingly obtuse financial instruments that took the risk which is inherent in a mortgage and multiplied it by 100 times. Then, as we are now learning, once they created these instruments that were bound to fail, they bet heavily on those instruments failing, which instead of ameliorating the risk, exploded the risk across other sectors of the investment community. The people who invented these labyrinthine instruments were paid huge bonuses, which led them to come up with even more risky plays. They got way to cute, and then it all blew up.

      P.R.

    12. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's your rebuttal? It doesn't matter because the bank can just take a low federal rating instead of partaking in, possibly, poor loaning practices? I don't know about you, but when I choose a bank or loaning agency, federal rating is one of the first metrics I look at. I would wager that larger investors than myself (such as businesses) also look at said rating. So if a bank were to just say, "Nah, screw it, we'll just take the poor federal rating," I would bet they would lose a significant portion of their business.

      So you say, the CRA gives them the option of partaking in risky loan programs (thus inflating the housing bubble) or taking a bad federal rating (thus causing the bank to lose business and reputation), but somehow that did not contribute to the financial clusterfuck that we're in today? Sorry, I was taking you seriously up until this point but now you just seem radical.

    13. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I don't hear you complaining about the "liars" who lied on their loan docs.

      That's funny, what about the mortgage "flippers" ... sorry, I meant brokers ... who were just getting outsmarted when they were paid thousands and thousands of dollars to create mortgages. Who'da thunk that the homeless bum might be lying when he says he's got a million dollar salary?

      Who do you think invented the NINJA Loan? Why, it was HCL Finance, Inc. a "finance company" (not a bank, not subject to CRA) that openly named their "finance product" after the fact that they're giving money away to people without income, job, or assets. (No wonder they imploded... and all without the government forcing them to do a thing!)

      As for the CRA, banks accounted for half the subprime loans. The other half were unregulated institutions like ditech.com (better known as "GMAC"), "investment banks" and mortgage brokers. Yes, Clinton ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy shitty loans which sucked for us since the government didn't have the balls to cut them loose, but in case you haven't noticed so was everyone else. The government didn't force Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers to do jack.

      If you absolutely must have one single point who MUST be the sole carrier of fault, the single institution that could have put the brakes on everything are the bond rating organizations, who were paid to rate this shit AAA:

      It shows that 91% of the AAA subprime RMBS securities issued in 2007, and 93% of those issued in 2006, have since been downgraded to junk status. The numbers for Option ARM mortgages are even worse. Option ARMs, which we examined at our first hearing on Washington Mutual Bank, allow borrowers to pick from several types of payments each month, including a “minimum payment” that results in a growing, rather than declining, loan balance. The chart shows that 97% of the Option ARM securities issued in 2006 and 2007 are now in junk status.

      an S&P analyst commented: “Version 6.0 [of the ratings model] could've been released months ago and resources assigned elsewhere if we didn't have to massage the sub-prime and Alt-A numbers to preserve market share.”

        At least the Senate is good for something. Man, such a shame that S&P had to delay their release so that they could make sure to keep their paying clients happy.

      Had these securities been rated as the junk they were from the start rather than the AAA rating that the pushers paid for, most of the institutional funds would have stayed the hell away. Most of the banks would have demanded higher quality mortgages, cutting off the flow of money to brokers who looked the other way when filing "ninja" loan paperwork. It would have also stabbed Goldman's "synthetic" CDOs in the back, since they were designed to fail and thus rate less than junk, if that were possible. Fannie and Freddie would still have to be bailed out from Clinton's mistakes, but that would have been the end of it.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    14. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I love how you guys manage to blame it all on Clinton, and even Carter! But for the sake of argument, suppose it is their fault. Then why didn't Reagan, Bush, and Bush 2 fix it? W. even had majorities in both houses of Congress for most of his presidency. Instead, the Republicans added fuel to the fire. Neither Democrats nor Republicans stopped the madness.

      Now, perhaps the Democrats can be excused on grounds of incompetence. After all, they're the party of blue collar workers. Finance isn't their strength, supposedly. But the Republicans-- they're supposed to be the financially responsible and savvy people. They sure don't look it, despite this recent revival of budget concerns over the new health care program and the costs of bailouts. In 2003 the neo-cons spent our wealth on their own agenda. That "War of Choice" did more damage to the budget than the bailouts and health care combined. They thought it could cost as little as $30 billion. Instead, the minimum cost of the Iraq War to the US is estimated to be $3 trillion. How could they have got it so wrong? In contrast, cost of the new health care bill and the bailouts, and stimulus spending is estimated to be $940 billion, $109 billion, and $862 billion respectively.

      And the returns that we got on all this spending? It was hoped that the Iraq War would trigger a domino effect that would spread democracy throughout the Middle East and the Arab and Islamic worlds. This has got to be stupidest pie-in-the-sky, cavalier, woolly, misty, calf-eyed dreaming engaged in by politicians in at least 2 generations. I expect that sort of thinking from innocent 1st graders, not from canny, experienced, and supposedly intelligent politicians. I expect they'd damn well better do their homework. Find out everything they can and be damn sure they get it right before committing trillions of the nation's dollars and the lives of our soldiers to such a risky and provocative course of action. And they didn't do that. To learn that the allegations over WMD had been "sexed up" and were just flat wrong was embarrassing and damaging. And to see how Bush's government was treating analysis that didn't shore up what they wanted to think was shameful, disgusting, and scary. Not only didn't they do their due diligence, they arrogantly dismissed the work and reports of those who tried. That's how they could get an estimate not off by 2 or 3 times, but 100 times too low. I call that rampant and reckless disregard of the facts. That's the sort of crap I expect from stupid dictatorships, not from democracies. Dictatorships are the sorts of governments that are suckers for the sort of impressive seeming gigantic projects that cause more damage than good, ignoring all contrary analysis, or even branding such as treason. As for the rest of the world, none of the other troublesome nations have been frightened into making changes, and Iraq itself is still in danger of tearing itself apart in a bloody civil war, splitting into Kurd, Sunny, and Shiite areas. Indeed Iran is behaving worse than ever. Seems they might be figuring that Iraq cost us so much in both money and good will that we may be unwilling or unable to spend what it would take and rally a coalition to deal with them militarily, if it comes to that. We already had Afghanistan on our plate, there was no need to start another war just to "show the flag". There's the idea that we did it for the oil. Perhaps, but if so, that also was a strategic mistake. If invested in renewable energy, that money could have done much to eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. And there's this little problem of Cli

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    15. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Federally chartered banks require US gov't permission to open new branches. If a bank wants to grow its business, it has to ass-kiss whatever political ideology is currently in power, and that means giving out loans to those who don't deserve them, like congressmen and other deadbeats.

      Corrupt bankers may have pulled the trigger, but politicians provided the guns and bullets and said "Aim over there."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Bush II did try to fix a part of the problem that led to the housing collapse, but by the time he got there the Democrats (mostly in the person of Barney Frank) had enough power to prevent any reform. This is not to excuse Bush, who did more harm than good.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 1

      Oh, see, now THAT is at least partly true, and much different than was originally claimed. But look at what really happened. Blaming the poor is ludicrous, simply laughable. Blame the real estate speculators. Blame the people who invented derivatives and credit default swaps. Blame the regulators who were asleep on the job.

      Loans to the poor were a tiny part of the problem, but as always, the right wing wants to play blame the victim.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    18. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 1

      Boo hoo, somebody doesn't like the choices on the menu. If the banks don't like it, they don't have to take the deal offered. It's voluntary.

      Sure, I'd love to be able to dictate terms in every transaction I make, but that's not realistic. And the banks obviously weighed the pros and cons and found that complying was a better deal. Saying they were forced to make those loans is just ignorant of the way business is done. It's whining after the fact, buyer's remorse by proxy. This was Wall Streets fault, not the government. Get over it, your team screwed the pooch, but lucky for you, the grownups are now here to fix things, again. You're welcome.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    19. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Get over it, your team screwed the pooch, but lucky for you, the grownups are now here to fix things, again. You're welcome.

      Hmmm, so my team screwed the pooch? The only message I even wrote regarding my team was that I was following the entire discussion up until your most recent post. At that point, you came off as biased, irrational, and uncritical. Thus, I said that I couldn't take you seriously anymore. I am not sure how you could derive, from that info. what my team is, or, for that matter whether I even have a team or not? Then again, that doesn't matter to you does it? You think in terms of us vs. them. Therefore, if someone disagrees or criticizes your post, your immediate response is to get defensive and act as if you're superior. Thus, you effectively discontinue any further analysis or dialogue regarding the topic at hand and can walk away with your ego still intact feeling smug and intelligent. Yep, that sure sounds like grown up behavior to me. If you, and folk who think like you, are the only ones that can, 'fix things,' then I suppose we really are as screwed as all the end of the world nutters think we are.

      I think the most amusing part of your response was that you failed to address my point entirely. Instead you went straight for the ad-hominem based on the assumption that I had formulated an opinion in favor of, or against, one team. What I said in my original post was that the CRA created a situation where banks had to deal with choosing between the lesser of two evils. By creating that situation, it contributed to poor lending practices becoming more widely adopted which did, indeed, contribute to the financial meltdown. Thus, the CRA actually did contribute to the financial meltdown to some extent. Whether it did as much, more, or less damage than wall street investors is not something I am discussing. However, your answer to that point was, "Tough shit, banking's a hard business so deal with it." Oh yeah, that definitely sounds like a mature, rational, grown-up position to me. Are you sure you are as grown up as you claim to be? Or are you just an insecure teenager in an adult's body that likes to talk about being grown-up when he/she can't provide any rational discussion and or relevant solutions to a complicated problem.

      See, in my book, claiming to be a grown up that can fix things doesn't show you to be mature or capable at all. If you want to show that you are grown up and can fix things, then try offering some valid solutions or fixes. For that matter, just try discussing the problem rationally without all the personal attacks. See, the funny part is, I don't know all the gooey details about the economic situation that led up to the current crisis. So when I see a discussion regarding it, I listen in to those discussing the matter so that I can learn something that I may not have known. However, as soon as one party in a discussion starts throwing around smug insults, and stops discussing what logical cause/effect relationships contributed to the topic, I stop listening to them because it becomes apparent that anything they could teach me will be inherently fused with irrationality and/or emotion. That, to me, is a grown-up way to learn about a topic and, thus, move one step closer to fixing any problems associated with that topic. Your approach of badmouthing those who respond to you is not, in any way, grown up. So congratulations, you've proven yourself to be a complete tool regarding this subject and I won't be able to take most of your posts seriously without an extreme grain of skepticism from here on out simply due to the fact that your emotional, unintelligent responses betrayed your ignorance and bias.

      For the record, I am criticizing you in my own post not to form an ad-hominem but because I want you to understand just why posting in such an irrational manner will discredit any knowledge you actually do have on the subject. It seems like you have at least done some research regarding the economic crisis so you sho

    20. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by tacokill · · Score: 1

      I never try to hide my biases. I make them crystal clear.

      On this point, we 100% agree. Your biases are there and are plainly evident. This is why I posted a response in the first place. Your biases have clouded your understanding of this subject and you are incorrect with your assertions as well as your innuendo.

    21. Re:only 1/2 the answer.... by spun · · Score: 1

      Of course, we must disagree on this. Sorry, but reality is biased in the same way I am. Republicans ARE tools of the owning class. Wall Street DID screw up our country's economy. The CRA does NOT force anyone to do anything. Those are simple facts, not open for debate.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  37. Already? by danomac · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that someone gets the award for 2010 when we aren't even halfway through the year. What happens when someone in the second half of the year bests them?

    1. Re:Already? by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      I believe it's awarded for the past year's activity. not for the calendar year in which it is awarded.

    2. Re:Already? by PPH · · Score: 1

      So its not like the Nobel Peace Prize.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  38. They should be on free tv or all systems and in HD by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    They should be on free tv or all systems and in HD.

    digital conversion better fix the no CSN + on DTA's and how about mapping HD channels to the SD numbers as well?

    And move speed to starter as well.

  39. If this were Canada's award... by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

    It'd go to Rogers. No question. Contemptuous bunch of bastards they are.

  40. Absolutely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well deserved, and hard earned!

  41. comcast can't fail at winning a looser competition by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Trust me on this. They are really frustrating to deal with. When everything works, the worst part is that they sell XMb down/1mb up at $50/mo, cxld usenet, etc..

    When it doesn't work, it takes them months to get a problem fixed. They don't listen, and make you follow scripts, even if it's the 10th time you've done it.

    I'm all for scripts btw, but at least listen to what I have to say!

    My biggest problem is that they don't have a lower tiered broadband package, which effectively eliminates the option for decent web browsing by "lower paid" citizens. Seriously, 10Mb down for $45/mo and no 5Mb or hell, 2.5 Mb option for $30?

    Dsl doesn't count... btw.
    $20 / month is $240 a year, and that is a signifigant amount of $ for some folks.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  42. Personal Data Point by psbrogna · · Score: 1

    While I've never been a consumer customer of ComCast (they avoid serving rural areas), I do have personal experience with their business class service. The two Docsis 3 modems at work provide in aggregate 100 mb/s x 20 mb/s @ ~$400/mo and the performance, up-time & customer service have been a pleasant surprise.

  43. Wall Street financial companies in general by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would have thought most Wall Street companies and financial services would win the award easy. Comcast maybe the single worst company but the combined criminals at Wall Street and financial companies would be worst than Comcast by far.

    1. Re:Wall Street financial companies in general by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "Wall Street" companies and "financial services" are not monopolies anywhere - yet. The Obama administration is working to create this problem.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  44. Just put on days when the blackhawks are not on! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Just put on days when the blackhawks are not on!

  45. this guy keeps modding himself by WindowLicker916 · · Score: 1

    anyone else notice that all of this commodore64's post are modded. Must have multiple accounts or friends bumping up all his responses. Welcome to Capitalism my friend. Charge what the market wil bare. Also the amount of channels offered varies market to market changing the price. DTV and Dish...same price no matter where you are.

    1. Re:this guy keeps modding himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well now I went ahead and bumped up a post that wasn't his, then I gave one of his posts an overrated.

    2. Re:this guy keeps modding himself by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Not me. I haven't figured out how to use moderation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  46. The WOW brochure was in the mailbox by ArmchairAstronomer · · Score: 1

    The WOW (Wide Open West) guys have been trenching in the commons area here for the last week and I just got the WOW brochure in my mailbox. More service for less money. I'm guessing I have to endure Comcast for only a few more weeks! Thank you to our city council for insisting there be cable competition here in Rochester MI.

    This award in not a joke. My experience supporting my own place and parents and in-laws, 6 total in multiple states, convinces me that Comcast is indeed the worst company in America.

  47. It's My Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one put a gun to my head and said "take on too much debt and buy a house you can't afford."

    1. Re:It's My Fault by spun · · Score: 1

      Did they lie to you and say, "Oh, don't worry about that ARM, your house will appreciate so much value by the time it kicks in, you can refinance using the profits!" because that's what they said to folks they pushed these loans on.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  48. Still better than SBC Communications, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just based on experience I still prefer Comcast to SBC. Sure they call it AT&T, since the acquisition, but its still really SBC.

  49. Translation... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    There's no problem with Comcast at all, as long as your internet activities don't reach beyond e-mail and browsing a few web pages every day.

    I like to put it other words: there is no problem with Comcast, as long as you weren't planning on doing anything useful.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  50. That's... by redshirt · · Score: 1

    Comcastic!

  51. 3G is not for operating system updates by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you want to use a MiFi or other 3G device as your primary Internet access, be advised that it isn't designed for people who download more than 5 GB per month. One can easily rack that up by watching YouTube or Netflix Watch Instantly or even applying software updates to several PCs in a household.

  52. Had a problem with Comcast... by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 2, Informative

    When the installer came to install my Comcast service even HE had to wait on hold when he had to call into the office for something -- for an hour! Needless to say, we had a bit of time to chat while he waited. Come to find out that he lived in a part of my city that had a choice of cable providers, and he himself said he would never be a Comcast subscriber if he could help it....

  53. Golden poo of infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast may get the golden poo, but they are also the only company locally that actually invests in infrastructure. Where I live, 25 miles from San Jose; the supposed heart of the Silicon Valley I have two choices for broadband. Comcast at $65/month for a download rate of 20Mb/s bursting to 35-40Mb/s and 1-2Mb/s upload or AT&T at $60/month for a download rate of 4.5Mb/s unless its raining or windy and 350kb/s upload. There are microwave solutions and I suppose I could order up my own dedicated OC3 but the fact of the matter is neither of these are good solutions based on price alone.

    Who would you choose?

  54. AT&T should be the receipient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree, you get a lot for what you pay but HAVING to pay a certain amount and not being able to select what you want is annoying at the very least. In the past, it wasn't possible to allow this kind of thing but having to choose between a few packages and you can't have top tier channels without having bottom ones is ridiculous. But, I do think the award should have been given to AT&T as their services are horrible, their customer support is less that helpful, and often times it's almost an impossibility to pay your bills over the phone. At the very least, Comcast offers for the most part, excellent quality, the best customer support I have seen (second to verizon), and it's creepy easy to pay your bills. At least you get quality and reliability when you use comcast, regardless of the cost. AT&T on the other hand is sh---t no matter what part of the company you're talking about. I miss having comcast sometimes :(

  55. Oh Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, I had Comcast when I was down in Salt Lake....but after moving to Canada, Shaw sells me the exact same service I was getting for $80 down there for $160 here in Fort McMurray...and I gladly pay for it because the Bell satellite alternative costs just as much.

    Same thing with f*ing cell service.

  56. Re:Not Required for Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that TV isn't a life essential service, right?

    Oddly, you'd think so. However, if you check with Comcast it isn't true. If your TV is out, you can get a service call that same day, usually within a couple hours. If your internet fails, couple days maybe. Net access is a much larger priority to most of us than TV, but it doesn't rate according to those cunts. My internet was down, my VoIP service was down, no 911, no nothing, I called from my cell and they said tough shit, you're out of luck.

    This sort of thing is standard fare for them. My internet is going from $40 to $60 and nothing was changed, no better service, no increase in spead .. just a price hike. Fuck Them.

  57. Re:not the worst. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hughes is limited by satellite bandwidth. It's a reality limitation and not something you can blame Hughes for, unless you expect them to pump away all the atmosphere so they can aim a laser at your house. Hughes is for places where there's no alternative, and if you didn't realise that, you weren't paying attention.

    By the way, you should fire your ESL teacher.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  58. Pardon the interruption... by rhadc · · Score: 1

    ...but going after service providers may be a bit shortsighted.

    Access providers and service providers were once one and the same. Telephony, Video, and other services were used as justification to build out the access network. Internet running over coax or twisted pair are innovations that came about after a substantial investment was made. Find a major US access provider that did not originate as a service provider. Over the 2000's, service providers that didn't control access networks came to compete the services offered by those access providers. With the migration of nearly every kind of service to IP, the same access/service providers find themselves with the burden of having their access networks pseudo-nationalized by proponents of net neutrality, while at the same time having fierce competition to their service offerings by unregulated over the top players. The same companies are required to meet regulatory requirements for providing 911, CALEA, and increasing rates from content providers, while their unregulated over-the-top competition merely faces the technical challenge of optimizing the service delivery path and funding lobbyists to support continued regulation of access.

    Although many feel strongly that internet access is a utility, and should be regulated as something people should have a right to have, we should understand that the costs to bring this access to homes is very high. Access to bandwidth 4-8 times that of a T1 at about 1/10th the cost is a bargain, and the only way the math works is through oversubscription and the sale of bundled services.

    With Internet access/service providers on the defensive on all fronts - access, telephony service, video service, and internet value-adds (email, etc) - it should be no surprise that these companies see other revenue streams, either in adjacent markets, content provider ownership, or new models (pay-per-byte).

    The bizarre irony of all of it is that darlings of the tech world, Google, Apple, and Adobe, are working very hard to lock consumers into their own channels. Google, using an ad-supported model, churns out services at a feverish pace, but only to wrap you into the services and intermediate all other service providers and their customers. Apple, enforcing strict control over their environments in an attempt to channel consumers into a high-margin Apple world. Adobe, working to be the content deliverer for "any screen" by providing the "one platform" with Flash and Air. Each works to lock users and developers into their sticky feature sets, happy that Joe User's hard feelings are directed at the service provider. They take some heat, but is it commensurate to the potential threat to consumer choice?

    Whatever the outcomes are for access/service providers, there will be a platform and privacy fight for you waiting when the dust clears.

  59. Re:not the worst. by luther349 · · Score: 0

    i know they have limits but they lie to you saying they dont. they are not upfront abought there offers.

  60. Ancient Rome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't fuck with the bread and circus (cheetos and TV) - the plebians will rise and destroy you.
    Mess around with a few billion that the great unwashed can't even visualise - home free.

  61. I disagree. by ozzmosis · · Score: 1

    I've only had comcast since October of last year, but I've had no problems with them.. and my download/upload speeds are pretty good compared to all other ISPs I've used in the past.

  62. Here's where they can pick it up by Phoghat · · Score: 1
    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  63. lame and boring by tacokill · · Score: 1

    spun, I had much hope for our discussion but it is clear you are nothing more than a radical and a shill. You don't even have the slightest grasp of "how things work" and instead of trying to learn and genuinely understand, you just mouth off a bunch of nonsense. As it stands, I don't entertain such banality so good luck to you and your "facts".

    1. Re:lame and boring by spun · · Score: 1

      Your opinion has been noted, for what that's worth. Just out of curiosity, which of my facts do you dispute?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton