Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Pays $800,000 To U.S. For Hiding Stand-Alone Broadband
First time accepted submitter vu1986 writes "The Federal Communications Commission has settled with Comcast over charges that the cable company made it hard for consumers to find stand-alone broadband packages that don't cost an arm and leg. As part of the settlement Comcast paid the U.S. Treasury $800,000 and the FCC extended the length of time Comcast had to provide such a service."
Does Comcast have to make it any easier for customers to find the stand alone-packages? I don't see that requirement anywhere in the summary or article ..
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
I had a bitch of a time with Time Warner trying to get them to give me broadband without the TV, phone, and other crap that's pointless to me. What's the point of making it such a pain in the ass? All it does is ensure that wherever I move next it sure as hell won't be somewhere serviced by TWC.
This move is one small step toward showing that the FCC isn’t some toothless regulator beholden to the very industry it regulates.
Hardly. They should have made the terms indefinite.
Hmm. $800,000 fine. For a company that grossed 4.4 billion last year. If this was an individual making median income (47k USD), then this would be like fining them $0.09. That'll teach them!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Comcast sucks. They've been making advertisements lately where they claim people go back to them or something. They even claim that according to PCWorld they have the nation's fastest broadband.
Not hardly. Not when our local fiber provider can drop a gig to your house.
Of course the wannabe libertarians screamed about public money and a monopoly abusing its power.
Lying fuckers.
TFA says:
price no greater than $49.95 for three years.
Well shit. I have Comcast's cable internet service, without TV or anything else from them, and they're charging me around $70/mo.
And where do I find this offer?
Searching the comcast website for "Performance Starter" or "Performance Started" as in TFA is... unhelpful. ... unhelpful!
Google for "Performance Starter" or "Performance Started" is
Is it too much for me to expect to find a link or at least a useful name to google for the service in TFA, if not on Comcast's website?
I was going to criticize the article, but google news reveals that Bloomberg, PCWorld, WSJ articles don't provide useful info either. WTF reporters.
AW
I spend $35 a month for stand-alone 12mbps. It's not great, but it's hardly an "arm or a leg". Maybe they're guilty of not advertising it, but I didn't know that was a crime.
I had no problem finding an internet only package with Comcast and I was quite happy with their service.
I used Comcast for internet service for 3 years and it worked great. Consistent 15 mbit service, never hit any usage caps despite being a heavy Netflix user with no cable service (I used Comcast only for internet). Only one instance of downtime in 3 years, they had a truck there within 4 hours and re terminated the connection at the pole to get me back online (the tech said it was water damage - it had been rainy and exceptionally windy - many people lost power). I considered DSL, but the local Telco could only promise "up to" 1.5mbit of bandwidth and said that due to my CO distance it might be lower.
Now I have AT&T U-Verse (my only option) and after 2 missed install appointment (no call for either one - they just didn't show), it's been ok, but there have been 2 outages in 3 months. One lasted around 10 minutes, the other was 60 minutes but it was the middle of the night.
If I could use Comcast again, I would.
Well, here's the thing. I have the stand-alone package and it was easy to find. In fact, I just called in and said "I just want the internet and nothing else". That's what they did. $30/mo. for 36mbps or something and it works fine. However, even though I have personal gripes against comcast from the past, I don't think that this little "tax" is fair. First of all, if it's taxed to pay back towards the people, then that's fine I guess, but it's going to the treasury. As I recall they do this quite frequently with companies that won't miss $800,000. It's also likely just a scam to try and get comcast to offer those services more readily instead of trying to push packages on their website or TV ads or whatever... But hey, this is what happens when the government regulates business and I bet you they will add a new faux-tax on the bill of like 2cents per customer. lovely
I need to make a call.
I just haven't figured out who I need to call--the FCC or Comcast.
When I purchased this house new, it had existing cable hookups but had never had them activated. I called Comcast and asked to have internet service activated. No problem, except that lady I spoke to automatically added cable service in the price--$69.00 a month. When I corrected her and stated that I did not want cable she stated that it was the same price anyway, with or without cable service.
So, in effect, the stand-alone internet service was never offered. In it's place, I was offered their bundle and was forced to pay a premium to have the cable access removed if I really desired to. Obviously, since the price was the same I now have both cable and internet service when all I wanted was the broadband.
Comcast's website is deliberately opaque, and finding anything useful there is a hassle. One'd expect an ISP of all companies to understand good web practices.
With AT&T I had similar experiences. An advertised price of $20/month was nowhere to be found on the website. After calling a CSR, I was informed that this price didn't and never had existed. Searching again through the website and page after page of useless links, I at last found the advertised price; it wasn't available on my street. The service was available-- not the price.
More and more companies are being found to have behaved badly and are fined, just today Barclays is fined £290m. The company pays it and probably keeps going on other scams for which individuals earn large bonuses or commissions, nobody really suffers, the company just makes a little less profit that year.
The only way of altering behaviour is to fine the individuals who are behind the scams. Only when these crooks start loosing their houses and pensions will they stop thieving. Their primary interest is themselves, not the company. Hit them where it matters to them - then, and only then, might the regulators truly find their teeth.
If comcast doesn't want consumers to know about the alternate packages, why make them available at all? Granite State Communications (local telco here in NH) has NO standalone internet package--if you want internet, you HAVE to have their phone.
It's Comcastic!
That is the simple business model of criminal law: punish the aggressor, leave the victim hanging -- and keep a cut for yourself.
Now that I know it exists, I still can't find it.
comcast.com > Shop > Products > Internet > "Sign in to see XFINITY Internet offers just for you!"
comcast.com > Deals > All Deals > Internet > Add to existing cable service for $20 per for 6 months
Verizon recently sent out letters claiming that you cant have un-bundled DSL anymore and demanded I call and change my service to something that has a phone line. I refused and I still only have DSL and no phone line. I still get calls claiming that I have to convert from them.
This is illegal, yet the FCC is not jumping on them or Frontier for pulling pretty much the exact same stunt. I am all for forcing companies to comply, but apply it across the board evenly. And no I'm not a Comcast fanboi, I worked there, I know how evil they are. But I dont like single sided enforcement.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Government-enforced utility monopolies come from city ownership of roads. How would libertarians divvy up utilities' access to tear up city streets?
WTF ?
they should *always* "have" to provide internet-only service..
preferably one that doesn't dost more than $10 more than internet when included with other services.. and preferably without a "contract"
and $800,000 ?? that's not even a slap on the wrist.. it's a playful tickle. a company the size of comcast doesn't give a shit about penalties that don't have the words "hundred" and "billions" in them.
sounds like there cable card pricing
where each area has it's own costs / fees and you can't tell based on the website.
Some areas make you have the HD fee (or have as part of the base package)
Some areas make you pay a outlet fee on the cable card.
and so on.
Read http://www.dslreports.com/ for more
Even if Comcast does offer you reasonable broadband only service, they still try to get you another way. I just moved a few months back and decided to skip out on the TV service for now but I needed the broadband service for when I work from home. I went to their website about 2 weeks prior to my move to sign up for service. I was able to sign up and they made me prepay my first month's bill. During the process, the website said it was unable to select an installation appointment for me so I needed to call a number to setup the time.
This is where the fun begins, I call and get passed around to three different people who each tell me the scheduling software must not be working because they are not able to see ANY installation dates. They tell me it might be a problem with the system and to call back in another hour or two. No big deal I think, I have plenty of time before I move. So I call back at night and sure enough, I get the same results. I get transferred a few times and they all say they can not see any future installation dates for me. The last person tells me to call back at 6AM EST since that is the time they are supposed to load new installation availability times. I figured this is BS but whatever. Lets just say, I try calling 2-3 times each day for the next 3 days and each time get the same crappy response. Finally, one night I have lost it and the person on the phone suggests I just pick up a self installation kit. I am fine with this but since I was moving into a new construction house, I figured this would not work.
So the day I move in, I pick up the self install kit and sure enough, even after they said the line had been pulled and activated, no signal. Sigh, so I now get to call tech support to setup a visit and surprise surprise they tell me no dates are showing up for a tech to come. I am pissed at this point since I am actually already paying for service. I call back again that night in hopes of getting a better response and I finally get someone who is helpful and sheds a potential light onto my problems. He too had trouble finding a date but he was able to force one in by changing the type of service I had with them. Evidently, one of the key pieces of data used for determining when a installer or tech could come out is based on the amount of service you have. So if I only had broadband, that is worth lets say 5 points. If I had broadband and TV it might be worth 12. He said their is a min number of points required for installation and tech work and since my broadband only service was not high enough, it would appear to the people on the phone that no appointment times for available.
While the last person on the phone could have been just making up something, it is kind of odd that the other 15-20 people I had talked with over the past 2 weeks could not help. Sound like to me, this is just another method for Comcast to "force" people into buying more services than they really need.
I am sure people will just say, why don't you just get service from someone else? That is the problem with where I am. Comcast is the ONLY high speed internet provider available (no DSL or FIOS).
I even searched the site for "Performance Starter" and got nothing useful. I have not had comcast in 8 years but the web site still implies I am a current customer...
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
We should have a general "seller beware, you have to give all of the information required for the other side of the deal to make a good decision" expectation. Reality is always more complex than laws and regulations. We have gone down the path of ever-more detailed laws and regulations, but certainly have not achieved higher levels of civilization as a result. In fact, that approach encourages dishonesty at all levels, just as this shows.
Problem is, we're going to a completely converged world where Comcast (and Verizon/Vodaphone) will be one, and your
"INFINITY" package for TV, Voice and Internet will be merged with cell...
and Comast needs the bucks to do this.
They got caught doing it the wrong way, and gouging customers for just internet...
Be careful consumers - as Fiber is on it's way next, which will only make it harder for the non-tech majority to be able to sort out the
array of choices from modem to Fiber, and from 1cent to several hundreds of dollars a month in cost to average consumer.
More regulation and governance is needed in this area - both on cable companies and with cellular/data carriers.
Comcast wants to be able to claim internet customers as cable TV subscribers. Sure they would like you to buy everything they have, but at the very least they want you as a statistic. I haven’t checked pricing recently, but in the past the discount for bundling basic cable (local channels + a few others) made the bundle a few dollars less than the stand alone offering of equal throughput. In this way Comcast can count internet customers as cable TV subscribers and bolster their marketing numbers. Perhaps this is no longer true.
To comment on the capitalism side bar going on here I’ll say the following. A free market is a market in which prices are set by supply and demand; it would be awesome if we actually had that. In any case, a free market can and must be regulated. ‘Regulation’ is a multivalent term that generally means several things, two in particular: 1) rules for fair competition (i.e. policing and fraud protection); 2) manipulation of market prices by non-market forces (i.e. a managed economy). Unfortunately these two most common connotations of regulation are often conflated.
A market can still be free while subject to the former form of regulation. History seems to indicate that a market cannot be free unless subject to the former form (i.e. regulations that mandate transparency and prevent fraud and collusion). A market cannot be free if subject to the latter (i.e. attempts to manage the economy by artificially altering the value of goods and services). You might call one’ good’ regulation and the other ‘bad’ regulation. Corporations and powerful players try to manipulate the price of goods and services far more often than the government, via the bad kind regulation, because there isn’t enough of or enough enforcement of the good kind of regulation.
A simple way to say this is people will cheat if there is no referee. The more complex the market, the easier it is to hide cheating in general. The more powerful and wealthy the player, the easier it is for that player to cheat. The most common ideological position of market champions is that consumers must regulate markets, and larger market players, via their purchasing power: the invisible hand as it were. The invisible hand was a pipe dream back in Adam Smith’s day, and global markets and titanic corporations make the idea of the invisible hand a ludicrous, blindly ideological stance in our era.
The massive complexity and thick opacity of most markets makes it unreasonable to expect that the average consumer can make consistently informed purchasing decisions. There may be some miniscule percentage of exceptional consumers that have the time, skill and fortitude to navigate the labyrinth of necessary data to make truly informed purchasing decisions, FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THEY PURCHASE AND ALL OF TH PRODUCTION CHAINS CONNECTED THERETO, but their purchasing power, if such people indeed exist, would be statistically insignificant. Moreover, even if every consumer were such a person, there would be a huge amount of duplicated effort. Fruther, there would be nothing to provident power players from colluding to manipulate prices. The only real solution is to have a social entity that is focused on the wellbeing and prosperity of all citizens to advocate on behalf of all citizens as well as all market players. That entity already exists; it is called government. Regulating markets is not the only role of government, but it is a key role. Government, as poorly run as it has become, is still the only advocate of the public good of its kind and magnitude. Government is the only viable referee.
You want a nation without big or potent government? Take your pick; there are plenty in the world, and they are hellholes like Somalia and Afghanistan. The nations with the most prosperous markets and expansive civil liberty all have huge, powerful governments. That’s a fact. If you think government is the problem, you aren’t looking at th
The rich ones, or the poor ones?
Comcast was fined $800,000. In the mean time, Comcast profited to the tune of $78,463,500.00 because consumers didn't know about the cheap broadband packages. Net result? Put the $800,000 in the expenses column. 78,463,500.00-800,000=77663500, so put $77,663,500.00 in the net revenue column, add an expense line item: government fines beside the $800,000 expense, and mark it down as a one-time expense for doing business. With a bit of accounting gymnastics, you can write the $800,000.00 off as an expense and get a tax refund. Repeat likewise the legal fees. Done.
Good point. Now let's continue to refine it: In such a system, how would the city efficiently price access to the poles and the conduit, or even know how wide of a conduit to bury?
I was a Comcast customer for a couple of years, when Earthlink sent me a promotion to switch to their cable Internet service. Turns out it's still Comcast, just resold by Earthlink. The price is lower, and they didn't charge me an extra fee for not having Cable TV! Their price has never changed, unlike Comcast's prices, which keep going up. I even pay my bills to Comcast and get repairs by Comcast employees, the only difference is that my router's default domain name is earthlink.net! I've decided that going with a reseller like this is a great idea.
Fines have to be of the right order of magnitude or they do precisely nothing to change behavior.
I mean, take a gander at these financials!
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=CMCSA:US.
18.548 BILLION dollars gross profit in 2011, and that's not even their best year. So, do the math, and based on 2011 this is the amount of money that comcast makes in.... oh I see, less than 23 minutes.
Comcast sucks, but DSL is worse, so I pay $70 a month for internet and very, very, basic cable. Viva la Free Market!!!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I have the cheapest TV service they offer, I believe dropping it would knock 5 bucks off my $70 monthly bill. Yee-haw.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I think they should have to offer an unlimited data plan... data caps are so retarded. The Internet is only getting bigger, and the caps imposed are truly unfair to people.