Slashdot Mirror
Comcast's Incompetence, Lack of Broadband May Force Developer To Sell Home
BUL2294 writes Consumerist has an article about a homeowner in Kitsap County, Washington who is unable to get broadband service. Due to inaccurate broadband availability websites, Comcast's corporate incompetence, CenturyLink's refusal to add new customers in his area, and Washington state's restrictions on municipal broadband, the owner may be left with no option but to sell his house 2 months after he bought it, since he works from home as a software developer. To add insult to injury, BroadbandMaps.gov says he has 10 broadband options in his zip code, some of which are not applicable to his address, have exorbitant costs (e.g. wireless), or are for municipal providers that are prevented from doing business with him by state law. Yet, Comcast insists in filings that "the broadband marketplace is more competitive than ever." As someone who had Comcast call to cancel on the day of my closing (two days before my scheduled install) because they didn't offer service to my house after all, I can sympathize.
It's http://broadbandmap.gov/ (singular)
"The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me
I think that we should lobby to break the cable(and other incumbent monopolistic ISPs) companies.
For example, state(and lower) prohibitions on municiple broadband systems should 'go away', and every time a cable company refuses service to a customer they should be hit with a $1k(or more) fine.
Especially with the federal government declaring it a utility.
I don't read AC A human right
It isn't a free market if state laws restrict who can do business with whom. Remove those laws and the free market would push Comcast right out the door.
Maybe he shoulda talked to the people he bought the house from instead of level 1 sales drone. Hell, even looking at the house he should have seen if there was coax in place or not.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Before I bought my house, I went down to the Comcast office to confirm that I would be able to get broadband there. Multiple people told me yes, but I still wanted to speak to a manger, just to be sure. And they did assure me, over and over again. So I bought the house, moved in, and then they finally told me it wasn't available yet.
Since I was doing software consulting from home, at the time, I made it clear to them that I wasn't going to move there if I couldn't get it. I ended up going over a year before they decided to turn it on (the wiring was all there, it was a new development). It really hurt my business, at the time. I'm still bitter about it to this day. I couldn't have been any more thorough in checking before moving in. They are absolutely incompetent.
I am sure the phone company can pull a T1 out so if it is really that important to his livelihood why not bite the bullet? Dumping a home 2 months after buying would likely cost more.
Why are they still in business? Oh, because there's no competition. That's why. As a friend of mine once said "yeah it's unfair and they suck, but c'mon I still have to do work, so they get my money." If there were competition Comcast and their ilk (I'm talking about the telco ILEC like AT&T (really SBC) and Verizon) would have long gone bankrupt or bought out. But they are in control because their lobbyists are writing the laws for them and there's little we could do about it besides hearing fud from these clowns.
I was expecting this to be a homeowner fail, but:
Q: Why Didn’t you check this before you moved?
A: Oh, but I did. Having broadband of some kind was an absolute requirement for our new home. Before we even made an offer, I placed two separate phone calls; one to Comcast Business, and one to Xfinity. Both sales agents told me that service was available at the address. The Comcast Business agent even told me that a previous resident had already had service. So I believed them.
Actually, as a Developer I completely trust Comcast Business. True broadband, excellent upstream rates, and great QoS and reliability. Outages are infrequent and dealt with rapidly, their customer service is actually knowledgeable and the turnaround time to get an install is under 48 hours (I had a tech out installing at my new rental the day after I signed up for service and hadn't even had a chance to move in yet. I know many other small businesses and startups that use Comcast business and who have the same positive experience. Comcast Cable however are an evil cabal of raging assholes that love nothing more than abusing their customers. But Comcast Business and Comcast Cable are two different divisions and run independently of each other.
It seems like the end game is peer-to-peer wireless.
Let's be clear on whose responsibility is whose. No one is forcing this guy to do *anything* and it's kind of a stretch to say that Comcast is forcing him to move out of his house. He bought and wants to live in a certain house, that has not yet been clearly shown to have internet service. Comcast is incompetent, and it's his choice on what to do about it.
The issue is not that he has to move out, it's that he doesn't have many cost effective options to get fast internet at his house. But he hasn't even exhausted all his options. Has he looked into contracting to extend a line tap? Has he tried satellite? Phone? Any other options? Many people and businesses operate in far more remote places where they manage to get connectivity.
Much as I hate Comcast, have a sense of objectivity here...
Same thing happened to me. Comcast said "oh sure we service that address."
When I went for Comcast Residential they quoted me $4k to build out. So I called Comcast Business and put in a request for 100 MBit, signed a 3 year contract and everything as long as they footed the bill for the install.
They installed it to the house and then realized they only had DOCSIS 2.0 in the area and couldn't actually fulfill the terms of their contract so Comcast Business canceled on me.
Then I called Comcast Home again, they sent an installer out and I'm now paying $39.99/month for 25/3. It did kind of feel good to 'screw' Comcast just a bit. They're so large and incompetent the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
Naw it wouldnt most of the providers arent expanding their networks much even if they have the option to in a area ESPICIALLY in poor and rural areas.
I have a friend that lives 10 miles from downtown Dallas and .5 mile from the fiber trunk that runs south from Dallas and NONE of the providers will run any kind of broadband to that area because it is poorer where they all run to the rich developments in the north part of town.
... and this guy doesn't need to sell his house.
You can buy point-to-point wireless internet solutions which will give you up to 5km of range and around 50mb/s of bandwidth for $300 or so per end, so $600 total.
If that is his house, he has a bunch of trees around it which will block line of sight so he needs a tower-type antenna mount which he can buy for about $1000.
So all he needs to do is make arrangements with someone to be the other endpoint and he is in business. For less than $3000.
I'm not making this up. I managed to do this in a remote part of Washington state (where I still do not have a landline phone, the last time I checked CenturyLink wanted more than 25 grand to put in the phone service, even after I pointed out that I had put in extra copper wires they could use when I put in power to my home site) over sixteen years ago. My out-of-pocket costs were less than five grand.
Glad their marketing works on you, the infrastructure is identical between their Cable and Business divisions.
Don't recall him saying much about the infrastructure, it was more about the service - the simple fact is that the service is very different between the two tiers, which is really more important - I don't care if the network is amazingly fast, if it's fast enough that's fine. But I do care VERY VERY MUCH if it's out during the day and need a rapid, informed response on the other end of the support line to figure out why there is an outage.
Also not sure why a 'Developer' would be qualified to judge the quality of an ISP.
That's because a develop who works a lot at home is also a sysadmin. They probably have a few systems, they probably know a lot more about networking than some guy just trying to get cable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The problem in this case is not that Comcast is incompetent. It is that they are flat out lying. This is breach of oral contract. IANAL and certainly don't know the penalties in this case, but I know that legal damages are quite limited in my state -- i.e.. $500 max. Why do you think they won't write out any guarantees?
Comcast screwed my over too as I had checked in advanced, was assured it was wired for cable and only required a phone call to turn it on, etc. Of course, when I made the call took several calls to determine that it was not in fact ready or had ever wired to their network. wired. Fortunately infrastructure was in place and I go service turned on only 10 tens late, but it was not pleasant for me either.
Of course they are incompetent. But they are also lying monopolistic crooks.
The problem are rate rules. The cable company is not allowed to charge more for cable runs to distant customers. Those rate rules mean that they can't charge more to recoup their investment for cable runs that are expensive to put in.
I was about 1000 ft from the nearest cable access after I built my house and the cable company wouldn't build out down my rural road for that reason.
The solution was simply to pay an installer to have my own line run.
It was expensive -- just under $3/foot, and there's no way a cable company is going to pay $3000 to hook up one customer for $30/month internet access. It will take years just to make back that $3000.
I was lucky to get someone at the company that could find a solution for me, but I don't think a typical customer service rep is going to bother.
Seems like this would be a great case for getting that law stricken or amended. Most of those laws are justified so as to provide a level playing field for corporate ISPs, but since they're not interested in serving him the law shouldn't be enforced in this case. Maybe the EFF would be interested?
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Another problem are price controls.
Often the local franchise authority (set up by the city or state or county) sets prices for services.
If the price is set too low, then the cable company can't legally charge enough to pay for the infrastructure to reach certain customers, even if those customers are willing to pay more to get service.
Having googled around to find his address ( I was hoping to find out the antenna location for the microwave internet provider, to see who's blocking the signal ), I can tell you that he chose a house smack dab in the middle of nowhere.
The photo makes it look like a run of the mill driveway to a house, but really it's a small paved area that leads into the woods (which surround the house on all sides - I'd be surprised if line-of-sight solutions actually worked because there is no line of sight to anything but trees), exits lord knows where onto a single-vehicle-wide apparent dirt road that finally exits onto a double-lane road that is still only a secondary road.
Run own cable? Where to? There's certainly other businesses well within 2500 feet - I wonder if they have internet. Or his neighbors (as others have mentioned). But certainly any remotely densely populated area is more than 'a few blocks' away, not to mention that you'd probably have to lay it all weird (no straight line through the woods for you) if the county has any say in it.
Hopefully some of the people who contacted him can hook him up, 'cos the end-run he's been given is deplorable, regardless of the choice of location.
Remove those laws and the free market would push Comcast right out the door.
Unfortunately, infrastructure doesn't work the same way as other businesses. Those laws are an impediment, but they're definitely not the thing that when removed will create a surge of new providers.
DSL might very well be available there but for "new development", there is a trick you have to do in order to get it.
When i moved into my new house a few years ago, I was told that there is no DSL service in my area. I told them that it was BS since the CO is less then a mile from my house (i pass it going to and from work each day) and the dang pedistal was in my front yard. Over and over again..."Sir we don't serve your address/area and have no plans on doing so." Each time i respond..."You put a new pedistal in my subdivision when the road/utilities were layed....want the number off the pedistal?" Them..."No sir since we have no service there...." This went on for three damn months threw 3! different support levels.
Finally, i realized that by law, they HAVE to hook me up if i requested standard POTS phone service. I called, gave them the address, they told me they don't have service there and would have to set up a service man to survey and figure out how to get me phone service where i live. The next day the guy came out and said..."Well this is easier then i thought....you just need a line buried from the ped to the house (50ft). He was done in 10 min. I then asked if DSL was available here. He told me yea, it's just down the road, want me to turn that on too and add it to your bill, i have a new modem in my truck. 20 minutes later....i had 12Mbits DSL service to my house.
I then asked why in the world i could not get this done MONTHS ago. He said that if a address never had regular home phone service, as far as ATT was concerned, DSL was not and never would be available. There system was incapable of turning up dsl before phone service....the computer system would just plain not even allow it.
The next day...i canceled my home phone and kept the DSL
So my advice to you is that get the mandated by law to provide POTS phone line, and then see if magically you can get DSL service now. I would not be surprised if you can now get it. When I told all my neighbors (who have been trying to months like me) how to do it, BAM!, a few weeks straight of ATT trucks at all the houses, and a whole lot of very thankful neighbors.
Telephone and electricity wires cost money to run as well. We mandated that the utilities provide service to all and they used to simply spread the cost over the entire customer base. As long as you're profitable in the large it doesn't really matter if each customer turns a profit. However, if a company is not required to do so, they will, of course, focus only on profitable customers.
We chose to subsidize services that were viewed as vital, such as phone and electricity. Cable TV is not a necessity but internet access may be.
It's only expensive because you were paying for it. The cable companies employ people to run cables, which makes those employees basically a sunk cost. They have to have those people to do repairs on an ongoing basis. When they aren't doing repairs, it costs the cable nothing to have them run lines to new houses, beyond the cost of the wire, which I suspect is somewhere between a third and a sixth of what you paid. (Over the long term, this isn't true, but when it comes to short-term variation, it is.)
Moreover, it costs $200 to rent a trenching machine for a day, and probably less than that to hire someone for a day to run the thing. So basically, even by the most conservative estimate, you overpaid for your installation by about $1,600, all of which went into the pockets of middlemen. Cable companies don't pay middlemen; they pay workers. So even in the worst case scenario, where all their workers were fully booked so that they had to hire new people to handle running your cable, they'd still pay less than half what you paid.
So at your price, it would have been about an 8-year payoff. At half that price, it would be a 4-year payoff. In the telecom world, a four-year payoff is amazingly quick, from what I've read. Your cable company just couldn't be bothered. It had nothing to do with cost, or if it did have something to do with cost, it was only because they were pushing the high up-front cost onto you as a means of ensuring that you could actually afford the service. Either that or they are nearly bankrupt and couldn't afford the $3,000, in which case you probably just wasted your money. Hard to say which.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Kitsap County gets 49 inches a year, and averages 153 sunny days. So it's fair to say most of the time the weather is crappy, and from what I understand that tends to kill wireless performance.
I'm going to clear the air here.
Wireless effects signals in the 10GHz and above range, primarily. You might see .25dB per loss of mile in a torrential downpour with hurricane force winds on 5GHz, but a properly engineered link is going to have 20-30dB of fade margin built in for just this kind of thing.
We are currently providing internet to ~1600 subscribers, many schools, hospitals, and remote locations... IN ALASKA, and have been doing so for over 10 years.
Signed,
CIO of an Alaska W/ISP
I live in a fairly rural place, but still work from home for a large tech company. When I built my house, the ONLY internet available was through a local WISP. I was paying ~$160 / month for 3 Mbps service. It was completely unreliable (the WISP actually didn't employ a network technician, just occasionally contracted one out). It wasn't horrible though when it worked, and I was able to do my job, so I lived with it. After 7 years I had totaled that I had spent over $13,000 on 3 Mbps internet. I figured it was time to do something about it.
What I did was contact a local business owner in town. He happened to own a 250 foot tower next to his small business (not necessary, a tall building will probably work in most cases). In exchange for providing him free internet in his building he allowed me to purchase a business connection and run a line up 100 ft up his tower. I put up a single 120 degree 5Ghz sector. I didn't really need to go that high just for me though as I had line of sight and very few trees.
All my neighbors needed internet though and were paying outrageous rates too. Putting up the sector allowed me to connect them as well. Some of them are 8+ miles from the tower. They pay me $20/month (plus the cost of their QRT5) and pretty much pay for my new line completely now. Proper QOS rules ensures no one hogs it all but still allows any of them to utilize the line to its max if no one else is. In the last 8 months since installing it, not a single connection problem even though power went out in town for a few hours. Everything is on battery backup.
I now plan on doubling my bandwidth and moving the sector another 50 feet up the tower to reach a few more of my neighbors. Another option I have thought about is going 200 ft up the tower, and hitting the datacenter 50 miles away that I currently have a rack with 1 Gbps internet. The datacenter owns a 10 story building next store, and would allow me to put a P2P on top of it. Having even 100 Mbps connection at the house would be a dream come true at this point.
Tower side - RF Elements Sector MIMO 5-120 paired with a Mikrotik RB912UAG-5HPnD (and case)
House side - Mikrotik QRT5
I was expecting this to be a homeowner fail, but:
Q: Why Didn’t you check this before you moved? A: Oh, but I did. Having broadband of some kind was an absolute requirement for our new home. Before we even made an offer, I placed two separate phone calls; one to Comcast Business, and one to Xfinity. Both sales agents told me that service was available at the address. The Comcast Business agent even told me that a previous resident had already had service. So I believed them.
Another option would be to write availability of high speed internet into the purchase contract for the house - make it a condition of purchase. I took this approach to ensure I wouldn't find out after closing that my house could not get high speed Internet. My offer and contract basically said that I would buy the house if I could successfully have high speed internet installed in advance of the purchase at my cost. The seller accepted the contract, I paid the ISP (in this case DSL from the telephone company) to install the service, the ISP installed the service, and then we closed the house sale. My realtor didn't like it because it was an "unusual" offer, but I said it was a contract and I could put any conditions in it I wanted - the seller just had to agree (and did).
You have no concept of what it takes to put a cable in the ground.
First, all Comcast construction is done by contractors for liability reasons. This isn't negotiable for a large company, a single improper process for a contractor digging a utility in could bankrupt even a company of Comcast's size if their employee's were directly involved in the right incident.
Second, though it may only cost $200 a day to rent it's rather irrelevant because Comcast pays the going Contract rate for installations.
Third, if you think digging the cable in is the only cost you have no concept. There is the planning and engineering costs, the utility mapping, the right-of-way access, the coordination with the local city and the compliance with the local building codes, the insurance costs, the contract management costs, the inspection costs, the quality control and quality assurance. Pulling and splicing cables through the conduits, power and other interconnection costs, splicing the cables, testing and validation, and plant hookup.
Verizon's pass cost (the cost to put a cable in front of the house) was about $1500 per house in a typical suburban environment. It probably costs about another $500-$1000 to dig the cable to the house install the ONT and pull the cable to the jack.
May I suggest you not comment about such subjects in the future. Leave construction and estimating how hard something is to the people that actually know.
The same SCOTUS that ruled corporation are people
Was that in a novel or something? Because it didn't happen in real life.
They have, though, ruled that you as a person don't give up things like the first amendment's protections just because you, say, start a neighborhood landscaping business and (gasp!) incorporate it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This. Hoarding of wealth. Keeping profits at the top. Bad for the economy, bad for everyone else but the people at the top.
Well, then he simply needs to sue the company for the cost of relocating him to another home of equal value in an area where they do provide service, plus court costs, time and expenses and mental anguish.
I certainly believe this could happen. I once signed up for a long distance plan with AT&T and month later I got a bill for $600. It turns out that they did not offer that plan in my area, despite the fact that their representative sold it to me. Apparently after having determined that the plan was not available, they did not call and discuss other options with me but just defaulted me to "no plan" with charges approximately 10 times the amount of the plan that I had purchased from them. Not only would they not honor the contract which I and they had signed, but they would not even retroact the first month to that plan, and would only agree to reducing the bill by half. I told them I would only pay what the plan that I had purchased would cost and they said that would be fine and they would report the difference to the credit agencies and send the bill to collections. They claimed no responsibility for what the agent under their employ and trained by them had sold me and apparently it was entirely MY responsibility to figure out what plans AT&T offered in my area, despite the fact that finding that out would have also broken computer hacking laws.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The folks digging up our street were Comcast employees (or at least contractors working for Comcast, not some installer company). They drove Comcast trucks. They ran underground pipes that were manufactured specifically for Comcast, with their name printed every few inches all the way down the length of the tubing. Maybe you don't realize just how big a company we're talking about here.
As for liability, there's a little thing called liability insurance. Companies doing that sort of work have to have it, and if they hire a company to do the work, the company they hire has to have it. It is usually required by law. Whether Comcast pays that cost directly or indirectly is irrelevant; they're still paying the cost of that insurance. Comcast chooses to use contractors in some places because they don't have enough work to keep full-time staff occupied, and/or because it confers tax advantages to use contractors instead of employees. The liability claim is just something they tell contractors so they don't realize how badly they're getting screwed.
Think about this: You're a contracting company that specializes in pulling cables. You have two options:
Which one would you choose? Most contracting companies would choose B, knowing that they'll still be able to pay their employees the same wages, but the company as a whole will be more immune to market fluctuations.
Maybe you didn't read the original post. This was about a rural installation. In my experience, that usually means bare coax cables in the ground (no conduit, and probably not fiber), minimal utility mapping (relatively few houses with taps from the power and phone lines), minimal planning and engineering. I mean yes, you do have to do utility mapping, but it's a whole lot easier to map a rural street with a straight wire that parallels the road than it is to map a suburban street that has wires going in random directions from transformers to houses every fifty or one hundred feet.
The cable company would have to comply with the local building codes no matter what. I doubt there's a huge difference there between a rural install and an urban install. If anything, the rural install is probably more laid back, less rigorous, and has lower overall compliance cost. A building code inspector isn't likely to inspect the entire length of wire, but rather the termini, so that cost should be about the same for a 1,000-foot run as for a 50-foot run, assuming it doesn't require them to install any boosters along the way (and if it did, he/she wouldn't have gotten satisfac
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The last time Comcast tried to pull that kind of shit with me, I got the Better Business Bureau involved... and won.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They were independent contractors hired by Comcast with a Contract requirement that they badge their trucks and wear Comcast shirts. Comcast supplies the materials, there is an advantage to labeled conduit in that people digging utility test holes can easily identify the owner.
Yes Liability insurance can be purchased, and probably even cover 90% of accidents. Large companies choose to hire independents because if the independent contractor makes a mistake the small company can declare bankruptcy and clear all the liability while Comcast isn't material affected. No for profit company of Comcast's size would EVER dig in a utility with their own forces. It's economic suicide and the insurance they would need to purchase to cover them for all possible incidents would be so prohibitively expensive to basically make it impossible to build anything at all.
I ran into a utility once where the costs for any contractor that dug up and cut the utility were about $46K per minute the line was out of service. This was a cross country fiber with multiple strands. At the time, splicing a single fiber required a clean room standards and about 6 hours of time to cut, polish and splice the strand. The line was literally in the middle of no where, as is frequently the case it's more likely to run into these types of utilities in rural areas. Consider the cost of a break that took out all the strands where the fastest response time would be about 2 hours and that's just to locate the break, determine how bad it is and dispatch the repair crew. Then the repair crew has to dig up the line, make clean cuts, setup a clean room tent around the break and then splice all the fibers. Though communication cables can have some of the highest repair costs there are plenty of other utilities that a break can trigger other catastrophic damage including the loss of life. What does it cost if you cut a gas line and you end up killing an entire family, how about a whole neighborhood of families? What about the costs if you cut a high pressure oil line, kill several people in the process and poison the land and water for several thousand people?
No, Comcast uses contractors for anything that requires digging, and I have no doubt it's company policy. They more than likely use their own forces to pull the cables once the conduit is installed but they do NOT dig anything with their own forces that's not an emergency (and I have big doubts they would even do it in emergency, they retain contracts for emergency work for that just like everyone else).
My realtor didn't like it because it was an "unusual" offer, but I said it was a contract and I could put any conditions in it I wanted - the seller just had to agree (and did).
Fwiw with real estate this is tricky; not every contract rider is allowed in every jurisdiction, and some may be allowed but cause complexities. Not saying this particular one wasn't allowed in yours, but you can't generally assume that you can write anything you want into a real-estate transaction and not end up with problems.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Maybe so, but if so, they're playing a very dangerous game. The legal term that comes to mind here is "agency by estoppel." Briefly put, that term means that if a company authorizes you to act on their behalf, and if they allow you to look and act like an agent of a company, then the company can be held liable for your actions.
As long as Comcast's name is on those trucks, if they screw up, Comcast is almost guaranteed to be held liable in court, regardless of whether the workers are employees or independent contractors. That legal risk is the reason that most contracts these days contain clauses that forbid you from representing yourself as being a partner of or an agent of that company.
Admittedly, I've only seen cables being buried for cable companies in rural areas, but they were A. coax, and B. not in any sort of conduit whatsoever. That was only a few years ago, and I doubt that practice has changed much except in areas that have gone to fiber. Mind you, that practice does vary widely from place to place, so if you live in a city (or even within twenty or thirty miles of a large city), I can understand why you would not have seen it. That doesn't mean it isn't common practice in truly rural areas.
It's easier, but the distance is also longer. The cost is higher in rural areas, because fewer houses can be served by a single line or set of lines. However, it isn't as much higher as the distance implies, because you don't have to bore under a driveway or sidewalk every fifty feet (and/or dig up and re-build sidewalks and driveways). Building the infrastructure while you're putting in a neighborhood is much cheaper than building it later for the same reason. The less crap you have to work around, the less it costs to put lines in. That statement is amazingly straightforward, and I would challenge you do prove it wrong.
I'm not speculating. The person in question did the installation. There were no boosters, no multi-million-dollar fiber huts. The person paid to have someone trench and run a cable. The cable company lit the cable. End of story. Therefore, I do know that none of those things were necessary, and none of the things you're talking about are even slightly relevant in this case. Clearly the cost was not a million dollars. In fact, it was about $3,000. It is safe to sa
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, poor people can be extremely *profitable* customers, precisely because they have so few options available, they're often forced to obtain goods/services at *profoundly* higher total costs. Being poor is expensive. Someone with a SUV who makes $100k/year can buy Charmin Ultra by the pallet at Sam's Club for a fraction of what someone who lives in a poor neighborhood, doesn't own a car, and has to buy toilet paper by the single roll from 7-11 (because the nearest real grocery store is more than a mile away, and getting there by bus would probably take an hour each way when you factor in waiting times and infrequent service) ends up paying.
Ditto, for things like appliances. You & I can buy appliances somewhere like Costco & haul them home with help from a friend or two in somebody's pickup truck... and probably pay just a few hundred dollars for them. Someone living paycheck to paycheck, by contrast, might end up paying $2,400 for a $500 refrigerator because he can't afford $500 up front, but can (hopefully) scrape $25/week for 8 years (with substantial penalties & additional fees piled on top if his income falters at any point during those 8 years).
Even when you factor bad debt that never officially gets paid in full, the poor are staggeringly profitable because the seller has usually broken even on his hard wholesale costs by the third or fourth month, and everything past that point is pure gravy.