Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broadband ISP Betrayal Forces Homeowner To Sell New House

Posted by Soulskill on from the let-me-transfer-you-to-our-customer-disservice-center dept.

New submitter knightsirius writes: A Washington homeowner is having to sell his new house after being refused internet service from Comcast and CenturyLink despite receiving confirmation from both that the location was able to receive broadband service. The whole process took months and involved false assurances and bureaucratic convolutions. The national broadband map database frequently cited by Comcast as proof of sufficient competition lists 10 options at his location, including a gigabit municipal fiber network, but he cannot subscribe to it due to Washington state direct sale restrictions.

4 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Easy Solution by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He specifically said no fines, that they have to provide the service as the fine.

    And if they don't?

  2. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fines don't work.
    Just revoke the companies existence if they refuse.

  3. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He specifically said no fines, that they have to provide the service as the fine.

    And if they don't?

    Service is supplied by municipal agency at their expense.

  4. Re:Easy Solution by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pass a law that if a service provider says that they offer service to an address they must do so by law. No fines, they have to install service. If that means $30,000 in new cable to be laid, then so be it. The service providers will get their service maps in order really quickly and we'd have accurate coverage numbers for the country. .The service providers will get their service maps in order really quickly and we'd have accurate coverage numbers for the country.

    This is the problem with people who typically see regulation as the solution to everything - they assume the best possible outcome for themselves. When in fact the best possible outcome for the company targeted by the regulations is what will really happen.

    If your proposal were implemented, the best possible outcome for the company is that they simply discontinue providing coverage maps for the country, and require you to call in. You will verbally be given a quote with a disclaimer that quoting a price does not constitute a guarantee that your address is within their service area. And if you need that guarantee, you will need to subscribe for a year and put down a deposit so they can send someone out there to survey the location. If it turns out they can't provide service, they'll refund your deposit. But if they can service you, you're committed to the year's subscription (thus neatly preventing you from finding if another ISP also covers you).

    How do I know? Because I just went through this trying to get Time-Warner cable internet at the commercial building I manage.