Senators Blast Comcast, Other Cable Firms For "Unfair Billing Practices" (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Six Democratic US senators [Wednesday] criticized Comcast and other TV and broadband providers for charging erroneous fees, such as cable modem rental fees billed to customers who bought their own modems. The senators have written a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler asking the commission to 'stop unfair billing practices.'.....Last year, more than 30 percent of complaints to the FCC about Internet service and 38 percent of complaints about TV service were about billing...

Comments

Bernie Sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

For PRESIDENT 2016.

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... it's time for Comcast to stop taking your money... so lets let some politician who doesn't understand basic economics take our money instead. That'll show those corporate fat cats.

"I'm With Stupid =>" #FeelTheBern

Re:Bernie Sanders

[LifesABeach]

Poor A/C, how is Tea-Bagging Comcast working for you?

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, a Trump fan. I'll make sure to use small words.

You are a moron.

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

moron

That has more than four ABCs. More tiny next time pls.

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Pseudonymous Powers]

BERNIE FOR PRESIDENT 2016

"I'm With Stupid =>" #FeelTheBern

Ah, a Trump fan. You are a moron.

Productive and stimulating exchanges like this are why it's always a good idea to simplify debates on public policy into cartoonishly broad messages of support or antipathy towards particular politicians who might have little or no direct involvement in the issues at hand. This sort of thing really adds something to the discourse, and is always welcome.

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Coren22]

You must be a Hillary fan ;)

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to know that our leaders have solved almost all of our more pressing problems to hold a circle jerk to yell at cable providers and yell at them about their billing practices, which are admittedly fucked up, but can never institute any meaningful legislation to curtail these deceptions. As usual.

Re:Bernie Sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you took an ECON101 class in high school or university, shouldn't suggest you understand economics more than a guy who has spent most of his adult life working on policies modeled after policies which work pretty well in countries that are not the US.

How exactly does Sanders not understand basic economics?

Very naught, naught boy

[houghi]

It is election time. So they say something that sounds nice to voters. Nothing will change. Even if they put up a bill, it will be changes so much that it will be law to do what they are doing.

This is great, as they can always blame the other party. Both parties are guilty here.

Let's be honest,the political game is lost to the companies for a long time now. They are able to fool enough of the people all of the time.

I mean, even Sanders said that even if he got elected it might already be to late.

There is a reason for separation between church and state. That is that a certain group might get influence over a majority that might think differently and only that groups interest will be looked at and not that of all. The same must happen with corporations. There must be a separation between business and state (and business and church, but that was covered 2000 years ago). Only then will there be a governement for the people by the people.

Until then: I do welcome my old business overlords.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Applehu Akbar]

"It is election time. So they say something that sounds nice to voters"

It's like those hearings they have regularly on pharma prices. A string of witnesses gets to express dudgeon, but nothing ever actually happens. So eventually they will schedule another hearing.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[CeasedCaring]

"It is election time. So they say something that sounds nice to voters. Nothing will change."

The 3 laws of political campaigning:-

1: Promise EVERYTHING
2: Deliver NOTHING
3: Blame the other lot

and most important of all:-

0: Don't get caught!

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Fire_Wraith]

You're certainly welcome to be cynical, but let's take a look at the list of names here:

Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Several of these people have been talking about internet and technology issues for some time, and rather astutely (the Oregon senators), or have taken a very pro-consumer stance against abuse by corporations (Warren, Sanders). None of them are none for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.

Now if you really want to be cynical, bemoan the fact that they don't have enough power at present to accomplish anything versus the majority of (mostly Republican, though not all) legislators who are all too happy to suck up to Comcast/etc and proclaim idiotic things like "Net Neutrality hurts competition" or ranting about how Title II will stifle innovation when we're already getting left in the dust on connection speed by most of the developed world.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)...

None of them are [known] for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.

Unfortunately, you're wrong here. All 6 of the Senators you named pushed the FCC ON BEHALF OF COMCAST to have the FCC implement Title II on Comcast's competitors. (Comcast agreed to hinder itself with the Title II restrictions as a condition of their purchase of NBC, then promptly started lobbying to have the restrictions added to the other cable companies as well.)

The Title II plan, which all 6 of these guys support, ISN'T a pay-to-play ban (and thus isn't Net Neutrality), but instead mandates settlement free peering, something that only megacorps like Comcast can afford to do.

These guys took action to FURTHER ENTRENCH the Comcast oligopoly. This letter is a scam to pull the wool over your eyes.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Anonymous Coward]

business and church, but that was covered 2000 years ago

Sure, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. Until he comes back, the collection plate will continue to build mansions and theme parks for corrupt TV "pastors". That's just Christianity. Scientology is a business that stole Jesus's trademark and has the IRS wrapped around its pinky. Church and business separation is just an idea, not really working in fact.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Gr8Apes]

I think you're slightly off there. Title II may be the only way to get any Net Neutrality legally enforced at this point, or are you going to get Congress to write up a new law that supports Net Neutrality? (Sorry, that was just hilarious)

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Dragonslicer]

Even if they put up a bill, it will be changes so much that it will be law to do what they are doing.

Why do they need to pass any new laws to address billing errors? If your cable company is billing you for a service or product that you didn't receive, isn't that just straight up theft? Existing laws already handle this situation.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well it would actually take a state Attorney General or someone like that to actually prosecute that case. Given that it likely crosses state lines you may need the US Attorney General to handle it.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right.......
Now try enforcing it.

>It's not the phone guy in india, maybe its his boss
>It's not his boss, it's somewhere in billing in the US
>It's not the people individually in billing, it's some kind of technical thing
>The techs have nothing to do with it, some kind of software problem
>It must be some kind of bug, because it's not like one would ever program such things
>The memo about ensuring billing 'adds' things often enough has long been deleted and even if it wasn't you couldn't *really* be sure it was that person who wrote it
>Beancounters? no we can't program and you said this was a computer thing. We like more money, we see no reason to give back legally obtained funds, and we wouldn't have gotten this money if it wasn't legal so obviously it was done legally just ask our boss
>No no no, this was never ordered, let alone authorized, by the high ups to ensure more money
>In conclusion, terrible things happened, but it is so spread out that even though it was systematically designed and authorized from the top down, it touched so many hands that we can't *really* be sure, unless we stopped wanting to not know, who or what may or may not have been involved, so at most we can offer the people we accused more money to come help us make a committee to help ensure it's retroactively legaliz~ uh I mean it never happens again
>This? no this isn't money in this bag it's uh, my laundry

I'm reminded of mafia killings in movies, where the mob boss just kinda "infers" using specially trained "cant". Except "why don't you go take a walk with jimmy here" isn't letting him pretend he never ordered no concrete harbor-dunkings, but rather is allowing the complete evisceration of business ethics with no consequences whatsoever ever.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Dragonslicer]

If you want to see them sent to prison, sure (not that it wouldn't be amusing to see). If all you care about is getting your money back, small claims court might be a good place to start.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

You're the one who is wrong. Republicans had a bill that would have banned paid prioritization (i.e. actual Net Neutrality) without implementing Title II. (It would also have the benefit of being an actual law as opposed to a regulation passed by the FCC outside its jurisduction.) Democrats held it up because they didn't actually want NN, they wanted Title II... because Title II is the only one that's a handout to their corporate buddies.

This was all covered on Slashdot at the time.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Anonymous Coward]

not the first time you've said it.
not the first time you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about in doing so.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[dywolf]

Just cause they wrapped a turd with a pretty pink bow that said "Net "Neutrality" on it doesn't mean it was actually Net Neutrality.

Let's be clear: the GOP bill was NOT net neutrality.
It WAS a turd.

It was one of the most blatant examples of BS legislation naming ever proposed, only surpassed by the Patriot Act.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Gr8Apes]

You do understand that Republicans control both houses of Congress? So who exactly did not want Net Neutrality? And I don't recall what the Republicans actually proposed, but it was anything but Net Neutrality. IIRC, it's what pushed the Title II through.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell a shill sockpuppet.

months ago when we actually talked about that bil, and determined that it most definitely WAS NOT NN, some troll kept saying it was, and saying that Title II was a coprporate welfare handout, even though it clearly is not. That troll lived in the total opposite of reality, where down as up and up was down. you live in the same distorted reality jmac, and in fact I suspect you are the same shill on a different account

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[dywolf]

To elaborate:

Media Shouldn't Be Fooled By Fake Neutrality Bill Backed By Broadband Industry

IBT: GOP Legislation Would Undermine FCC's Ability To Enact Net Neutrality Regulations. As the International Business Times reported, the legislation proposed by congressional Republicans purports to ban broadband providers from blocking or speeding up certain content, or from charging content providers for faster access -- but in reality, undermines the FCC's ability "to impose stricter regulations on broadband companies" by establishing open-Internet rules. [International Business Times, 1/21/15]

Free Press: GOP Legislation "Undermines The Open Internet It Claims To Protect." In a January 21 statement, Free Press Action Fund noted that the GOP legislation would "declaw the one agency responsible for protecting the public interest in communications," rather than "safeguard Net Neutrality," as it claims to do:

Despite what they claim, this legislation won't safeguard Net Neutrality. The bills instead would undermine the FCC's ability to protect Internet users by removing broadband and wireless companies from nearly all agency oversight.

"The legislation fails at the very thing it claims to accomplish. It prohibits a few open Internet violations but opens the door to new industry abuses. It claims to give the FCC limited adjudication powers but removes the agency's ability to adopt and adapt rules to fit the changing landscape for high-speed Internet access. [Free Press, 1/22/15]

The Hill: GOP Bill Will Undermine Future Consumer Protection Efforts And Prevent Broadband Development. In a January 21 op-ed, experts at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation explained that the GOP legislation would "strip the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of crucial legal authority that protects consumers and small businesses on the internet," by limiting the FCC's ability to "adapt to evolving consumer harms." They also explained that the narrowly-written legislation would "eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband":

Making matters worse, the legislation would leave the FCC powerless to protect consumers from other broadband harms not specified in the bill text, such as those that are already occurring in the interconnection context. When the FCC enacted net neutrality rules four years ago, few anticipated that ISPs would congest their own networks as a strategy to extract fees from edge services like Netflix. But that's precisely what happened throughout 2013 and 2014, according to data collected by the Measurement Lab (a research consortium that includes the Open Technology Institute). The congestion harmed millions of Internet users whose connection speeds slowed to the point of unusability -- but the FCC had no mechanism in place to help these consumers. This prolonged, damaging behavior by multiple ISPs demonstrates why the FCC needs the flexibility to respond to problems as they evolve.

The bill would also eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband. This is a blow to municipalities that want to offer broadband service to their residents, particularly those currently restricted by state barriers to municipal broadband projects. The Open Technology Institute has consistently found that some of the fastest and most affordable broadband service in America comes from cities that have invested in their own infrastructure. Congress should be figuring out ways to support local government. Instead, the Thune-Upton bill prohibits the FCC from responding to communities that have asked for help. [The Hill, 1/21/15]

New Republican Bill Is Network Neutrality in Name Only

But, as written, the Republican bill p

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Coren22]

How about if you actually talk about what exactly in the bill you disagreed with? Right now, you look like another partisan jackass fighting the GOP establishment.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Why not both. Tying them up in small claims with bunches of small civil cases and having the various state AGs putting the screws to them on the criminal side. Maybe then they will quit being royal fuck-ups.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Coren22]

That is better. I retract my other comment in response to your sibling post about this.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

As the minority party, Democrats can slow down Senate consideration of a bill through several procedural tactics, most famously the filibuster. President Obama also threatened to veto the Republican NN bill. Republicans never moved the bill past committee because Democrats would have made it too big a fight over too small of an issue.

That doesn't change the fact that Republicans proposed passing an actual law to ban paid prioritization and Democrats stopped it because they wanted Title II instead.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

I've been on /. a long time and only ever used one account. I made plenty of posts about Net Neutrality and Title II, but they are all on this account. You can check my post history if you want.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

The Republican bill was a ban on paid prioritization. The left wants to do more than ban paid prioritization, which is why they need Title II.

All your references are lefty sources arguing in favor of Title II instead of a paid prioritization ban. Thanks for finding a bunch of articles that support my point.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Gr8Apes]

You might want to review how filibusters have largely been busted.

A veto might not sit well with the electorate, so what exactly did the Republicans have to lose? Oh, right, corporate sponsorship.

Sorry, I don't buy the Republicans doing anything positive for the general populace at the cost of business.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Anonymous Coward]

for any one on this board to have any questions as to why it was NN in name only shows only that they lack the proper qualifications to even be here.
hint: try google.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

Sorry, I don't buy the Republicans doing anything positive for the general populace at the cost of business.

No kidding. I had already figured out that you just wanted to shill for your team and shit on the guys with the other jersey on. Normal people realize that neither political party is perfect and recognize when politicians they support make mistakes. But you're a shill and I understand that.

My comment was directed at serious people who give a shit about what actually happened.

Title II is good for Comcast and bad for their competition, so Comcast lobbied a bunch of Democrats, including these guys, to have it pushed through.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[Gr8Apes]

Whether Title II helps Comcast in the short term or not in some small area of your mind is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it stops a whole host of very bad things that were already starting, for instance, Netflix being charged to be allowed to connect to end users.

As for politics, you're the one that brought that up. I merely pointed out you were wrong on every single one of your opinions. I have no love for the democrats either, and would like to see both parties dissolved entirely, not just repacked and renamed into new improved flavors. I'd even make the bold statement that "national" parties are entirely un-american and completely against american ideals, as there is no way a single party can represent at least a sizable minority of the population of each state. That was true even when there were only 13 states. The polarization occurred between pro-government and anti-centralized government folks, and we've been stuck with that supposed bi-polar arrangement ever since thanks to generally bad election processes.

Re:Very naught, naught boy

[jmac_the_man]

I can't reach through the WiFi and read your mind. All I know about you is what you type into the post window. Here, let's try this another way. Forget anything I said before this post.

Hey Gr8Apes, you're in favor of the FCC regulating ISPs under Title II instead of a Congressional Net Neutrality law, right? These 6 Democratic Senators support that position. So you know, Comcast has the same position as the 6 Senators and has been lobbying in Washington for Title II. Comcast isn't your enemy on Title II.

Seems legit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress complaining about unfair billing practices? That's rich. They are the ones whom invented the 10,000 page omnibus budget bill, passed at midnight, without allowing anyone to read it.

Re:Seems legit.

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. The 6 Congresspeople complaining about these billing practices are likely not the same ones who were responsible for the omnibus bill. In fact, they have lengthy track records of supporting consumer rights and good legislation for internet-related stuff.

Re:Seems legit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it seems you are 2/3 correct. Oh the 6 in this article, Warren and Franken voted yes on the latest omnibus budget, the others no.

Love the trailing ellipsis

[Rei]

38 percent of complaints about TV service were about billing...

Cue the creepy movie tension music!

"It Came From The Billing Department 2: The Revenge Of Accounts Receivable"

Canal O'Rourke lost his job for trying to report

[Joe_Dragon]

Canal O'Rourke lost his job for trying to report comcast about billing errors.

I say go for it and if it comes down to it. No easy time for the big shots.

Consumerist stories about Comcast

[Futurepower(R)]

Consumerist stories about Comcast.

One of the stories: Comcast: 2014 worst company in America.

Re:Consumerist stories about Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumerist stories about Comcast.

One of the stories: Comcast: 2014 worst company in America.

When stories like this exist, one has to wonder why they are still legally allowed to be in business. What fucking good is the Better Business Bureau when shit like this rages on for years? Seriously.

Re:Consumerist stories about Comcast

[Narcocide]

The BBB has no authority whatsoever. They are not a branch of the government. They're a non-profit organization.

You want the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) or the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) - why neither of THEM have even barely lifted a finger about this crap so far though is completely beyond me.

Re:Consumerist stories about Comcast

[tlhIngan]

When stories like this exist, one has to wonder why they are still legally allowed to be in business. What fucking good is the Better Business Bureau when shit like this rages on for years? Seriously.

Customer service is not a requirement for a business.

Seriously, it isn't. If you take a business at it's core to sell a product or service for a profit, customer service is not part of that. (Neither is handling returns, etc).

Of course, the reason businesses do a lot of things that are optional is competition - customer service is something if you neglect, your customers might go to your competitor, so you offer it. Likewise, you handle returns even though you don't have to (there is no legal requirement for a customer to be able to return a product), because otherwise customers again will prefer to use a competitor

They're digging their own grave.

[0100010001010011]

I've been getting involved with the local government to get fiber to the area and the cable companies keep pushing back "Nah, you don't want that speed". To the point that it's hurting local businesses. Local fiber co-ops and companies are starting up across the state (slowly). The cities that still had municipal power & water mostly have fiber already.

They're not going to be able to keep up with the competition springing up across the country.

More and more people are cutting the cord as well. They could have taken a bit less of a profit and maintained their lead but they decided to double down on

Re:They're digging their own grave.

[oneiros27]

Comcast was dragging their feet in upgrading our community to fibre, telling us it was going to be years off.

As soon as our town (Upper Marlboro, MD) passed an ordinance granting Verizon a franchise agreement, Comcast suddenly had crews out upgrading. Maybe it was a month or so delay ... whatever it was, they did everything they could to try to get their stuff installed before AT&T could. (and they were shutting down town roads without going through the proper procedures ... so residents were pissed off)

Comcast will do everything that they can to make sure that they have no competition -- even pushing for state laws to ban municipalities from installing their own ... but as soon as it's inevitable that there's going to be competition, they'll do everything that they can to make sure that they keep the customers (and thus, make it less profitable for whoever new comes in).

Re:They're digging their own grave.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I would like the "takeaway" from this to be the lesson of not granting exclusive rights to any company to begin with.

Re:They're digging their own grave.

[Anonymous Coward]

... not granting exclusive rights to any company ...

Like copyright and patents, you mean: These, just like infrastructure, work best when there is a monopoly. The problem is the US penchant for blanket exemptions under the law. Copyright is the most noticeable with government-ordained franchises swept under the carpet because 'small government'. Just like patents, other government-enforced monopolies need to have time limits that benefit the consumer.

The correct "takeaway" is, granting rights to any company must be a temporary measure.

Re:They're digging their own grave.

[mgcarley]

You and I should talk.

So

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Among the little people and the petty criminals; 'invoice fraud' is a classic. You just pump out a whole bunch of reasonably plausible looking invoices for suitably generic goods or services, and hope that some of the recipients pay without checking too closely. Illegal, of course. Exactly how much 'unfair billing' and how many 'errors'(mysteriously in your favor much more often than not) do you have to accrue before people stop cringing and call your practices what they are, when not pulled by giant oligopolies?

$6000

[EzInKy]

That's how much I saved cutting the cord five years ago. Still can't believe I was one of the idiots paying $12,000 a decade to watch TV.

Re:$6000

[EzInKy]

Actually nearly right. My now 9 year old car was bought and paid for with cash. What many pay out in car payments is socked away for when I need a newer one. Neither a borrower nor a lender be.

Re:$6000

[geekmux]

And let me guess, you also saved $50,000 over the past few years by getting rid of your car and buying a wooden-frame fixie to ride to work too, right?

Great comparison.

At least no one here has to guess as to your fucking inability to discern between a luxury in life and a necessity.

Re:$6000

[OzPeter]

Fuck off.

$100 per month * 12 months is a lot of money to poor people like us. We'll just download the handful of TV shows we want to watch, and utilize OTA HD as well as pirate streams for sports.

Again, fuck right off, and take some of the comcast management with you.

If you are counting pirate streams in your cost reduction analysis then you are doing it wrong.

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I've been doing it wrong since about 2004, then. I'm not even the same AC that talked about cord cutting up above. There's tons of us.

Pirate sports streams are extremely common, by the way.

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

And let me guess, you also saved $50,000 over the past few years by getting rid of your car and buying a wooden-frame fixie to ride to work too, right?

Great comparison.

At least no one here has to guess as to your fucking inability to discern between a luxury in life and a necessity.

Cars are a luxury - unless you're a candy-ass.

What? Can't be bothered to ride a bicycle 10 miles?

Fatty.

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I tried to ride my bicycle in the snow, it didn't work so well. Not everyone lives in Hipsterfornia.

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate sports streams are extremely common, by the way.

Indeed. The Orlando Pirates vs. Kaiser Chiefs match earlier this week had a good part of the country watching. But that was on broadcast TV, not over the Internet, so it's getting a bit off-topic.

Re:$6000

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I cannot believe you seriously posted that. Not everyone has such a short commute. Not everyone has such a short commute on roads that are safe enough to cycle on. Not everyone has such a short commute at times of days when it is light out (brings back to safety point, and lights help a little, but not enough).

It must be nice to live in that world of yours where everything turns out just peachy for you. For the rest of us, we have to own a car. (well not everyone, but many of us).

FYI, I have no issues cycling 10 miles, in fact, I have no issues cycling 100 miles at a time... as I am a cyclist (both road and mountain), so if I could cycle to work, I would.

Re:$6000

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Eh, not all cyclists are hipsters either... I take offense at that :P

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a good chance it was streamed somewhere online, you pedant.

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you cut one service doesn't mean you don't replace it with other(s) of equal/better functionality. A couple years back I finally dropped AT&T for mobile phone service and went with a "Pay as you go" service (Page Plus in my case) I was spending about $600 a year with AT&T (~$50 per month), with my current service it is about $90 per year and I've bought two phones out of pocket (First was $40, second was $80) so I'm about $900 in the black over 2 years. And I still have the same call quality, coverage, etc and have have better phones than AT&T was giving me.

Re:$6000

[Gr8Apes]

Not being on the new car because the Joneses have one will save you a lot of cash over time. Buy a decent car, keep it, and only replace it once it's no longer reliable (meaning can't maintain it for a reasonable cost). Until something major like a transmission goes or the wiring goes bad, most cars will easily keep running for 200K+ miles with mostly minor maintenance.

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

If I just take things without paying for them, my costs go down drastically!

Re:$6000

[Anonymous Coward]

Your car costs more than most people's houses. Congrats on the humblebrag.

Re:$6000

[budgenator]

Get 120 psi racing slicks, they cut through the snow like it was hot butter, I loved riding past cars buried up to the axles in snow! Now ice tends to get exciting.

Re:$6000

[Firethorn]

Snow Bikes are a thing up here in Alaska.

Re:$6000

[KGIII]

Quite a few automobiles will exceed 250k miles with proper maintaining and good driving. As an automobile aficionado, I've managed to pull some gems up and keep them preserved with very little cost. I do think it's a bit insane for most people to finance a new car. I'd go so far as to suggest not financing a used car either.

The minute you drive the new car off the lot, it's worth something like 30% less than what it was when you bought it. But you're gonna pay more than the MSRP when you tally up those payments. It's just not (usually) a good investment. On the other hand, I am really fond of new cars and have bought a number of them over the years. Most of them we paid for with cash which meant I had to save up in order to buy them. (My first car bought with cash was a 740Li. My son still owns it but it is stored in the US while he is not.)

At any rate... There are lots of gems to be found. Person-to-person has an appeal if you're familiar with the make, model, and mechanics. With so many cars having "features" that people don't really like (such as the black box, cellular connectivity, and associated security implications) it's actually still a thriving market in older model cars. I've got quite a few but none of them are really for sale.

To give a rough example... I bought a second hand 1988 Honda Accord LX. It was in fine shape but I put it on a boat and sent it to a guy in Japan who does pretty much nothing but restore Hondas. (He has a brother who does similar but with Nissan and, more specifically, the Z models.) I had it fully torn down, restored, and re-aligned. It took quite a while. I paid for it to be shipped to outside of LA and shipped, on a container ship, back to Japan. It returned to the US about 8 months later. I flew out and drove it back to Maine - while I was out, I put on about 15,000 miles on it - as I zig-zagged across the country.

Here's the fun part..

I did all of that, now have that, and I paid just about what I'd have paid for the same model in the current year with the same level of upgrades. Yes, I got all of that done and it cost me about what a new car, of that same model, would have cost. While in Kansas, and certainly not going slow, I got in the low 40s for my MPG. I regularly get upper 20s and low 30s back in Maine. It's not unusual to see upper 30s if I drive a bit more wisely.

I've done similar with other cars. I have a 82 Volvo 245 that I sent to the West Coast and had it upgraded, restored, and modified - for less than a new Volvo would have cost. I sent a 911 back to the factory for a factory overhaul and restoration but that one was *not* cheaper than it would have been to buy new. No, no... That one was stupidly expensive but worth every penny.

At any rate... Look in the used car ads. There are some national magazines/fliers that you can get should you want something very specific or more choices. Line a few of them up and go for a road trip. Got an old buddy you've not been hanging out with for a while? Take them with you. It's even better if they're a mechanic.

While I hate doing my own repairs and maintaining my own vehicles, I can. We're all geeks and nerds here. It's a giant piece of complicated machinery that harnesses the power of controlled explosives and precise timing. The brakes use fairly high pressure and a bunch of interesting valves - and if they're old drum brakes, they're full of springs and doodads that all need to be exactly right in order to work. (Take a picture!!! Take a damned picture when you pop the cover off drum brakes - lesson learned, lesson shared.) So, you can *easily* learn enough to be able to find a gem, make it yours, and keep it running in perpetuity.

We're pretty old here. Think of the car you wanted most as a child. Now think of something a tad bit more realistic. Find one. Fix it. Keep it. It will, possibly, work. You just need to never, ever fall in love with car because it will break your heart. Never fall in love with your first automobile. At any rate - go find a used car and giv

If the Senators REALLY wanted to blast Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

They would use a T.O.W. missile.

Comcast: 6 ways to attempt to get customer service

[Futurepower(R)]

6 Things Comcast Customers Can Try To Get Some Actual Customer Service

Comcast offices built like fortresses

[jfdavis668]

I had to return my parents Comcast equipment when we sold their house. I took it to the local Comcast office. I was stunned by the level of security. Inch thick bulletproof glass. You couldn't even touch the workers, everything had to be passed through lock boxes which would only open on one side at a time. I personally live in a rural area. The local cable company is located in a converted ranch house. You can walk in and talk to them at any time. Just a counter you can step around, not even a door in the way. If Comcast needs that level of security to protect the workers, it must be one of the most hated companies around.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. My local Comcast is the same way. Most banks don't even have that level of security.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Zak3056]

The reason for the security is that it's a payment center. Think tens of thousands in cash on hand, with a LOT less of a law enforcement response than if you rob the local bank.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[jfdavis668]

This place has 10 times more security than any local bank. I don't think they have that much cash on hand.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Zak3056]

It adds up quick. If 100 people paid their bill in an average day, and the average bill is $100, that's $10k. Some people are past due, some have higher bills, and some offices do more business than that, so...

With regard to more security than a bank, I believe it. You rob a bank, the feds get involved. You rob the cable company, it's like robbing a liquor store. Take a look at the average check cashing place some day.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, name me one person that doesn't want to murder everyone working at that company.

ONE.

not so easy is it?

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Gr8Apes]

Pfft: Brian Roberts

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Zak3056]

I'll bite: me. They take great care of me. I've got a gigabit ethernet circuit running a thousand miles or so (Knoxville to Houston) that never even hiccups. My 150/20 HFC circuit has seen maybe 30 hours of downtime over the last five years. Pricing on both is quite good (I actually couldn't believe the price on the gigabit circuit).

Their project management does leave a little to be desired (I was VERY frustrated with the PM on the gigabit circuit install---her communication skills were lacking, and she seemed to have no concept of deadlines) but the pre-sales guys (both sales and engineering) do a hell of a job, as do the field guys, and the back end guys I talk to.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[gmiller123456]

The reason for the security is that it's a payment center. Think tens of thousands in cash on hand, with a LOT less of a law enforcement response than if you rob the local bank.

There's lots of places that deal with a lot more money with less security. E.g. Walmart, casinos, et . And those places are a lot more likely to deal in cash and with a lot more people than a cable tv provider where most people mail their checks in.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for the security is because they're a lousy company that pisses people off on a regular basis. It's effectively the same reason some congresscritters have increased security.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[sjames]

No. When I go to a main branch of my bank downtown, they have a LOT more money out in the tills and are a much bigger target (think hundreds of thousands in cash and being a bank it they can't just run it to the bank mid-day). They have just high counters and one security guard who looks to be in his late '60s. No Plexiglas.

Comcast has the security measures because their customer service is terrible enough to inspire violence in regular everyday people (there have been incidents).

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[budgenator]

You have a local Comcast office?

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[budgenator]

Comcast has the security measures because their customer service is terrible enough to inspire violence in regular everyday people (there have been incidents).

Nah it's OSHA required due to potential work-place violence, they don't care about a few service 'droids, but an OSHA fine involves money.

Re:Comcast offices built like fortresses

[Anonymous Coward]

Cash at casinos and large retail operations (like Walmart) have the registers regularly cleared out and taking to a (relatively) secure room for counting, sorting and so on.

Plus the money is distributed across many registers, and there are more staff, so the amount you'll get from any given register is a couple hundred bucks. You might get more if the guy in front of you paid for a high-ticket item in cash, but otherwise...

Not to mention that in some areas (like parts of Memphis) there is 24x7 law enforcement presence at Walmarts.

Happened to me

[Not-a-Neg]

I bought my own cable modem, had been using it for over a year when I finally decided to return Comcast's modem. Took it down to their local office and had the customer service rep. check the modem back into inventory and remove the rental fee from my account before leaving. The first month after having it removed everything was fine, there was no rental fee billed, the 2nd month after it re-appeared on my bill and they tacked on an extra charge for the prior month as well as sent a separate mailing notice to inform me they had noticed there was no rental fee on my account and it must have been a billing error on their part but not to worry as they weren't going to charge a penalty, just 2 months worth of rental fees. In order to have the issue resolved I had to call customer service and have them "open an investigation" to check with the local office to verify they had received my old modem back.

Re:Happened to me

[dustbunny26]

Comcast. The company you love to hate. In 2014, they started charging me for HD, called took them two months to correct and credit the bill. In October 2015 they added a bogus "service call" onto my bill. Called and said I'd get a credit to zero out the charge. Instead of a credit, it was entered as a debit. Multiple calls, late fees added, many lies and broken promises. It was finally resolved last week. I now have a credit on my bill. When calling customer service, always ask for an American Call Center. Their call center in the Philippines doesn't even deserve the label "horrendous service".

Re:Happened to me

[nine-times]

Yes, it was clearly the local office's fault for not entering it into their system that you weren't supposed to get a rental fee...

Except that obviously wasn't the problem, because they did put it into the system, which is why you didn't get charged for the first month. I had similar problems with Time Warner Cable when I bought my own modem. Every once in a while, the fee would get tacked back on and I'd have to call in and complain to get the charge removed. This only makes sense if they have someone or something going through records periodically, adding the fee back on without regard to whether the fee was supposed to be charged.

What was even more frustrating about my experience was, whenever I called for support because my connection was down, they would somehow insist that I needed a TWC modem. Once, they insisted that I couldn't have Internet because I didn't have a modem. A few times they said that they couldn't support me because I didn't have a modem owned by TWC, and they offered to send me out a new one. Once, they told me that outage was because the modem I had was not an approved model, even though it was the exact model they had recommended.

Maybe it's just bad training, but that's not really an excuse.

Re:Happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly doubt it's someone.

Not because I think it's an accident, but because of the sheer scale at which they do this. *Millions* of customers a year, and most of them don't catch most of the bogus charges.

There's no way they wouldn't just automate this with a randomizer or a few algorithms after having made some studies to find out precisely what level of racketeering they can get away with before an investigation could decisively prove they're committing fraud on an unfathomable scale.

They can probably even flag certain accounts to ensure no one at the FCC or in the Senate gets "accidentally the account" anywhere nearly as often as the average they've set up for.

Re:Happened to me

[timholman]

I bought my own cable modem, had been using it for over a year when I finally decided to return Comcast's modem. Took it down to their local office and had the customer service rep. check the modem back into inventory and remove the rental fee from my account before leaving. The first month after having it removed everything was fine, there was no rental fee billed, the 2nd month after it re-appeared on my bill and they tacked on an extra charge for the prior month as well as sent a separate mailing notice to inform me they had noticed there was no rental fee on my account and it must have been a billing error on their part but not to worry as they weren't going to charge a penalty, just 2 months worth of rental fees. In order to have the issue resolved I had to call customer service and have them "open an investigation" to check with the local office to verify they had received my old modem back.

I have a better story than yours. I purchased my own modem back when my local cable company was @Home. Comcast then bought @Home, and I upgraded and replaced my own modem for DOCSIS 2.0 and later DOCSIS 3.0.

Then last year, I get a letter from Comcast telling me that due to some error in their billing, I had somehow not been paying their modem rental fee - an error that they were now correcting.

After several calls to Comcast Customer Support, I was asked to provide the MAC address of my modem, so that Comcast could check it against their inventory. My modem was not in their inventory, so they agreed to remove the rental charge.

Two months later, the rental charge is back on the bill. I call customer support, and the lady insists that my modem belongs to them, and "proves" it by reading back the MAC address I provided to them two months earlier.

It took two more months, and escalating my complaint to the corporate office, to get everything fixed.

Re:Happened to me

[KGIII]

I've a similar issue but not with cable and it doesn't cost me any money. I hate, absolutely hate, voice mail. But, voice mail comes included with my cell phone plan. I don't actually deal with the cell phone company myself, usually and if I can help it, but I have someone who does so on my behalf. At any rate, if you do not set up the voice mail it never gets configured or enabled - with US Cellular and Verizon.

But, and this seems to happen with both companies - or did with Verizon and I've not used them in a while so that may be different now, if you call or have *any* change on the system, something, somebody, somehow, it gets enabled with the defaults. Every time... At that point, someone (sometimes myself) has to call them and have it disabled, again... I go out of my way to not contact them, or have them contacted on my behalf, if I can help it.

It's a bit annoying. I pay someone to take care of things like that. They take care of all my bills, ensure things that are important get done, and make sure I'm not a complete mess. So, I end up paying someone (or using my own time) to call, have it disabled, and put yet another note on my account indicating that I really do not want the service. As it happened with both Verizon and US Cellular, multiple times and nearly every single time, I wonder if it's somehow automated.

If I do contact them personally, I make it a point to ask (nicely - for I am a nice guy) to ensure that it's not enabled at the end of our call. That's actually got a fairly better track record.

With cable? Well... I'm in Florida and this is only my forth time using this house. My kids use it and they call and get cable activated before they get here. They turn it off when they leave. The last one claims they turned it off - about a year ago. As I was coming down, I called ahead to have it turned on. They say that it will be turned on at such and such a date. I get a call the following day telling me that the rep made a mistake - that it is already turned on. The part above, the part where I mentioned that I don't actually call the cell company normally or do it myself? Yeah, I don't deal with the cable company often and certainly not on a regular basis. I don't even see the bills.

It turns out, I've been happily paying for cable this entire time. My kid indicates that they turned it off. There's supposedly an account note that says someone called the cable company on that date or close enough to that date but there's no note of what the interaction was and no record of the call. I have no idea if it has been processed yet but they aren't that bad about it. They're supposed to credit my account or issue a refund. I told 'em to just credit it as I'm sure the kids will turn it back on again as they're both authorized users. However, they could tell (probably logs of some type) that there really was nobody here using the service so getting the credit wasn't too hard - and I did it myself. God. I hate making phone calls to those types of places. My time is more valuable than that - to me, at least,.

Re:Happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never read a more full of it poster than you are in my entire time on the internet. What a load of baloney you are in every post you make on this site. Streams of utter bullshit.

Re:Happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called 'bill stuffing', and the telcos, then the wireless ones, were doing it forever. The wireless guys got slapped back in '12(?) by the feds to the tune of ~$180M (lol). I imagine they made ten times that from the scam.

The (shady) ISP's are doing it too, so watch those bills, because they're hoping you're not.

Re:Happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Receipts come in handy in situations like this.

"Yes, that is my modems MAC address, however, it was purchased from {Amazon/Best Buy/Newegg/etc} and I have the receipt for it, which I can email/FAX to you."

And isn't fraudulently claiming to own something that is in fact owned by someone else a felony or something?

MY modem

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit Comcast a year ago because after 12 years it began charging me for MY modem. I gave them MY modem and had Dish installed. Now I have to get out the ladder and clean the snow off the antenna and put up with a dreary selection of channels to watch.

When will suppliers of television be forced to offer customers their choice of channels to buy?

Re:MY modem

[budgenator]

Just spray the dish down with silicone lube in the fall and the snow slides off; might have to re-sray once a winter.

And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

a dumbass republican will be elected by the stupid masses and everything the FCC has been trying to do in the last couple of years will be undone. Good bye Net Neutrality. Good Bye title II... Hello corruption.

All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete.

I cannot lay cable against my cable company even in my own neighborhood. Last mile internet delivery is granted through local franchises and no one is permitted to trespass these. I can't pay a poll fee. I can't pay a conduit fee. I cannot run cable.

I could very easily run fiber for my whole neighborhood RIGHT NOW giving everyone in my immediate area gigabit internet... on MY resources. The whole city? Obviously not. I'm just some guy. But my neighborhood... easy. But the law won't let me.

And people don't connect this reality with the fact that they get raped by the cable companies.

Imagine if there were but one sandwich shop... imagine how absurdly abusive it would be with prices, service, product quality. It would be bad.

Well, that is what you've done with the exclusive franchise agreements. We don't need to nationalize our ISPs. We need to let more people... ideally everyone... run cable.

Here some unimaginative fellow will say something like "I don't want lots of cables run along my street"... well, if lots of cables are being run then you don't see that because they'll be buried in a conduit.

Next I might get someone saying something like "we don't have conduits right now to handle something that we're not at this moment doing"... to which I can only say "uh duh"... and yet if we changed the rules this sort of thing would become standard. Not literally tomorrow but within a few years.

And what would government control? Well... the conduits. They'd have a network of pipes that people could run cable through and that they'd charge a flat fee to anyone running cable per foot or mile or whatever the proper distance is... The government wouldn't have to keep up with new technology or worry about anything in the pipe especially besides where the pipe went and how much room there was in the pipe for more cable. That's it.

Set America free and the internet issue is GONE. The cable companies in that environment will either offer competitive non-fucking-stupid service... or go out of business. Like a light.

And I won't have to listen to fucking communists talk about how everything would be better if we just let the government take control over everything.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot lay cable against my cable company even in my own neighborhood. Last mile internet delivery is granted through local franchises and no one is permitted to trespass these. I can't pay a poll fee. I can't pay a conduit fee. I cannot run cable.

Do you have a citation for that? In my town - in a very blue state - we have multiple companies running different kinds of cable through neighborhoods. The cable company is running it, a local telecom (descended from a baby bell) is running it, Verizon is running it, and at least one other company was proposing to run it as well. They generally are all running it underground, though we see workers working on the overhead lines fairly often doing various "upgrades" as well.

On top of them we have a few different companies selling wireless internet services; obviously the cell phone carriers are in that market but so are the satellite TV companies and one company that wants to just focus on wireless internet to the home.

Maybe you live in some highly regulated market, but I suspect it is more likely you are just parroting what someone else told you.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete.

I cannot lay cable against my cable company even in my own neighborhood. Last mile internet delivery is granted through local franchises and no one is permitted to trespass these. I can't pay a poll fee. I can't pay a conduit fee. I cannot run cable.

I could very easily run fiber for my whole neighborhood RIGHT NOW giving everyone in my immediate area gigabit internet... on MY resources. The whole city? Obviously not. I'm just some guy. But my neighborhood... easy. But the law won't let me.

And people don't connect this reality with the fact that they get raped by the cable companies.

Imagine if there were but one sandwich shop... imagine how absurdly abusive it would be with prices, service, product quality. It would be bad.

Well, that is what you've done with the exclusive franchise agreements. We don't need to nationalize our ISPs. We need to let more people... ideally everyone... run cable.

Here some unimaginative fellow will say something like "I don't want lots of cables run along my street"... well, if lots of cables are being run then you don't see that because they'll be buried in a conduit.

Next I might get someone saying something like "we don't have conduits right now to handle something that we're not at this moment doing"... to which I can only say "uh duh"... and yet if we changed the rules this sort of thing would become standard. Not literally tomorrow but within a few years.

And what would government control? Well... the conduits. They'd have a network of pipes that people could run cable through and that they'd charge a flat fee to anyone running cable per foot or mile or whatever the proper distance is... The government wouldn't have to keep up with new technology or worry about anything in the pipe especially besides where the pipe went and how much room there was in the pipe for more cable. That's it.

Set America free and the internet issue is GONE. The cable companies in that environment will either offer competitive non-fucking-stupid service... or go out of business. Like a light.

And I won't have to listen to fucking communists talk about how everything would be better if we just let the government take control over everything.

Really? Do you have any idea how much it costs to put in conduits? How about the number of cables (a single mode fibre is roughly 5mm in diameter) that you could legitimately fit into a large conduit before you started to run a high risk of breaking other cables while attempting to pull another cable? Are you going to get everyone to connect their house to the exchange? A traditional FTTP setup involves a lot of fibre splitters to prevent having to run extreme amounts of fibre to everyone.
It would be cheaper for the government to setup a non-profit organisation to create a nation wide fibre network using the proper techniques (would require very little in the way of putting in new conduits). That non-profit can then wholesale the last mile connections to anyone who is willing to do the paper work and the running around to create a viable ISP at a cost that covers the maintenance cost plus the setup costs averaged over a certain time period. This is what Australia was doing before the current government decided that running fibre was too expensive and then proceeded to spend double the money creating a inferior broadband network consisting of FTTN, fixed wireless and, for a ever increasing percentage of the population, satellite broadband. For what it is worth, the average cost per house hold with a 93% coverage for FTTP started at $2500 per household and is now estimated to be around as low as $800 per household.
Before you mention anything regarding population density and costs, just remember that Australia is the size of continental USA with the population not much higher then the city of Los Angeles...

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Yep and its quiet affordable. I've done the math. I can personally afford to wire my neighborhood. When you say "do you know how much this costs" you're likely talking about an entire city all in one go.

That's like asking "Do you know how much it would cost to build 2000 sandwich shops"... Just talking about me running cable in my own area.

And if it were so expensive that I wouldn't be able to do it, then you wouldn't need to make it illegal to stop me. you do because you know fucking well that I would if I were not legally forbidden.

Which means you're either suffering from weapons grade cognitive dissonance or you're just telling stupid lies.

Because here is the thing... if you REALLY thought the cost structure would stop me... you'd just rely on that. You don't. Which means you either know it won't and are lying... or you were told some bullshit by some people that knew better and you're so mind fucked by it that you can't really process this on your own.

Either way... pitiful.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Citation on what? The franchises?

Further, the issue is local... but generally consistent throughout the country. The law was federal but it was repealed I think in the mid 90s. Regardless, if you look at what backbone bandwidth costs... basically nothing... you can see that the only justifiable cost would be running from the trunk to the house. The problem with the fee system is that if you then price out the cost of fiber per person... and work in depreciation... The costs drop to something like ten dollars per person assuming total replacement every 10 years which is conservative.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[sjames]

What "socialist" have you seen advocating to nationalize internet service? I haven't seen any.

The only calls for nationalization I have seen are for health care where the market has clearly failed and a few calls for large banks at the time they had their hands out for a trillion dollar bailout.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Any of them. You want individual campaigns cited, speeches made, bills put to the floor or what?

Because asking for something like this is really sort of baffling to me.

Why would you be surprised that a socialist would want to nationalize something? That's sort of their go to answer for everything.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[sjames]

How about a bill put to the floor? Or even a transcript of a Congressional debate? You make it sound as if we have a Congress packed with socialists who might actually have an effect or cause serious consideration, I don't see any.

The closest I see are local governments laying fiber within their jurisdiction.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

I didn't say anything about congress until you asked for a citation and I gave a listing of different options.

Saying I made it sound like congress was full of something when I didn't reference congress at all is a non-starter.

Rephrase your argument of I'm going to assume you're too triggered and I won't be able to have a productive discussion.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[sjames]

Well, only Congress can nationalize something. The local city council can't do it, now can they? The very word "nationalize" implies the federal government.

Now, you offered bills put to the floor as an option and I picked it, so where are they?

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

"The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete."

That is what I said. Now... I never said nor implied congress. I can show bills if you want. But I won't permit you to strawman my position by redefining my words as other than they were.

If you accept that you have no power to change my argument then I can move on. If you refuse to accept that then we really can't go anywhere because I will not tolerate a strawman.

Every attempt simply outputs: Error line 1

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[sjames]

Yes, I would like to see the bills please.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

You've posted a mish-mash of political ranting that identifies government-led failures, then whines about socialism and communism.

... be better if we just let the government take control over everything ...

The purpose of government is to define allowed behaviours and enforce punishments. The US government does a poor job of this overall, with some success where they've delegated authority away from the politicians: Such as the FCC, FDA, FAA. You even admit the government needs to be responsible for communal property such as "a network of pipes that people could run cable through", then change the problem to unknown communists.

... a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete ...

You correctly identify the failure of capitalism in the USA then bring in the whipping boy of nationalized industry: If there's a monopoly, or other forms of protectionism, then there are inadequate market forces to create the 'invisible hand' that makes capitalism useful. Just like all other free-market sycophants, you've admitted the problem, then changed the subject.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely asking for a citation on what is preventing you from running cable through your town or neighborhood. That is based on what the previous AC quoted you as saying, at least. The AC pointed out that other places have large numbers of different companies running cable all over the place, so they are probably calling you out on your claim that you are prevented from doing it in your own town. Can you show us what actually prevents you from running cable where you live?

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[rahvin112]

No community can ban access to a public utility (as defined by the state law) beyond reasonable fees to inspect and monitor the construction in the public right-of-way (ROW) for preservation of that ROW. A franchise agreement that purports to enact such a ban is illegal and will be struck down the first time a city tries to enforce it. Not that any city would try to enforce such a claim, it's blatantly unconstitutional.

You don't understand the law, stop commenting on it.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to nationalize critical infrastructure.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Like the food supply, right?

Give up.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Except I can't lay cable and neither can any company that doesn't have a franchise license and that is why we have duopoloies.

Stay down.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

A license is a far cry from an outright ban. A license just ensures that the company or individual who wants to do something has either some basic qualifications to do it, or at least is willing to put forward the investment to show that they are serious about it. Otherwise you could end up with a large number of failed partial projects littering the neighborhoods that were started by people with various intentions and degrees of available capital to complete them.

Have you looked in to what your town would charge for the license? What kind of restrictions and stipulations does it carry? You really can't say that they are preventing you from running cable if you don't know what is required to run it. Do you even know who ran the existing conduit (or who owns the utility poles if you want to go overhead instead)?

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

forbidding people to compete by law is not a failure of capitalism.

Try again.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

not when the license is not generally offered to anyone on reasonable terms.

Lets say I say anyone can do a thing... they just need a license... and then I make a point of never issuing such licenses to anyone except two companies under any circumstances.

That's a de facto ban.

De jure you can make any claim you want but it won't be intellectually honest in the face of a de facto ban.

Look guys... we can jerk each other off until our eyes melt... but at the end of the day the reality is the reality is the reality. And we can either get real here or all we're doing is jerking each other off.

The de facto reality is that only a few large companies are ever issued these licenses and acquiring these licenses is unreasonable for anyone else.

Even google is having a hard time obtaining these licenses on places where the duopolies are strong. That should give you an idea of how fucking stupidly impossible it is for anyone to get a foot in the door when multi billion dollar corporations are saying that they can't even fucking bribe their way in most of the time for a reasonable fee.

I was reading a long complaint from Centurylink that cox/time warner are blocking them from service provision in some areas.

I've had this argument a million times on this board and it always boils down to some fool that will reflexively make any fucking stupid argument he can think of to defend the status quo. It is not credible.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

not when the license is not generally offered to anyone on reasonable terms.

So what terms is the license offered under? What about those terms causes you to call them to be not "reasonable"?
 
 

I make a point of never issuing such licenses to anyone except two companies under any circumstances.

Can you show that others have applied for these licenses? You seem to think yourself to be an expert on these licenses, can you tell us under what terms anyone else was denied? After all, if you - as a business - are requesting a license from the city to do something, in most cases the application process is part of the public record.
 
 

De jure you can make any claim you want but it won't be intellectually honest in the face of a de facto ban.

You have claimed multiple times now that there is a de facto ban, it is understood that you believe that to be the case. Can you provide some sort of evidence to back it up?
 
 

I was reading a long complaint from Centurylink that cox/time warner are blocking them from service provision in some areas.

Reading it where? On a forum on a web site? In the OpEd pages of a local newspaper? I'm guessing it wasn't in the minutes of a city council meeting for your municipality. Do you even know where and when your city council meets? Do you know who is responsible for issuing these licenses in your city?

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Typically they're required to offer service for the entire city as a condition of providing service to any portion of the city.

The list of conditions is variable and often graft is a component.

As to this question about whether anyone has applied... this is a silly question. You're saying no one in these cities would attempt to offer service at any part of the city? Really?

Regardless, I can link you to Google and Centurylink complaining about franchise license lockout. Its well known amongst anyone paying attention.

As to evidence... being a veteran of internet discussions which are basically nailing jello to the wall... I would like you to commit to a win condition. Provide me with something you would accept as a win for me. I mean a win. Done. Tell me what that is and I'll bother to go get the info. Short of that... I'll be concerned that you're just f'ing with me to waste my time and will just endlessly goalpost move.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically they're required to offer service for the entire city as a condition of providing service to any portion of the city.

I've seen plenty of cities where no such condition exists. If you're trying to claim that this is a condition set forth by your city for anyone who wants to apply for a license to lay conduit, please show us that this condition indeed exists.
 
 

As to this question about whether anyone has applied... this is a silly question.

No, there is nothing silly about that question. You claim that people are rejected by the application process. If that is the case, you should be able to find out why they were rejected.
 
 

Regardless, I can link you to Google and Centurylink complaining about franchise license lockout.

Please do. I would be interested in seeing it, and it would give some credence to your claims.
 
 

Provide me with something you would accept as a win for me. I mean a win. Done. Tell me what that is and I'll bother to go get the info.

A "win"? This ain't the super bowl, this is - at least supposed to be - a discussion. If you want a "win", maybe start by providing a link to the permit process for the license that you talk about, to show what is actually required to get this license. If you could show what people (or companies) are actually being denied the license over, that would be great too.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Failure to provide a win condition is a sign of bad faith.

Noted.

I'll move on. I'm not going to waste my time providing you with endless information while you goalpost move. Failing to lock yourself down means you intended to back peddle and goalpost move. So we're done. You just basically admitted you're arguing in bad faith.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sudden insistence that someone must "win" this discussion is evidence that you are not able to reach up to the same level of maturity as the AC(s) who have been asking you plainly for information. You have laid out your beliefs, but you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support them. If you want to have a philosophical discussion that's fine but nobody "wins" a philosophical discussion. If you want to have a discussion based on facts, then you really need to provide some.

You could even ask the commenter(s) for facts to back up their arguments, but so far you not only haven't done that but you haven't even bothered to quote them directly. If there is a case for someone arguing in bad faith, it would be you.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

fine, i'll play along. you want a win condition? i'll consider you to have won if you can meet the following:

• show a link to a page hosted by your town or city that describes the requirements for a license
• show that someone has applied and been unreasonably denied the license

those criteria would actually support the argument that you seem to be trying to make. if you could meet those criteria, you can call yourself a winner. so far you have claimed that these criteria exist and that support for them exists, but you have refused to provide any such support for them. here's your chance.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Karmashock]

Win conditions have nothing to do with maturity. Your attempt to goalpost shift the issue to one of courtesy shows that I pegged you accurately.

My intention was to have a productive discussion.

I made a statement.

You contested it.

That started a debate and I then wanted terms for that debate so that it could be productive.

You are squirting ink in the water now and trying to change the subject. Which is fine because it merely reinforces why stating firm conditions that will prevent people from goalpost moving is important.

But if you're a dyed in the wool sophist then I of course understand why you're repelled by my tactic. I am a stone cold stoic. There is nothing about your rhetorical games that impresses or confuses me. You can either play my game or you can spin doctor to your heart's content. Either way, I will not be pulled into a discussion where you're going to goalpost move. You will lock yourself down to firm positions or your request for a debate is rejected.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're actually interested in having a discussion, then why are you no longer discussing the topic of the discussion? You haven't shown us how your town is oppressing you and preventing you from laying cable on your own. You have been asked multiple times by multiple people to show this and instead you are feigning injury from the people who are asking you questions. I haven't seen anyone shift any goalposts; in fact you have been given some very straightforward questions multiple times.

So can you provide anything to support your earlier statements about being prevented from laying cable, or are you going to admit that you cannot support them? Those are your two choices at this point. Everything else you have gone for so far is just a distraction, and the distractions you keep throwing about strongly suggest that you cannot support your initial claim.

Re:All would be resolved if we could all lay cable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're actually interested in having a discussion, then why are you no longer discussing the topic of the discussion?

That's Karmashock's general behavior, gets off the rails, then complains that the discussion is no longer on topic, so ends it, but only after declaring victory.

Gee...

[quintessencesluglord]

funny how "unfair billing practices" is know as fraud when you aren't a corporation.

Re: Canal O'Rourke lost his job for trying to repo

[wonkey_monkey]

Conal O'Rourke. Just in case anyone else tries to Google it.

Part of the tiny handful

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought there must be a tiny handful of people, somewhere, somehow, who are completely satisfied with cable TV service. Enjoy your gouging, my friend.

Re: Canal O'Rourke lost his job for trying to repo

[Anonymous Coward]

Conal O'Rourke. Just in case anyone else tries to Google it.

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/a-public-apology-to-conal-orourke#

Apple

[erp_consultant]

You know, I don't know why Apple or some other tech company with vast amounts of idle cash doesn't just buy Comcast. I think that customers would be thrilled. At the very least you wouldn't have to worry about incorrect bills and shitty customer service. Not only that, it would be the ideal delivery mechanism for Apple and their products. They could tie it in with iTunes for music and movie streaming.

Maybe it's a bit far fetched but who knows?

Re:Apple

[havana9]

You know, I don't know why Apple or some other tech company with vast amounts of idle cash doesn't just buy Comcast. I think that customers would be thrilled.

Maybe it's because they know well that there are too many nails in the coffin to make Comcast a good and profitable company. If Google prefers to put a new fiber network I think it's because it's far cheaper to start from scratch on a new technology than to have to deal with legacy thechnology that will have to be mantained for existing users and the new technology that has to be deployed.

Re:Apple

[waspleg]

I'm sure it's that and not the ability to monitor everything going over their links for "telemetry" which is their money faucet vs a large up front capital investment and some maintenance.

Shouldn't this be an FTC issue, not an FCC issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me it's fraud, not communications...

FCC would be appropriate if the cable co is not allowing customers to buy their own receivers.

Re:Shouldn't this be an FTC issue, not an FCC issu

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I would agree here. However, I think it requires a multi pronged attach approach. If my memory serves me, a few years back ATT Wireless was being sued by both the FTC and the FCC for the same thing (related to their unlimited data plans). They went to court and tried to have the suits dismissed playing each group against each other.
FTC vs ATT - ATT Claimed they were being investigated and sued by the FCC and requested a dismissal.
FCC vs ATT - ATT claimed they were being investigated and sued by the FTC, and requested a dismissal.

They will lie cheat and steal, and do whatever they want, as long as the money keeps flowing into politicians pockets, nothing will ever change.

I have experienced this constantly

[XxtraLarGe]

I have 1 DVR for our main TV & 2 digital converter boxes for our upstairs TVs. The 2 DC boxes are supposed to be cheap; $2.95 each per month. When we first set them up, they didn't work. So I had to call Comcast and have them "program" them. After this, they started working, but I shortly got a letter saying that I was being under billed, and the correct price is $10. Of course, $10 was the cost of the original set-top boxes I returned to get the 2 cheaper DC boxes. I called them up to get the bill fixed, then my DC boxes magically stopped working again. Called back, got them working, got the $10 letter agin. I've done this 3 times, and just got my $10 letter, so I am giving up and returning the 2 DCs next week. It's not worth the hassle. I wonder how much time & money Comcast wastes because they are constantly screwing up?

Re:I have experienced this constantly

[EzInKy]

Think about all the other things you could be doing with the money you have thrown at them over the years. Seriously, just cut the cord.

Re:I have experienced this constantly

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are advertised at $2.95, then it's a classic bait-and-switch. This is an easy fraud case. Take them to court.

Exactly what happened to me

[stevegee58]

I was billed by Comcast for a year for a cable modem rental even though I bought my own. Yes, I admit I should have been reading every line entry on my bill every month but I wasn't. When I discovered this error I called Comcast and they immediately admitted the mistake and stopped billing me for it. However when I asked for my money back for the $10/month for the previous 12 months they got all snippy and said I had only a 60 day window to challenge erroneous charges.
So I filed a formal complaint with the FCC and within days I was called back by Comcast and credited the 12 months of erroneous charges. I highly recommend this path since it was so absurdly easy.
I've very happy to hear I'm not alone in this.

Re:Exactly what happened to me

[Simulant]

Same thing happened to me. 3 freaking times they started charging me for my own modem. (nearly... I got a letter the third time and pre-empted the actual bill). After my complaint to the FCC, I was called back by Comcast in under 24 hours with an apology. Now they send me a letter every month offering to upgrade my equipment "for free" because my current modem doesn't support the speed I'm paying for. I'm paying for the 150 Mbps tier (because I got a good deal due to what I think was a mistake on their part) but my actual speed is about 100Mbps. Good enough for me. Don't want their equipment under any circumstance.

Re:Exactly what happened to me

[AthanasiusKircher]

I was billed by Comcast for a year for a cable modem rental even though I bought my own.

HOW I DISCOVERED COMCAST CUSTOMER SERVICE WAS EVIL INCARNATE

Once upon a time (over a decade ago), I moved between states. Before leaving State 1, I called Comcast and said, "I'm moving. Cancel my service. I'm going to get Comcast in State 2. Should I return my cable modem?"

"No," said the helpful Comcast rep, "Take your modem with you."

I arrived in State 2. The tech who came to set up my "installation" (which was supposed to be free, and said so on the work order) said he'd give me a new modem that was standard in State 2. He collected my old modem, and (thankfully) gave me a receipt.

A month passes. In State 1, I am charged a $200 fee for the modem that was never returned, plus a $50 "lost equipment" fee. In State 2, I am charged a $50 installation fee, even though I was told by multiple people it was free.

I tried calling Comcast. They told me I needed to go to the local center in person and talk to someone there, since they collected my modem and set the local pricing (free install deal, etc.). I went to the local center in person, and they told me they had no power to resolve any of this -- I needed to call.

So, I called Comcast again. Again, I was told they couldn't do anything. I said I needed to speak to a supervisor. They told me that they couldn't transfer me, but they could have one call me back. I objected, but I was told, "That's the way the system works."

Three days later, on a Sunday afternoon, I was called by a Comcast "supervisor." I explained the situation. He proceeded to offer me a year-long "promotional offer" which would net me about $240 in savings. But I told him that I had been billed for $300 erroneously (including $250 for a device that I had documentation for its return), and I would not pay it.

He then told me that HE had "no power" to fix my problems, because only people in "my local market" could fix them. I asked where he was. Somewhere across the country. Okay, so could he transfer me to a supervisor in my "local market"? No -- obviously not! It was Sunday afternoon! Nobody was available in my "local market."

Okay - well, perhaps they could put another request into "the system" to have a supervisor call me back from my "local market" on a day they were available? Nope -- "I'm sorry, the system doesn't work like that."

At this point, it was beyond belief. "Wait," I said, "So, let me get this straight: You're calling me to tell me you can't fix my problem, and there's nothing you can do to put me in touch with a person at your company who could fix my problem?" Yes.

I was in the middle of a Kafka novel.

I gave up. I filed complaints with the FCC, state agencies in both states, and the BBB, sending all of them copies of my documentation. Six months later they finally had sorted it out and I didn't have to pay anything, and the BBB even got them to send me an apology letter.

Moral of the story: Don't talk to Comcast. Be sure you have written records of everything. File complaints with government agencies. Not only is it more efficient, but it also creates government records of how bad Comcast really is.

THE END.

drivel - nothing will change

[jsepeta]

It's easy for Congress members to Blast the cable industry by day, and pocket donations from the cable industry by night, accomplishing nothing towards consumer protection.

Re:drivel - nothing will change

[Fire_Wraith]

The senators speaking here are pretty consistently against corporate abuse, and have been pro-consumer, nevermind reasonably tech-astute (especially the Oregon senators). They're not the ones you should be slamming for taking bribes and doing nothing - these people actually walk the walk.

The problem is that they're a minority in the senate, both in terms of being pro-consumer/anti-abuse, and in being part of the minority party. Contrast them to the Republicans that are busy decrying Net Neutrality, Title II, etc. And in fairness, not all republicans in congress are, and there's more than few corporate shills on the democratic side, but if we're talking about the loudest voices in each group, it's clear where the preferences tend to lie.

And that's something that's important to remember - not that one party is good or bad, or to claim that one is pure and the isn't, but that it's absolutely NOT fair to just tar every single legislator with the same brush, and claim they're all the same. Some of them are CLEARLY better than others, and by refusing to recognize that, we're punishing the good along with the bad. We need to reward the good behavior, and punish the bad ones.

Bri~ er Campaign Funds

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they're after.
They're half-assedly posturing, without actually setting up anything with teeth in it, so that they'll be paid off to quiet down. Then we'll find out that the FCC's been defanged again to specifically ensure nothing gets to happen that might be good for the people.

If they actually gave a flying **** about the consumers they're pretending to protect, they'd draw and quarter those responsible as an example to the next lot of executives, and make it very clear that raping our wallets up the ass - thumbing their nose at us knowing we can't give up what is nowadays actually an essential service (try getting or keeping a job without so much as a phoneline) - will no longer be tolerated.

If senators actually cared about living, non-corporate-legal-entity citizens, they'd jail these bastards families too.

Just had my internet-only bill jump 40%

[mpercy]

No reason given. No announcement or warning. Just boom, new bill.

Re:Matters of Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

Steal fifty bucks out of a cash register, you get jail
Steal billions from taxpayers, you get billions more to bail you out.

What's important is *how much* you stole. Corporations are just way better at stealing huge amounts than we are, that's all.

Re:Comcast: 6 ways to attempt to get customer serv

[penguinoid]

6 Things Comcast Customers Can Try To Get Some Actual Customer Service

Those things might get you results, but they won't get you service.

Screw the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC have no say in the matter. This issue belongs in the hands of the state Attorney General to charge Comcast for deceptive trade practices, as they are selling a service they are not providing.

Re:Screw the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care who does it. I just want everyone who worked at or above the level of middle management at Comcast in the past 15 years to be charged with fraud and sent to prison for multiple years.

Re:Comcast: 6 ways to attempt to get customer serv

[Anonymous Coward]

The usual customer service is terrible and I had to resort to sending a polite complaint to Comcast VPs which somewhat resolved the problem.

I noticed on my father's Comcast bill that he was getting charged for cable TV box rental fee even through he had only internet service for more than a year. The fee description was also kind of non-descriptive so I resorted to call the customer service who explained the fee and then informed me, they can only give me credit for last month.

Obviously that wasn't right so I emailed all the VPs at Comcast with my polite complaint. A nice representative surprised me on Sunday morning, explained she can give me a return in a form of credit because they usually don't return money. I took the deal because it's not like my father has any other internet options where he lives but something rubbed me the wrong way after they refused to return the money.

Democrats think you're stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure I'll be modded as a troll but the fact is the democrat party is bought and paid for by the big cable lobby http://www.nationalreview.com/... It's no wonder that Comcast (CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, etc. etc) all endorsed Clinton. Follow the money. http://stopthecap.com/2015/06/... http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com... http://www.fiercecable.com/sto...

Re:Democrats think you're stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So then why are the Democrats making the big stink? Wouldn't it be Republicans (or lol third party)?

Re:Democrats think you're stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Big stink vs actually doing something about it? Which speaks louder - not taking the money and telling the cable lobby to pound sand, or taking the money and faining outrage?

Why do senators need to be involved?

[jenningsthecat]

The last time I checked, fraud, extortion, and theft were all felonies. So stop all the chest-thumping and all the "OMG! the FCC!" nattering, and just enforce the fucking laws fer chrissake. Time to stop pretending that various service providers are somehow different than individuals who commit the same crimes. A corporation is a person before the law? Alright then, treat the corporations like persons - but go ALL the way, and start throwing asses in jails when and where appropriate. Some might say, "but in this case, we can only jail part of the person". I'm fine with that - how 'bout the head? Let's haul CEOs off in handcuffs. That'll cause a lot of second thoughts next time 'ripping off your own customers' is suggested as a viable business model.

Re:Why do senators need to be involved?

[radarskiy]

"I'm fine with that - how 'bout the head? Let's haul CEOs off in handcuffs."

I say revoke the corporations' limited liability and jail the shareholders.

More to the point

[ThatsNotPudding]

Among the little people and the petty criminals; 'invoice fraud' is a classic.

To hark back to a Tom Cruise film The Frim: 'It's mail fraud'.

No, it's not sexy, but it should be used to nail their corporate nuts to their corporate foreheads.

The other cable fraud

[ThatsNotPudding]

Here's what I want investigated: the rather recent and ongoing sharp rise in cable Internet package costs. Why? Has free agency broken out on line, requiring cablecos to cover all those fat contracts?

Or is it far more likely that they are trying to make up for lost cable TV revenues (cord cutters) on the backs of all their customers.

If they do have legit increase costs for providing broadband, fine: show all your work to the FCC to justify it.

No, no it isn't.

[stomv]

It is election time.

No it isn't, at least not generally. There are six senators that signed on:

• * Bernie Sanders -- running for President now; up for reelection to the US Senate in November 2018.
• * Ron Wyden -- up for reelection to the US Senate in November 2016.
• * Jeff Merkley -- up for reelection to the US Senate in November 2020.
• * Liz Warren -- up for reelection to the US Senate in November 2018.
• * Ed Markey -- up for reelection to the US Senate in November 2020.
• * Al Franken -- up for reelection to the US Senate in November 2020.

Giving Bernie a "0 months until election" that is still an average of three years until these six are up for reelection. It's not election time.

I get that you just don't trust the US elected politicians to do the work of the people. Fine. Feel that way. But don't spew factually inaccurate nonsense because you're either too ignorant of federal elections or too lazy to look it up. Perhaps a bit more civic engagement on your part might help prevent the old business overlords, hm?

Re:No, no it isn't.

[dryeo]

You don't have political parties that help members of their party get [re]-elected in the States?

Re:Comcast: 6 ways to attempt to get customer serv

[Anonymous Coward]

When I moved out of my old place a couple of years ago, I called up Comcast to cancel service. I was dreading the experience based on reports I'd read about them. The rather pleasant lady explained how I could return my cable modem to the nearest office. I told her I'd bought my own modem years ago and no longer had the original one I got from the @Home (remember them?) installer. She said, oh, sorry, it says here you've been charged for modem rental, I'll put in for a refund. A few weeks later I got a check from Comcast for a few hundred dollars.

They totally lied to you. Refunds for bogus charges are easy and routine. Fuck Comcast.

Could be worse

[volmtech]

Imagine how bad it would be to not be able to get a cable bill at all. I don't have to imagine, I know.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it is a failure of capitalism, you're thinking in terms of a flaw of capitalism, this is a failure in a lack of it.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Karmashock]

... so you're saying there isn't enough capitalism? I would agree... your wording sounded like you were blaming capitalism for dumb things the government does.

If you're saying the issue is that the free market is not being permitted to address the situation by allowing competing interests to force a reasonable product quality standard at a competitive price... then I agree.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Anonymous Coward]

But anyway, moving on to what you did say, I noticed one further flaw:

The government wouldn't have to keep up with new technology or worry about anything in the pipe especially besides where the pipe went and how much room there was in the pipe for more cable. That's it.

That's not actually correct. The government will have to worry about the particulars of these cables in the pipes, both in the event of a breach, deliberate or natural, maintenance, and even routine operations. A lot of decision goes into setting standards for cable, including flammability, EMI, and even labeling.

It's not quite as simple as you seem to think.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Karmashock]

... we're talking about laying cable in a conduit... what exactly are you presuming to hold out as a problem. Flammability? Who is laying flammable cable? Whatever... the point is that maintaining the conduit and providing access to anyone on an equal basis would be an improvement over the existing system as well as be a reasonable thing the government could do without causing them to bounce off their own peter threshold.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Anonymous Coward]

... we're talking about laying cable in a conduit...

Yes, it's a somewhat complicated business with a lot of concerns.

what exactly are you presuming to hold out as a problem.

Your words, where you said they only have to worry about where the pipe goes, and how much room there is in the pipe.

That's not actually the case. You do have to worry what's in the pipe, and what happens to what is in the pipe.

Was this unclear to you? My apologies.

Flammability? Who is laying flammable cable?

That's a question you would want to ask before there's a fire, if at all possible, don't you think?

Besides, if you know about LSZH, you might consider the conflict there.

Whatever... the point is that maintaining the conduit and providing access to anyone on an equal basis would be an improvement over the existing system as well as be a reasonable thing the government could do without causing them to bounce off their own peter threshold.

Then make that your point, into a very specific one, rather than the broader one you tried to make it into.

But they won't be able to ignore some very significant problems that happen even today, with conduits of all stripes already.

So rather than make such a broad claim, consider moderating your expression to limit it to what you really are going to achieve.

It's noble enough, without making your idea out to do things it won't. Focus on your goal, don't try to pad it out.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Karmashock]

Fine, you want to create problems and make a dishonest argument.

Did you think of anthrax cables? Or cables made out of vampire?

Look... you want to be silly... be silly... just know that you've been noticed as silly.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, you want to create problems and make a dishonest argument.

Oh no, I just want you to moderate your language so you avoid making excessive claims.

It makes a stronger case when you focus on what you want to achieve, and are actually achieving, and don't let yourself tend towards exaggeration.

Did you think of anthrax cables? Or cables made out of vampire?

Look... you want to be silly... be silly... just know that you've been noticed as silly.

Can you explain the silliness in things that I have specifically said? Please articulate a specific grounds for anything I have said as being silly.

Flammability, EMI, labeling, maintenance and breaches are all important concerns for cable and conduit management today.

You don't need to try to say they aren't important, you can still propose your idea without being overzealous about it.

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Karmashock]

I appreciate your concern for my own credibility. That's touching.

Anyway... my point was strong in its original incarnation and there is clearly nothing left to discuss here beside concern trolling apparently on your part. So... are we done here? I think we are...

Re: All would be resolved if we could all lay cabl

[Anonymous Coward]

My advice has been given, if you choose to act to advance your cause, it'll be your decision how to proceed. Hopefully you'll avoid making a flawed presentation.

argh

[Anonymous Coward]

They cancelled my account on me, which was paid in full and up to date, and then forced me to create a new account on Nov. 29. Then they billed me a $99 activation fee when I literally already had the modem, the service was already set up and everything outside was set up. They charged me $100 to fucking press a button on a computer, I remember well the phone conversation because it took 5 minutes and 4.5 of it was paperwork stuff.. Fuck Comcast.