Slashdot Mirror
How Cable Monopolies Hurt ISP Customers (backchannel.com)
"New York subscribers have had to overpay month after month for services that Spectrum deliberately didn't provide," reports Backchannel -- noting these practices are significant because together Comcast and Charter (formerly Time Warner Cable) account for half of America's 92 million high-speed internet connections. An anonymous reader quotes Backchannel:
Based on the company's own documents and statements, it appears that just about everything it has been saying since 2012 to New York State residents about their internet access and data services is untrue...because of business decisions the company deliberately made in order to keep its capital expenditures as low as possible... Its marketing department kept sending out advertising claims to the public that didn't match the reality of what consumers were experiencing or square with what company engineers were telling Spectrum executives. That gives the AG's office its legal hook: Spectrum's actions in knowingly saying one thing but doing another amount to fraudulent, unfair, and deceptive behavior under New York law...
The branding people went nuts, using adjectives like Turbo, Extreme, and Ultimate for the company's highest-speed 200 or 300 Mbps download offerings. But no one, or very few people, could actually experience those speeds...because, according to the complaint, the company deliberately required that internet data connections be shared among a gazillion people in each neighborhood... [T]he lawsuit won't by itself make much of a difference. But maybe the public nature of the attorney-general's assault -- charging Spectrum for illegal misconduct -- will lead to a call for alternatives. Maybe it will generate momentum for better, faster, wholesale fiber networks controlled by cities and localities themselves. If that happened, retail competition would bloom. We'd get honest, straightforward, inexpensive service, rather than the horrendously expensive cable bundles we're stuck with today.
The article says Spectrum charged 800,000 New Yorkers $10 a month for outdated cable boxes that "weren't even capable of transmitting and receiving wifi at the speeds the company advertised customers would be getting," then promised the FCC in 2013 that they'd replace them, and then didn't. "With no competition, it had no reason to upgrade its services. Indeed, the company's incentives went exactly in the other direction."
The branding people went nuts, using adjectives like Turbo, Extreme, and Ultimate for the company's highest-speed 200 or 300 Mbps download offerings. But no one, or very few people, could actually experience those speeds...because, according to the complaint, the company deliberately required that internet data connections be shared among a gazillion people in each neighborhood... [T]he lawsuit won't by itself make much of a difference. But maybe the public nature of the attorney-general's assault -- charging Spectrum for illegal misconduct -- will lead to a call for alternatives. Maybe it will generate momentum for better, faster, wholesale fiber networks controlled by cities and localities themselves. If that happened, retail competition would bloom. We'd get honest, straightforward, inexpensive service, rather than the horrendously expensive cable bundles we're stuck with today.
The article says Spectrum charged 800,000 New Yorkers $10 a month for outdated cable boxes that "weren't even capable of transmitting and receiving wifi at the speeds the company advertised customers would be getting," then promised the FCC in 2013 that they'd replace them, and then didn't. "With no competition, it had no reason to upgrade its services. Indeed, the company's incentives went exactly in the other direction."
Wherever I go, I know Comcast will be there for me. Of course I'm not a customer, and I never will be. Thank you, Comcast customers, for paying for my internet access. You keep paying, and I'll keep leeching.
When defining capitalism Smith said that the biggest failure of mercantilism was that monopolies ran rampant. They hired their own armies, fixed prices and gouged, and made their own laws often going against their own governments. Not quite like too big to fail, but too big to control so similar. For this reason, Smith said that the primary job of Government under a capitalist system is to stop monopolization to keep trade free.
Today however, we don't practice capitalism. We have Government enforced monopolies. Politicians benefit from kickbacks and stock options, monopolies gouge customers, and the average person is screwed. IP laws have ensured that competition can be squashed in court long before they ever become a threat.
To reiterate for the anti-capitalist comments that normally follow a thread like this, we are not living under a capitalist economy. It is crony capitalism at best, but closer to fascism.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
is that they bill a month in advance for services that they haven't provided yet. Then a month goes by, and they say I'm late in payment. When I mentioned this to them, they said "everybody does this". Anyway, I'm not in the habit of making loans to multi-billion dollar corporations.
Any historian will tell you: if consumers put down a few biz-nazis , the rest spread their legs like Pelosi mewing SanFran poptarts. Will some shills leave? Only those pussy not glutted with the money-lust 99% postmodern Wall Street hustler$ cannot control. So mangle a few acquisitive muddafuk$ and milk the rest. Needed? Ask Robespierre and Lenin and Sulla ----- no pain no gain ----- Moral? Ha hahahaha .....
They've got the correct idea: Eliminate the monopoly but empowering US government to fix 'capitalism'(*) enrages the 'small government' and pro-privatization crowd, the neo-liberal fanatics and the dishonest executives who can still buy 'free' speech. Enacting such honest ideals will start another political shit-storm which will demonstrate again, that corporations have more rights than their customers.
(*) Really, they're building infrastructure, which is the purpose of local/state government.
So my speed suffers because my neighbors are running speed tests to see if they're getting their money's worth...
the internet is free. We're really just paying for the connection (the last mile ?).
Ever since spectrum bought TWC, my bill has gone up 3 times. Still somehow getting the exact same service, and some credits, yet they keep changing the descriptions. Also, now they are charging me $10/mo rental for a modem that was free (not free rental, free I get to keep it) when it was installed, and for 3 years after. Try to call to complain, get on hold for 50 minutes and give up. Not to mention that the price they advertise on their website is the same price I used to pay. They are just charging me extra because there is nothing I can do about it. Fuck them and fuck the government who lets them do this shit.
Monopolies can raise prices, decrease product output and quality, and capture huge profits.
One trouble is that excites those "greedy capitalists" who see this as an opportunity to capture some of those profits for themselves, taking marketshare away from an abusive and disreputable service provider, by offering a better deal to willing customers. They can even pre-sign customers like Google Fiber did. They could even issue bonds or start crowdfunding campaigns to bootstrap the investment.
Comcast can't do zlich to prevent such competition. The municipalities on the other hand have the real monopoly as they control rights of way (utility poles, trenches, roads). Worse, they often grant exclusivity deals to motivate the few providers that are considering jumping through the piles of red tape. Municipalities do this with the motivation to get more taxes, but this really screws up their constituencies.
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
The only way to mitigate this behavior in the future is to line up the executives and apply a sledgehammer to each head until it is unrecognizable. If an individual stole millions of dollars, he'd be in jail for life. When a company does it, nothing happens. There is no justice and there is nothing to deter other companies from engaging in the exact same behavior.
Over 4 weeks ago my ADSL line started to have basically 70%+ packet loss. I called in the ISP (independent wholesaler from Telus) and did the normal trouble shooting. A few days later Telus tech came in (Telus owns the lines) and did a bunch of work. My phone was disconnected for a while and he tested the modem synch with is fancy pants device. Said ok all's good. I was a bit busy with customers so after some time I tested out the line. Nope same a before. Called the ISP, had them put in an updated on the ticket to Telus. Telus comes back says, sorry customer equipment problem. I tried a new modem, router, and hooked up the modem directory to my shops dmark. Anyways same shit. So another tech comes in, its been a week or so with no usable internet and lost sales as my debit machine wont connect. Long story nothing, same shit. Now I'm getting pissed off and Telus keeps saying customer problem. Fuck so I hired a phone line tech. He came in and we went into the building telephone room (Equipment in this room is owned by Telus) and we disconnected the Cat 5E line going to my suite and connected the modem right to the Dmark. Well same shit mostly packet loss, internet hooped.
So phone the ISP back and they put in a ticket explaining what I did and they are requesting a port change. Two weeks later Telus has refused to send anyone over to put my line into a new port. I'm fucking loosing it now with no debit machine sales and ADSL is the only internet option here and max speed is 6mbit.
So the only option that we now have with Telus basically ignoring the problem, is the ISP ordered a new ADSL line, telling Telus its for a bonded system and then when it gets provisioned we'll cancel the old line as the new one will be on a new and hopefully new port.
Now here's a kicker. The line started to act a few days before Telus was installing Fibre in the area and in my building. I'm the only suite with an ADSL line from an independent wholesale ISP everyone else uses Telus as their provider, they have no issues with their internet connections only me and Telus refusing to fix their equipment.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The story comes on the same day as the French police arrest some people for selling 'drugs' to cure fatal diseases. In both cases the perpetrators are getting money for something that doesn't work - though arguably given the placebo effect, the drug sellers are less likely to be wrong about their claims.
The answer is clear; customers who paid for a service that it was technically impossible for them to receive should get a full refund and the company should be charged with criminal fraud. Note this is the kind route; the Hebrew Bible would call for a repayment of 3 times the sum, with a failure to pay resulting in the people responsible being sold into slavery - though only for 6 years!
With over 73 million dollars spent by cable lobbyists, not counting telephone monopolies, in 2016 alone, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that bus. Nothing like choking things in the crib before they get out and become...bothersome.
About the only viable alternative to cable is terrestrial microwave, and that's not too hot for most of the providers. Their head ends are oversubscribed 5,000 to 1 in some, and others use a bridge rather than route scheme, so if some customer turns off the equipment, down goes your internet.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
This sort of lawsuit won't do much, even if the state wins. What would do something about the problem is for the state or the municipalities to take the position that the cable companies have breached the contracts that give them monopoly access to public right-of-way for their wiring, then open the access up to other companies under terms that'd prevent any company from blocking or interfering with use by others. That'd still leave some roadblocks, but it'd remove one of the most important ways the telecoms maintain their monopoly position.
Wow the story wasn't as bad as I thought. After reading about experiences of others and experiencing my own, i figured it would involve a dirty trunk, some rats, an abandoned warehouse, heavy duty cable ties, a wet sponge, jumper cables attached to a stack of old ips batteries, and a single tooth grin from a 300 lb guy named Hector.
The lack of choice in New York, indicates that there is an absence of choice everywhere else in the United States. The FCC should not be promoting Net Neutrality, because there is no censorship involved. The most sensible thing to do is provide TrumpNet
... the biggest failure of mercantilism was that monopolies ran rampant. They hired their own armies, fixed prices and gouged, and made their own laws often going against their own governments. ...
we are not living under a capitalist economy. It is crony capitalism at best, but closer to fascism.
I would argue that this is the natural outcome of capitalism in a system where people must work to survive.
You can argue that all you want, but your position is based on willful ignorance. I gave the answer " Smith said that the primary job of Government under a capitalist system is to stop monopolization to keep trade free." and you chose to ignore it. You can read "Wealth of Nations" if you have doubts, but seems like you are pretty happy yelling from the dark.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Sounds like a good time for an intrepid sheriff to seize all the fibre under civil asset forfeiture. All that nasty silicon must be up to no good. Take their bank accounts and buildings too. Just think of the security apparatus you could build with all that!
6 years ago charter mediacom and at&t were available at my house. Charter came through and installed fiber 2 years later at&t decided it no longer had enough subscribers to upgrade from the old coper DSL lines and cut the cord they no longer even offer phone service let alone slow DSL 1 year after that mediacom did the same thing .. competition doesn't help if they won't spend the money to retain or gain new customers
So by your own definition, the DPRK has to be a Republic and can't be a dictatorship. There is no way to match the definition with the reality of the case. Your point is moronic.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We hardly hear about Smith these days because he had many parts to his working capitalism which are NOT allowed today ironically in the name of capitalism! Smith also had an idea for negative taxes...
You can't have government prevent monopoly power without keeping capital small enough to restrain it from corrupting and subverting government!
Today, individuals can subvert government as well as many more corporations.
Despite a history in the USA of weak corporations, a subsidized press around 3% of GDP (yes both existed before Lincoln) and a wealthy income tax of 90%. As those measures were lost the nation started it's downfall costing upon past successes. Now we are losing momentum and the idiot masses are building a wall ignoring that the majority of lost middle class jobs are due to pre-A.I. automation with 3rd world labor only delaying that automation by a short time period.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Comcast poured more money into the Hillary campaign in 2016 than into any other candidate. in the 2012 cycle, their top recipient of political cash was Barack Obama
Keep believeing all the tripe you have been spoon-fed by unionized school teachers (crucial component of the Democrat coalition), college professors (also key Democrat donors) and other people who are most-definitely NOT unbiased in the propaganda they shovel. In the REAL WORLD, no politician of ANY party (and particularly NOT the ones on the left who are for massive government with corporate "partnerships" i.e. ACTUAL fascism) can be trusted to be looking out for you and your privacy and freedom. So-called "net neutrality" as pushed-for by big-government sorts, rather than as you dreamed of it, was only a way to fool you into supporting the injection of federal regulations and regulators into the previously-free and unregulated internet. Your privacy and freedom are contrary to the interests of governments and the bigger those governments get the more of a threat your freedoms become. Barack Obama and Hillary clinton and Bernie Sanders were no more interested in your freedoms than big-government Republican Jeb Bush was.
Charter only very recently bought out Time Warner. The incidents in the article happened before that and in New York, where Time Warner was bigger than Charter (I think), so which company actually pulled this crap? Was it actually Charter or is Charter catching heat for Time Warner's bad behavior?
I said it before and I'll say it again: Internet service has become a Right.
Consider that it is the primary source for communication these days, it is remiss for our government to not ensure fair and easy access to internet access.
It is already proven, time and time again, that corporations can NOT be trusted to provide in the public interest.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.