How Comcast is Shortchanging Customers In Vermont (wired.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Comcast is Shortchanging Customers In Vermont (wired.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday October 9, 2017 @03:20AM from the business-as-usual dept.

New submitter mirandakatz writes: Comcast is suing Vermont's Public Utility Commission, claiming -- among many other things -- that its First Amendment rights have been violated. But as Susan Crawford argues at Backchannel, there are far too many holes in that argument. Crawford writes that 'Comcast, which Wall Street knows is essentially an unregulated public utility for high-speed internet access in the areas it covers, has unlimited resources to fight off this public-spirited regulator...[And] although there are many efforts in Vermont to provide fiber (including ECFiber), they're still small: Comcast isn't feeling any pressure to upgrade its lines to fiber. And, as [Craig] Moffett has reported, Comcast from now on will be growing through price hikes, not through building new lines. It's done with building new lines. The whole thing is dispiriting.'

95 of 144 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Seven+Spirals · 2017-10-09 03:30 · Score: 4, Informative

They pwned congress. Game over. Maybe a new name is in order. I nominate one of these: Comca$t, ComCaste, ComAssed, Comlast. Someone else can do better, I'm sure.
1. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ALL infrastructure: roads, bridges, water, sewer, telephone, electric, Internet, etc. need to be publicly owned.
2. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by thegreatbob · 2017-10-09 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Comcass would probably take the least effort.
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
3. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why stop there?
  How about all the above, plus the entire medical industry, including especially the pharmaceautical industry, be mandated as not-for-profit? Take greed out of the equation for everything that is classified as a necessity, and you come closer to the Star Trek vision of a post-scarcity, utopian society.
  Of course the main problem is getting the rest of the world to go along with this, and getting rich conservative types, who would much rather we return the world to monarchies and feudalism, to not go around waving their arms screaming "Socialism!!!" and spending their considerable monetary and political resources shutting it down and permanently discrediting anyone who supported it.
4. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So you're saying that greed is the only thing to live for?
  I postulate that avarice is bred into people. It was not bred, trained, conditioned, etc., into me, maybe to a fault considering our current "society" and how much greed you need to achieve success.
  The Star Trek society had other motivations. Money and greed were rarely discussed.
  I'm motivated by technology (I'm a design engineer) and the awesome things it can do to improve life, society, etc. I think most great designers and inventors were motivated by the thing, and making it happen. Many of them were poor, and never really received much money for their work, but usually some greedy businessman found a way to get rich off of their ideas and work.
  How about music and art: musicians and artists are motivated by what they create. I personally know many. They don't think about money- they just have to create the thing they create. A lot of great art never gets recognized, or maybe long after its creation and the artist/musician is dead. Most artists and musicians are very poor, unless they 1) are favored by the wealthy industry, 2) got very lucky, such as a Justin Bieber, and / or 3) make money some other way.
5. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  No you're right. In Star Trek the accumulation of direct power is the motivating factor. Easy to see in the few shows in Deep Space Nine which shows Earth and the way Star Fleet has direct power over the lives of it's inhabitants.
  But after all money is only a way to count power. No billionaire needs more money, they continue to try accumulate more because of the power it gives them. Same with politicians. They seek office for the chance it gives them to impose their will on others.
6. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Try, for a minute, to think beyond our current reality, please? The 'way things are and always have been' doesn't need to define us unless we let it.
7. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'll say the same thing to you I just said to someone else in this thread: Try, for a minute, to think beyond our current reality. The 'way things are and always have been' doesn't need to define us unless we let it.
8. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 04:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Horseshit. What about the technologies discovered by NASA the last 65 years? You're another typical capitalistic scumbag.
9. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by dpilot · 2017-10-09 04:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There is a range in between, trust-fund baby and, "I only do things to get money." I'd like to think that most of us don't live at the extremes of that distribution.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
10. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Gilgaron · 2017-10-09 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  You still get a salary working at a not-for-profit. But yes, the money tends to come from the government rather than private investors.
11. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by currently_awake · 2017-10-09 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The American power grid and telephone network were both built with public money. The LACK of a profit motive allowed them to succeed. The biggest lie told in America: "You NEED big corporations."
12. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Solandri · 2017-10-09 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  plus the entire medical industry, including especially the pharmaceautical industry, be mandated as not-for-profit? Take greed out of the equation for everything that is classified as a necessity, and you come closer to the Star Trek vision of a post-scarcity, utopian society.
  As long as there are medical treatments whose cost to implement exceeds the average lifetime productivity of the individual being treated, this can't happen. Unlike economics, productivity is a zero-sum game - everything that's consumed has to be produced. And if your society is consuming more than it produces, it won't last long. Something has to give; usually the currency devalues (prices go up) to try to make the sum total cost of things consumed equal total productivity (since wages tend to change slower than prices).
  
  That's the role greed plays in the economy - discouraging people from giving stuff away for less than it costs to produce. You can still do it (e.g. charity), but when done by individuals the amount you can give away is limited by the resources you have available to you (which is capped at close to how much you yourself produce). Socialism can work, as long as you are mindful to keep it within these bounds. But if you exceed it (give away more stuff than is produced), you end up with Venezuela. That's what makes socialism risky - it disassociates this tight coupling between productivity and consumption at the individual level (can't buy more than you earn), by shifting some of the consumption costs to society overall (via the government). But since the government has the ability to raise taxes indefinitely (doesn't have a hard budget limit), it can promise more consumption than the country is actually producing, going into massive debt (what happened to Greece).
  
  So while unfettered greed is bad for society, so is eliminating it altogether.
13. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by geekmux · 2017-10-09 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Star Trek society had other motivations. Money and greed were rarely discussed.
  The only realistic thing that should be taken from Star Trek is the fact that it takes place in the century most likely for any of the rest of that bullshit fantasy to become a reality.
  Greed N. Corruption runs the world. That ain't gonna change for a long damn time.
14. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by cheesybagel · 2017-10-09 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Nuclear weapons were also developed with a profit motive. Right?
15. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not when we can have the government force people into change!
  I work for money to provide for what my family needs and sometimes also for what we want. It's great you are in a place where you work for the betterment of others but that is not my goal - I try to help others but it's not why I work.
16. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Public money comes from corporations either through direct tax or payroll tax or another tax.
  And if you don't think profits and money had a hand in the timetable of what went up first and the quality of build and material for certain areas, try living in the poorer areas of town.
17. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by rahvin112 · 2017-10-09 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  You have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of power and phone lines installed in this country were installed by local coop's organized and created by local governments. These were later sold to major corporations for management and upgrades after the initial installation was paid for by the local communities.
  Please don't spread propaganda.
18. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by plague911 · 2017-10-09 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Almost none of the fundamental technology we are using right now is based off developments due to the profit motive. This is a myth the rural population tells its children.
  Your statement is about as accurate references to the tooth fairy or santa clause
  The internet? Defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Computing? Defense. https://www.computerhope.com/i...
  Electricity? Pure intellectual curiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
  Home electricity distribution? Half profit motive, half ego battle.
  https://www.livescience.com/46...
  Roughly 1/8ths of the underlying motivations came from profit motive.
19. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  See, you just failed completely at even imagining a world where things are not like that. Imagine a post-scarcity world, where the things that are necessary for life are produced by not-for-profit companies. I'm not talking about any bad-at-basic-math-UBI nonsense, either, I'm talking about a world where money and power are not the prime motivating factors in everybodys lives. Things and services necessary for life to continue are either inexpensive or free. You'd still work if you felt you wanted to or needed to, but you'd have the basics. Luxuries would be another matter, but since you wouldn't have everyone desperately trying to separate you from your paycheck for every little thing you needed just to survive and have a roof over your head, you'd have more to spend on those things.
  
  I'm not going to sit here and say that I've got the whole thing figured out, or that it would even work for 7 billion people. But just continuing to recite a litany of "How things are right now are how they've always been and they'll always be this way" only leads you in a circle. Imaginging how things could be different is what drives change. Enough people get the same ideas and then you have a movement. Get enough people involved in a movement, and you could start chaning hearts and minds -- which is what actually makes things change. It's not something that happens overnight, or in a year, or even in a decade. But apathetically accepting "The Way Things Are" keeps you in the same rut, decade after decade.
20. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to live in a world where everything was free, all my needs where catered to, and I didn't have to work.
  That's easy to sell especially to people who already believe that they are entitled to it. And you are giving people the boogeyman for who to lay the blame at: profit driven corps!
  The only problem is in order for your idea to work, we have to first get to the a post-scarcity world. My water and electricity are run adn controled by the local government, but that doesn't make them free. In fact, it cost more than a lot of profit utilies in other cities.
21. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by uncqual · 2017-10-09 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't you start a movement to refuse all drugs and medical equipment that have been initially developed via venture capital? That would show the capitalists how sincere you are in your beliefs and perhaps they will come and put flowers on your (likely premature) grave every year (or, maybe, piss on it).
  How would you suggest small startup companies that actually develop quite a few of the drugs (often to be acquired by Big Pharma for big bucks after/if their ideas actually pan out) get the money to fund their efforts? Or, would you prefer that we stall medical progress in the name of egalitarianism?
  In most cases, expensive drugs with widespread applicability become much cheaper after they fall off patent - in most cases, people with limited resources can just eschew drugs that have been released on the market in the past ten years or so and still have far better results than someone fifteen years ago had the opportunity to have at any price. In 2067, don't you think it would be better that most everyone have access to off-patent drugs aggressively developed prior to 2057 rather than, due to stalling of progress in drug development, no one having access to drugs that the competitive market would have developed after perhaps 2032?
  Many of these drugs developed by startup companies are not obviously going to be winners and many such ventures fail and investors lose all their investment so without a strong profit opportunity, only philanthropists would offer funds and there just are not very many of those (and a lot of them seem to be spending their money on very basic problems in the Third World where they feel can help a lot more people with their money and "bend the curve" for future generations in those areas). Do you think we would be better off with the politicians (perhaps Ryan and Trump aided by lobbyists?) picking which drugs to invest in because they are so knowledgeable?
  (Yes, as PharmaBro demonstrated, some capitalists manage to manipulate the government's approval mechanism to jack the prices up on drugs long off patent -- do you really want the government and lobbyists that create such a broken approval mechanism also deciding what drugs get developed and which ones done. In my view, it's better for the government to fix what they broke before taking on more to break.)
  
  --
  Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
22. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  lol. Most, if not all, was publicly funded at universities. The american taxpayer created the information revolution.
23. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by wyHunter · 2017-10-09 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  Are you working for $15 per hour? You're not? Then greed is your only motivator, yes?
24. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by wyHunter · 2017-10-09 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. Someone who understand reality!
25. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Friend, I'm tired of people not reading (and comprehending!) what I write -- and then making comments based on their incomplete or incorrect understanding.
  
  Nowhere did I say 'a world where EVERYTHING IS FREE'. I'm talking about a world where the BASICS -- food, water, shelter, clothing, access to energy sources, communication, healthcare, and medicines -- are inexpensive (**OR** free, if technologies progressed enough to allow for that!) instead of EVERYTHING in those categories having their prices jacked up all the way to the Moon, just because some jackass(es) can get away with it, so they can line their pockets.
  
  Are we there yet? NO, WE ARE NOT -- but thinking about and talking about an idea is what gets peoples imaginations going -- and you get enough people doing THAT, and maybe someone invents ways that it can be made reality! Do you get it now? Plodding along on the same treadmill you've always been on and never thinking about how something could be different is what perpetuates bad situations.
  
  Consider this, while you're at it: Many of the really great, transformative inventions and changes that have occurred throughout human history started with ONE MAN with an idea that everyone else said was 'crazy' and 'impossible''; we invented flying machines when everyone said that was impossible; we went to the MOON, repeatedly, and at some point everyone said that was crazy and impossible; we found cures for devastating diseases that everyone thought would never be cured; everyone said having a video telephone in your pocket was just silly stuff from comic books, but we're carrying them around with us right now. Saying we'll never have a 'post scarcity world' or a world where capitalism doesn't rule everything is ridiculous, but never believing anything can be different is what keeps things in a state of status quo.
26. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  I like the world you envision; I just think you are incorrect on some the reasons we are not there yet.
  And unfortunately, to get there and maintain, we would need direct government control over a lot of aspects of our lives. For example, is it a correct use of resources for a sports player with no family to have a house with more than1 or two bedrooms or should that go to a larger family? Should families be allowed to be large? In order to elimate or reduce scaricity we need to be micromanaged to a level most people do not want.
27. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  No no no.. you think I'm talking about Communism or Socialism and I'm really not. I'm not talking about any government 'allocating' anything. All I'm really talking about, for starters, is removing the idea of 'profit' as a motivator. People are still paid what they're worth -- but nobody is hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding wealth (and using it to weild power over others). Anything that used to be considered 'profit' is rolled back into improving things for everyone. I have no idea off the top of my head how this would functionally work; maybe the way 'employee-owned' businesses work?
28. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by Raistlin77 · 2017-10-09 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Friend, I'm tired of people not reading (and comprehending!) what I write -- and then making comments based on their incomplete or incorrect understanding.
  Friend, I'm here to tell you that if you expect people to read and comprehend your entire reply, you are in the wrong place.
29. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by msauve · 2017-10-09 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  OK. I'll see your Star Trek with a bar of gold pressed latinum, and raise you with Atlas Shrugged, which doesn't require non-existent things like replicators, transporters, and dilithium crystals.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
30. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by OneAhead · 2017-10-10 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't you start a movement to refuse all drugs and medical equipment that have been initially developed via venture capital?
  You're gonna have to learn to be a bit more subtle in setting up a strawman if you want people to read further than your first sentence.
31. Re:Pwn Congress and you to can rip off America by uncqual · 2017-10-10 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter because people who don't care to think about the problem don't read past the first sentence that challenges their beliefs anyway.
  In this case, the GP urges eliminating profit from all of medical care (interestingly, though, not from an even more essential industry - food - which we all need daily rather than just some people needing some of the time). Yet, he doesn't address how any new medications, for example, would get developed. There are very few (any?) of modern research intensive drugs being developed by non-profits anywhere in the world.
  It's upon the person proposing the elimination of the international system through which drugs are developed to propose a viable alternative to maintain an acceptable rate of safe and effective drug development or to show that they accept the consequences of people dying prematurely because drug development slows dramatically. One way to show this acceptance (since he provided no alternative) is for him personally to accept the consequences the next generation will suffer by eschewing all drugs developed under the system he urges elimination of.
  
  --
  Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
Wow by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-09 03:32 · Score: 1

Does that summary actually explain what the issue is at all?

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Wow by thegreatbob · 2017-10-09 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you just need to be able to read above, below, beside, between, several miles away from, etc. the lines in order to catch it. So I guess the answer is really no.
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
2. Re:Wow by suutar · 2017-10-09 04:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  not really. Short form:
  comcast's agreement with vermont's utilities commission is up for renewal, and the utilities commission wants them to continue working on the buildout obligations they picked up when they acquired a local cable company. Comcast doesn't wanna.
3. Re:Wow by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-09 04:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Now, having read TFA, it seems even more egregious than that - Comcast doesn't want to fulfill obligations it already agreed to fulfill as a condition of being allowed to acquire the local cable company.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
The biggest issue in Vermont by Vermonter · 2017-10-09 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Is that ECFiber is only building infrastructure to service people who can't get Comcast already. So if you are like me and have Comcast available, then you don't get fiber access, even though fiber backbones are running through Comcast territory all over the state
1. Re:The biggest issue in Vermont by Xyrus · 2017-10-09 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's a lie. The most recent map showing where fiber rollouts show they are confined to small areas of the state, mainly due to comcrap's...how shall we say...influence preventing the expansion.
  Comcrap is comcrap. They serve only comcrap.. They have not and will not do ANYTHING in a state where they hold a veritable monopoly for the customer unless they are absolutely forced to. Comcrap is like a new version of AT&T: We're Comcast. We don't care. We don't have to.
  
  --
  ~X~
Wrong headline by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 03:38 · Score: 1

Headline should read:
How Comcast Is Shortchanging Customers In America
1. Re: Wrong headline by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I have Comcast with fiber to the house. I donâ(TM)t live in a big city. Itâ(TM)s just that we also have the choice of AT&T with fiber here. In other words competition works and the market is better than fucking stupid government regulation.
2. Re:Wrong headline by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-10-09 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, it should read:
  Comcast says its first amendment free speech is being violated, but nevermind that, we won't present that argument. Rather, here's some rhetoric from a kind-hearted public-spirited regulator what's wrong with that guy he's sweeeeeeeet!
  I'm fine with stories that present both sides, but this is flat-out bullshit. Which would also be a more accurate headline.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
3. Re: Wrong headline by stealth_finger · 2017-10-09 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  So you have a choice of two providers? Both waiting to ream you. Yeah, your system works a treat...
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
4. Re: Wrong headline by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  You actually think what we have now is 'a competitive market'? How adorable you believe that. What we have are a few 350-pound inmates serving life sentences without parole, and like it or not you're going to be their 'girlfriend', if you catch my drift. The way the system is now is broken in fundamental ways because of monopolies (or near-monopolies), and give them a few years and there won't be ANY competition whatsoever, it'll be just one company and they'll do what they please with impugnity. Would you rather have things that way? Don't even try to claim it won't happen, either, it's inevitable unless something changes -- and that means some regulation, not de-regulating it.
5. Re:Wrong headline by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2017-10-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  
  Seriously. How is the First Amendment being violated here?
  
  1. Comcast is a religion?
  2. Comcast is not being permitted to state their side?
  3. Comcast is being prevented from staging a march down Main Street?
  4. Comcast is being denied the right to petition the government to let them out of their contract?
  No.
  
  Comcast says it’s a “recognized provider of protected speech under the First Amendment and, as such, may not be singled out for undue burdens that infringe on such rights.”
  
  I guess that "Nuclear Powered Megaphone Company" will also qualify as a recognized provider of protected speech under the First Amendment and therefore the potential for radiation leakage will be ignored so as not to cut into their profits.
A Guide to Comcast Business Success by dicobalt · 2017-10-09 03:38 · Score: 2

1) Provide the minimum possible infrastructure and quality of service to save money 2) Beg the government for free money leading to more money 3) Use saved money to buy out competition 4) Use saved money to buy out content providers to save more money on licensing 5) Use saved money to buy out more competition and content 6) Agree with other providers not to compete with them 7) Use saved money to buy out more competition 8) Use saved money to buy out nearly all competition 9) Conglaturations, YOU ARE WINNER!
One Comcast-in-Vermont Story Per Month? by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-10-09 03:41 · Score: 1

C'mon editors. This is the second Comcast-in-Vermont story this site's crapped out in a month. Could you at least pull up TheRegister to see if there's anything interesting in tech we could talk about?
1. Re:One Comcast-in-Vermont Story Per Month? by thegreatbob · 2017-10-09 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps drop a story on the firehose? I do actually see a lot of stories coming in that way these days.
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Cable/internet is highly regulated... by burtosis · 2017-10-09 03:42 · Score: 1

As in municipalities can't build their own infrastructure, nor is anyone else allowed to compete. In cases where competition is legal, collusion isn't and companies just divide up the region and everyone charges triple fair market value. Can't let the socialists win by breaking up monopolies and forcing net neutrality, id rather pay triple for 1/4 the speeds and willingly give up my right to a free, fair, and neutral internet. /s
1. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by thegreatbob · 2017-10-09 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why /s ? Comcast tells us to bend over and take it, so we gladly oblige. It's the American thing to do.
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
2. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by omnichad · 2017-10-09 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  In cases where competition is legal, collusion isn't and companies just divide up the region and everyone charges triple fair market value.
  Dividing up by regions is implicit collusion (if not secretly explicit). What needs to happen is some cracking down on this.
3. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by Jerry · 2017-10-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  " Can't let the socialists win by breaking up monopolies "
  uh, Vermont is noted for its heavy lean to the Left and its senator, Bernie Sanders, is a self-declared socialist, yet Vermont got in bed with the devil.
  It is common for Socialist to conflate profit with greed, but the Left has a sizable number of Billionaires: most of the Marxist Chinese ruling class, ditto for the Russians, the Cubans, North Korea, and individuals likeBill Gates, George Soros, and a very large number of American charities. *Cue the "not a true Scotsman" fallacy*
  
  --
  Running with Linux for over 20 years!
4. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by Obfuscant · 2017-10-09 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  As in municipalities can't build their own infrastructure, nor is anyone else allowed to compete.
  Exclusive franchises have been illegal in the US for almost two decades.
  
  Can't let the socialists win by breaking up monopolies
  
  The only way to force competition in a market is to force a second company to come provide service. You can break Comcast up into 1000 tiny cable companies, but that won't change the costs of a second company entering any of those markets.
  And there is no monopoly on ISPs. Never has been. The only pre-existingd dejure monopoly situation was cable -- not the Internet. When you talk about paying triple for 1/4 the speed, you're talking the already non-monopoly ISP business.
5. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by burtosis · 2017-10-09 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  You can force companies to come and compete by 1) forcing any isp that used public funds to lay cable/fiber to allow competition and 2) remove laws banning government installations and allow cities to install cable/fiber and then allow competition. Basically just remove the monopolies that currently exist. I live in an area with millions of people the vast majority of which have exactly 1 choice of high speed internet, Comcast. That should Never have happened.
6. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by scdeimos · 2017-10-09 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  What needs to happen is some cracking down on this.
  Good luck with that. In case you failed to notice there's an ex-telco lawyer running the FCC.
7. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by Obfuscant · 2017-10-09 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can force companies to come and compete by 1) forcing any isp that used public funds to lay cable/fiber to allow competition
  Since the franchise is not exclusive, this is already true.
  
  2) remove laws banning government installations and allow cities to install cable/fiber and then allow competition.
  These laws were made by elected representatives. Your issue is not with the ISPs.
  
  Basically just remove the monopolies that currently exist.
  The monopolies that currently exist are not legal ones but economic. Your step 1 does not solve the economic issues, and step 2 does so at the expense of the taxpayer.
  
  I live in an area with millions of people the vast majority of which have exactly 1 choice of high speed internet, Comcast. That should Never have happened.
  Comcast was never granted a monopoly as an ISP, so if it is one today then it wasn't for legal reasons. What is stopping a competitor? The cost. Solving the cost issue should not require the taxpayers footing the bill.
8. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by omnichad · 2017-10-09 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I have no illusions that it will happen. Just that it's what needs to.
9. Re:Cable/internet is highly regulated... by Required+Snark · 2017-10-09 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's common for Capitalists to confuse theft with profit.
  1. Control the law and regulators
  2. ???? = Monopoly
  3. Profit!!!
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
Worst slashdot summary ever by MobyDisk · 2017-10-09 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is one of the worst Slashdot summaries I've ever seen. It provides almost no information as to what the case is about while slamming the company and complimenting the regulators. What the heck is his about and why is it relevant tech news? What the heck does the first amendment have to do with it?

which Wall Street knows is essentially an unregulated public utility
This statement is simply false, it is a regulated public utility.
1. Re:Worst slashdot summary ever by Obfuscant · 2017-10-09 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  This statement is simply false, it is a regulated public utility.
  clearly you did not bother to RTFM
  The entire story is about Comcast trying to fight a requirement put upon it by the public regulation during a franchise (regulatory) renewal, which it would not have to do were it already unregulated. Who didn't RTFM?
2. Re:Worst slashdot summary ever by Xyrus · 2017-10-09 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  The aren't a regulated public utility. Sure, by pure legal definition they are but they are a monopoly in a state where their quarterly corporate profits exceed the entire state's budget. They own enough "interests" and have deep enough pockets that they can pretty much get away with anything they want, and they do.
  
  --
  ~X~
Comcast will compress video to shit & not add by Joe_Dragon · 2017-10-09 03:51 · Score: 1

Comcast will compress video to shit & not add hd channels so they don't have to upgrade the cable plant.
It's a joke to just have 1 HD each for SHOWTIME, CINEMAX, STARS. But at least they have 2-3 for HBO.
But there don't even have all of there OWN RSN HD feeds. Yes CSN/NBCSN Chicago Plus2 HD is only on dish, directv and att-uverse
Competition would do better than regulation by scourfish · 2017-10-09 03:52 · Score: 1

I think that getting rid of laws that prevent competition (such as laws preventing local communities from creating their own internet service) would go farther to increase quality of service. On a side note, though, I don't think that high speed internet is an inherent right for people living in a rural are.
1. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by aaarrrgggh · 2017-10-09 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  The challenge is competitors can only be viable with a certain minimum penetration depending on the density of households. So, in a suburban town, 20% uptake might work, but when you get to the sticks you need close to 100%. This makes it hard to have competition in all but the easiest markets.
2. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Most would rather complain that corporations are evil and government should take over without even realize they are asking the government to take over and fix a problem that the government helped create.
3. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by aaarrrgggh · 2017-10-09 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  You can put in a mile of fiber in the sticks for less than $8k. In a city, the cost is closer to $1 million/mile. All it takes to make rural life work is people working together for a common goal.
4. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by Obfuscant · 2017-10-09 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  They simply are not economically viable due to a lack of economics of scale for their infrastructure.
  
  Their infrastructure is also a lot cheaper to install and maintain. It is a good exchange.
  If anything, I'd have said that the cities are going to go away as the high cost of infrastructure maintenance and increasing demands of larger populations will cause the system to crash.
5. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by plague911 · 2017-10-09 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  While I have no idea if your numbers are correct, or even close to correct. But you fail to even consider population density. Given those numbers (if they are correct) it is still very easily to see how the city results in cheaper service per person.
6. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by plague911 · 2017-10-09 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  That would have been a viable theory except their is a massive variety of data out there basically completely refuting the your hypothesis.
  10 seconds for research indicated that costs for package delivery are twice as expensive in the sticks.
  https://www.prc.gov/sites/defa...
  five more seconds
  "The overall average per subscriber cost is $2,200. For the urban zone of the exchange the average cost is $800 and for the rural zone it is $6,000"
  telecom service costs http://www.rural.org/workshops...
  There is article after article after article, all indicating that costs per person are MASSIVLY higher in the sticks and the communities and their people are a net economic drain. The science is in, and has been for a while. The sticks are a huge albatrosses on American society
7. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by Obfuscant · 2017-10-09 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  costs for package delivery are twice as expensive in the sticks.
  
  "Package delivery" is not infrastructure. Roads and electricity and water are infrastructure. A dirt road costs a lot less than a four lane city street. Above-ground wires cost less both in hardware and in easement costs. Water is not an infrastructure cost at all in the sticks.
  
  There is article after article after article, all indicating that costs per person are MASSIVLY higher in the sticks and the communities and their people are a net economic drain.
  As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city, I know the opposite is true. But but but city folks subsidize things like phone service. Say that again after you learn that we had to pay to install the phone wire from the closest aggregation point to our demarc and I'll laugh at you.
  
  The sticks are a huge albatrosses on American society
  We'll stop sending you the food that is grown "in the sticks" and let all you city folks live off your community gardens, then, shall we? Or will you survive on Soylent Green?
8. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by plague911 · 2017-10-10 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  "As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city," That is as close to an outright lie as you can get.. Rural populations get confused easily. They see large projects in the cities and think their money is going towards it. The reality is they pay far less taxes than than the get back as far as subsidies and the city folk pay far more than they get back.
  http://www.rockinst.org/observations/wardr/2011-12-giving_getting.aspx
  perfect example.
  It is ironic you bring up food prices.
  Food prices for American cities would likely be lower if we did not subsidize the sticks. The United States has meaningfully high tariffs on many food imports. This is again done as a subsidy to the sticks people. Additionally the farm subsidies are yet another way we waste money on rural populations. The city folk would be much better off if they could just purchase their food directly from other locations and did not have to deal with the albatross that is rural America.
  "Say that again after you learn that we had to pay to install the phone wire from the closest aggregation point to our demarc and I'll laugh at you."
  While you may have had to pay some, Civilization likely had to pay orders of magnitude more than you to make that an option. This is a common fallacy in the sticks, they seem to think they if they paid some they paid all. lol
  ""Package delivery" is not infrastructure. Roads and electricity and water are infrastructure. A dirt road costs a lot less than a four lane city street. Above-ground wires cost less both in hardware and in easement costs. Water is not an infrastructure cost at all in the sticks." Yes the systems used for package delivery are part of the infrastructure. I am sorry but a "package delivery system" is simply a accurate use of the word infrastructure.
  "the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise."
9. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by Obfuscant · 2017-10-10 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  "As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city," That is as close to an outright lie as you can get.. Rural populations get confused easily.
  Yeah, us hicks in the sticks is just dumb fucks soaking it up at the public trough.
  Your bias is clear and unshakable, so I'll just stop trying to educate you.
10. Re:Competition would do better than regulation by plague911 · 2017-10-10 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah, us hicks in the sticks is just dumb fucks soaking it up at the public trough! " Yup!!! With direct welfare recipients, they at least know what they are doing. Rural communities simply do not, they were taught a myth since childhood that they somehow how are the "producers" in society. Unfortunately all the economic stats point otherwise. The rural communities are a rot, merely existing to cripple the economic powerhouses that are America's cities.
  https://www.mckinsey.com/~/med...
Vermont is an expensive place to service. by rickb928 · 2017-10-09 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mostly rural, so the lines are long, and low density so subscribers per mile are pretty low outside of the metro areas of Burlington/Montpelier.
The business 'climate' is somewhat less than friendly, though Comcast can make any business climate hostile. Anywhere.
The topology is downright hostile to telecom, with north-south ridges through out the state, making long-haul cabling a serious challenge, and expensive when traversing those ridges. This is not a new problem.
Comcast has plenty of excuses to gouge their Vermont customers. And Vermont will probably just try to legislate the costs out of the equation. Good luck with that.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
1. Re:Vermont is an expensive place to service. by belg4mit · 2017-10-09 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  What bearing does any of this actually have on them complying with requirements they knowingly agreed to? Particularly since they are allowed to comply in whatever cost-effective manner they see fit? They're not bitching about technical challenges, they're throwing up a red herring about free speech.
  
  --
  Were that I say, pancakes?
2. Re:Vermont is an expensive place to service. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  Vermont has long been connected with long-haul fiber through Boston, New York, and Quebec. There is actually plenty of bandwidth, the stable (Few Natural Disasters) environment there also makes it an up and coming place for datacenter construction.
  Comcast has long played games, it is surprising it has taken this long for the lawsuits to start flying
3. Re:Vermont is an expensive place to service. by lactose99 · 2017-10-09 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  Comcast bought this Vermont customer base with an OBLIGATION to expand service to those customers. How they do so is up to them, but they can't just back-out and claim freeze-peach on the whole situation.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
4. Re:Vermont is an expensive place to service. by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-10-10 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  So basically all the same problems faced by rural electrification and telephone 80 years ago?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Worked for me by Doctor+Memory · 2017-10-09 04:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

Got a competing service where I live, and I was able to cut my bill in half and raise my average throughput from 12Mb to 525Mb. When I told Comcast I was cancelling, they didn't even try to dissuade me.

--
Just junk food for thought...
Greed in itself ain't the issue .... by King_TJ · 2017-10-09 04:37 · Score: 1

You know ... despite all the hatred for her opinions, Ayn Rand tried to point out the fact that framed properly, "Greed is good." Not a big fan of hers, but can respect her for taking that radical of an idea and backing it up with some reasoning.
If you really take a basic human emotion like greed out of the equation, you remove a prime motivator for humans to work hard to achieve goals. Anything, to excess, becomes bad or unhealthy. Greed is no different. (Gluttony is another one of the supposed "deadly sins" - yet you'd starve and die if you didn't eat regularly.)
Anyone who respects the values behind the Democratic Republic we put together in the USA *should* be waving their arms and screaming "Socialism!" when they see it infiltrating our government. The United States has a pretty exceptional thing going with the government we were formed under - and I'd go so far as to say the majority of problems people point to in the country have their roots in attempts to introduce socialist solutions.
The REAL challenge is how to keep our government from meddling in free market capitalism and allowing "corporatism" to take hold where big businesses collude with government, instead of getting governed by them. I dare say we'd never have found ourselves in the current situation with regards to Internet broadband if we didn't start out with telephones as a regulated government monopoly, followed by government regulation of the cable industry when it was first forming. For something like a decade, Americans were stuck dealing with dial-up modems over analog phone lines because the telcos didn't want to give up their precious copper wire infrastructure. The rest of the developing world leap-frogged right over us (even as we were "gifted" with 64K and then 128K ISDN service over copper).
Given the "monster" our government helped the chosen big businesses build, we're kind of stuck now. That's why you can't really let things like Net Neutrality legislation die. Once govt. meddles with a service like this enough, they can't just duck out completely and say, "It's a free market now! All good!"
But as new technologies emerge, we've GOT to try to learn from these past mistakes .... not throw the baby out with the bath-water, deciding our Constitution and Bill of Rights is outdated and worthless, and advocating a conversion to the same old socialism we've got in plenty of other nations.
1. Re:Greed in itself ain't the issue .... by Twanfox · 2017-10-09 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  Ayn Rand, misguided as she was, did not simply posit that 'greed is good' but it was that self-interest or selfishness was the highest and only moral behavior. That could mean a lot of things to different people. It could mean being greedy as it results in your self-aggrandizement. It could mean being altruistic if that is what you want to do. Regardless of what you do, you do it because YOU want to and not because you were told to do it by someone else.
  Sadly, she also seemed to believe that people will perform at their best and that the brightest and best always won out. Even her protagonists would happily work for someone better than they if such a person existed. Rent-seeking or other greedy behaviors like patent-trolling are not likely very Rand-ian because they are not creators of anything and certainly are not doing their best at their job. They don't make (and get paid handsomely for it), they just take, as her antagonists do.
  As to the notion that somehow, if the government had never gotten involved, we would be in a better place today, I think you may find yourself misguided as well. It seems quite the culture of the USA that we always want the most return for the least effort. That idea has given us such fun ideas as external cost to business. To maximize profits, I skip the cost of cleanup of my manufacturing process and instead dump waste back into the field. Is it toxic? Who cares, and when someone comes to tell me I need to clean it up, I'll cry bankrupt and move on with my money.
  I have no high faith that, even if the government withdrew regulation in the best way possible (or even that hypothetical of never got involved in the first place) that we'd be any further ahead of where we are now. Comcast, in this case, doesn't want to provide the best service possible to all people possible. They're not being told they can't. Comcast is saying they don't want to be told what they have to do, even though they were only being told 'Wherever you see fit, run new lines.'
2. Re:Greed in itself ain't the issue .... by King_TJ · 2017-10-09 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone *should* want the most return for the least effort, though. That's how things become more efficient. The best software developers I know wrote great automation scripts that saved people lots of time doing repetitive tasks not because they were so hard-working, but because they were so lazy!
  I don't believe in ANY utopias, whether the Star Trek type post-capitalist world or the idea that a minimalist U.S. government with no controls on the free market would make things perfect.
  But what I *do* know for certain is that under ANY form of government that's ever existed, humans still act like humans, complete with tendencies to do evil, to take advantage of a fellow man for short term gain, etc. It's impossible to leverage central governance to make it go away. Government itself is run by more humans who sometimes choose to use the power they've been given in self-serving and corrupt ways.
  If government never regulated communications in America at all? I think things would be different than what we have today. Better? I think so, in the sense that individuals were free to implement any idea they had that might solve the problem. How many limitations have we imposed on progress BECAUSE we made assumptions early on that government needed to control such things as our airwaves? Initially, it probably seemed like madness not to have an agency like the FCC controlling how much wattage you could broadcast with and what slice of frequency spectrum you could use for various purposes. But imagine the scenario if it was just a "free for all"? Eventually, people would invent other solutions to the problem. Maybe they'd come up with ways to broadcast across a big swatch of radio spectrum, in a shared system with all the other broadcasts? It could work something like the Internet does currently, where all the data goes out to the net in real time and specific chunks of data get routed back to the appropriate receiver. Then, it wouldn't be a matter of "Company X" not even being able to offer cellular service until they can buy a few channels in a costly government auction. CB radio operators would have had radios that let people talk with as much range as they needed, without needing to get a government license first. Wi-Fi would "just work" and work well, without all the standards that have to inter-operate due to the limited frequencies declared usable for the purpose.
3. Re: Greed in itself ain't the issue .... by King_TJ · 2017-10-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  So... let's see here. Your "rebuttal" consisted not of anything really showing your ideas are more workable than mine, but simply picking my comments apart line by line and declaring all my hypotheticals "magic" and "fairy dust". Ok, because you say so -- you must be right. Humans would NEVER solve problems on their own without a big central government to mandate rules and regulations first.
Title fix... by GerryGilmore · 2017-10-09 04:50 · Score: 1

...Just leave off the last 2 words. There you go!
This is really simple by Solandri · 2017-10-09 04:58 · Score: 1
- If you have a government-granted monopoly in cable service, then the government has the right to regulate you via a public utilities commission. What the government giveth, the government can take away.
- If you don't want a public utilities commission overseeing your operations, then you must give up the government-granted monopoly. Even if it weren't government-granted (i.e. a natural monopoly), you'd still fall under anti-trust regulations.
In the former case, the market desires of the people are conveyed to the business via The People -> government -> PUC -> business. In the case of the latter, the market desires of the people are conveyed to the business directly via competition, and the people switching their spending to companies who better offer what they want.
1. Re:This is really simple by Obfuscant · 2017-10-09 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a government-granted monopoly in cable service
  The only reason it is a monopoly is because nobody else has applied for a franchise.
  
  If you don't want a public utilities commission overseeing your operations, then you must give up the government-granted monopoly.
  
  They can't give up what they don't have, and they can't force other companies to come compete with them.
  Nobody would claim that Walmart is a government-granted monopoly, but if nobody chooses to compete against them in a market there is no way to force anyone to.
Upgrade to Fiber??? by WaxParadigm · 2017-10-09 05:29 · Score: 1

"Comcast isn't feeling any pressure to upgrade its lines to fiber"
Their infrastructure is coax. If I read the DOCSIS wikipedia page correctly that coax is good for 10gig downstream / 1gig upstream currently and soon 10g/10g.
Why would they convert to fiber? What would they gain from fiber except a lot of expense to convert from one to the other?
1. Re:Upgrade to Fiber??? by aaarrrgggh · 2017-10-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is how many customers share that maximum bandwidth, and how much is usable due to ingress noise from said customers. The coax plant wasn't designed for upstream communication, and that causes issues.
2. Re:Upgrade to Fiber??? by oh_my_080980980 · 2017-10-09 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Because that was in the contract that they signed with Vermont. Reading is fundamental.
3. Re:Upgrade to Fiber??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  The only benefit to upgrading to fiber is to provide benefit to Vermont's citizens. They're obliged to build out a certain amount of infrastructure to the benefit of disadvantaged regions, as part of the contract with the state that grants them their local monopoly. Building fiber infrastructure isn't something Comcast does for Comcast's financial gain, it's an obligation Comcast must fulfill as a result of Comcast's earlier gains from becoming a state-granted monopoly.
Re:The whole in the argument by oh_my_080980980 · 2017-10-09 05:57 · Score: 1

The argument is Comcast is breaking its contract with Vermont. Read the article sometime moron.
Re:ISPs are NOT public utilities. by oh_my_080980980 · 2017-10-09 05:59 · Score: 1

Running lines through people's properties using something called an easement. Time to fuck off ass-hole.
Paper surcharges by tepples · 2017-10-09 06:00 · Score: 2

The internet is not an essential item, nor is it a right.
Internet access becomes essential once enough government agencies add a surcharge for filing forms as paper rather than electronically or even eliminate the paper option altogether. This has already started happening, such as with copyright registration at the U.S. Copyright Office.
Re:ISPs are NOT public utilities. by plague911 · 2017-10-09 06:24 · Score: 2

Says you?
States define by law what is considered a public utility, it is entirely their prerogative to define it however they like. Additionally it is easily arguable that access to the internet is more essential than access to a phone system which has long been defined as a public utility.
Re:ISPs are NOT public utilities. by tepples · 2017-10-09 14:15 · Score: 1

Though Internet access is a necessity among job seekers in the 2010s, Internet access at home is arguably a luxury, as one can use the Internet at a local public library or restaurant.
Re:ISPs are NOT public utilities. by tepples · 2017-10-10 06:09 · Score: 1

Someone following AC #55336919's thought processes might counter that the Amish manage to thrive without tying their homes to public utilities.