Comcast Won't Give New Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last week, Comcast announced speed increases for customers in Houston and the Oregon/SW Washington areas. The announcement headlines were "Comcast increases Internet speeds for some video customers." Customers with 60Mbps Internet download speeds are being upped to 150Mbps; 150Mbps subscribers are going to 250Mbps; and 250Mbps subscribers are getting a raise to 400Mbps or 1Gbps. Comcast says speed increases will kick in automatically without raising the customers' monthly bills -- but only if they subscribe to certain bundles that include both Internet and TV service.

"Cord cutters are not invited to the [speed increase] party," the Houston Chronicle wrote. "Only those who bundle Internet with cable television and other services... will see their speeds go up at no extra charge." Presumably, Internet-only customers can get the new speeds by paying more or by bundling their Internet subscriptions with video.

Comments

"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Zurkeyon3733]

Comcast A-Hole #1: "What should we do?" Comcast A-Hole#2: "Piss them off, that'll teach em!" :-D

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[steveo777]

It sorta could.

Cord-cutters (generally) have no choice. Internet can travel over cable lines (fastish), voice lines (meh), or satellite (barf). This "choice" drives the innovation that leads to a-hole decisions like this. So you have a-holes with decent internet, a-holes with bad internet, and a-holes with terrible internet.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[burtosis]

You forgot cellular (how much a month??!?)

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[AvitarX]

Where I live $180/month (don't know if it'd be truly unlimited, but they're claiming it would).

40/20 typical speed (tmobile network at my house), carrier level NAT, usable, but high latency (sub 80 over 20), I thought about it just because Comcast sucks, but I'm on a $60 25/5 Comcast plan.

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile somewhere in Europe I pay 29.90 euros per month for 1gbps internet access (ftth) and 15 euros per month for unlimited 4G.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just them faking demand. I'll just still be mentally figuring out what the price of internet only is. Old fashioned cable would just be an extraneous thing I'd never use, even if I was required to have a subscription of it to have a certain lower price for internet.

Do they get it yet? Their business model is a dead horse.

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

About $15 for 30gbytes a month over 4g (faster than real-time HD video) in Europe

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

With over 100 channels of free over the air digital terrestrial TV who needs a cord?

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as low as $40 plus taxes for truly unlimited and unthrotttled 1 Gbps symmetrical here in San Francisco, but wireless prices are "competitive" with AT&T charging a mere $60 plus $40 per device for unlimited (can be throttled) LTE.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Maxo-Texas]

I pay metropcs for 16gb / month for $65 and that includes an 8gb hot spot/tether.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[gravewax]

This is actually the kinda behaviour we want to see, rather than simply fucking users they are providing incentives to keep cable TV, this is the sort of incentive that should have been offered years ago.

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[jedidiah]

> Meanwhile somewhere in Europe I pay 29.90 euros per month for 1gbps internet access (ftth) and 15 euros per month for unlimited 4G.

That's more of a consolation prize than anything else.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[oldmac31310]

wtf are you talking about? You must be the only person in this thread who thinks this.

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're disincentivising not having cable TV, which is what I want. To not have it.

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch, I pay T-Mobile $75 a month and get 32GB 4G, unlimited 3G, unlimited 3G tethering.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[brainnolo]

I am not in the US, so I do not know the whole story, but I agree with you. Giving benefits to certain customers spending more does not sound outrageous to me. I do not understand why all the negatives.

Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[Maxo-Texas]

Not a bad deal to consider when I exceed my current limit.

For now, it would be a waste of $10 per month (*$120 a year, $1200 per decade).

I had T-Mobile and was on the "unlimited streaming music" deal and liked it but it was much more expensive than my current phone when I went to Metropcs 4 years ago. Of course, Metropcs is rebranded TMobile.

It's kinda like this comcast deal here. I have a "low speed" Comcast service that's cheap. I could pay "only" $30 per month more and have much better service. Which I don't need as the current service is already faster than I need.

Re:"All of our customers are cutting the cord"

[gravewax]

yeah I know. I am a long time cable cutter. But the reality is that this is what they should have been doing for a long time, bundling in bonus's and benefits for keeping cable. This doesn't force you to keep them, but it is a step (small one) in the right direction, when you provide a company with loyalty they should be giving back benefits for that loyalty. I am sure a lot of people here are pissed because they miss out on a benefit.

Let's manufacture some outrage

[The-Ixian]

Shouldn't be hard being that it's Comcast and all....

Does it surprise anyone that if you pay more money you get better services and are part of the first wave rollouts for upgrades?

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and you should only be able to buy water if you also buy a bottle of coke.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[bill_mcgonigle]

People here are already apoplectic that some people are getting free shit and not everyone is getting free shit. Where did the Nerds go? Which subreddit should I be reading instead of this site?

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[rickb928]

Your analogy is so defective it makes Comcast look almost reasonable.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[zieroh]

Which subreddit should I be reading instead of this site?

I'd like to know this too.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you're outraged that if you go to Carl's Jr and get the burger combo, the soda is way cheaper than if you bought them separately. Your head is too far up your ass to understand the way business works apparently. They aren't there to provide you with charity high speed internet - if they can't make money on it, they aren't going to fucking do it. You might think you're doing something clever and magical by cutting the cord and streaming your entertainment, but if doing so reduces their margins they can and will adjust pricing and packages to bring that back into line. Period, full stop, whine elsewhere please.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Riceballsan]

I'm at least partially missing that. For 80-90% of the population, the only thing that they do that would even half way utilize a 25Mbps connection, is streaming video. IE a service that is mostly taking off because of cable TV no longer satisfying people's wants with regards to the one thing it actually does. For some it's that they are sick of being nickle and dimed on every channel bundle, or the channels themselves just not having the shows they want... or just the ridiculously high price etc... So yeah I fully see it as a "do you want to be able to stream video in a way that free's you from our crappy cable channels? OK no problem, just pay for the crappy cable channels even if you don't want to use them. Of course the real key problem is in infrastructure and anti-trust. IE in over half of the country, access to the service that is the obvious eventual downfall of cable TV... is mostly also held by the people who's primary income IS cable tv.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Austerity Empowers]

Except this is more like going to Carl's Jr. and wanting to buy a large coke, and being told that you can only have that if you buy a burger and fries that you don't want. You can't just pay a reasonable price delta for the large coke, you also have to buy the shit you don't want for even more money.

And there's nothing you can do about it because there's only Carl's Jr. for 250 miles in every direction and their same bad deal.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[bws111]

Nowhere does it say you MUST subscribe to cable to get higher speeds. It only says that only cable subscribers will get the upgrades FOR FREE.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[kenh]

It's more like McDonalds will supersize your fries for free, but you have to also buy a beverage.

Wow, when you put it like that, they are a bunch of evil SOBs! /sarcasm

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Straif]

Absolutely nothing in the linked articles says a non-cable subscriber won't be able to get the listed speeds. They are merely write-ups about a deal Comcast is offering where those who are subscribers will get a speed boost for free.

So don't worry, you can still pay your $2 for your large coke but for $3.50 AC is getting the large coke as well as a burger and fries.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[kenh]

Except this is more like going to Carl's Jr. and wanting to buy a large coke, and being told that you can only have that if you buy a burger and fries that you don't want.

It says that NO WHERE in the article, you literally made that upbecause you refuse to understand how bundling works and your setting passionate hatred for Comcast clouds your ability to see clearly what is in front of you.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[omnichad]

It might not be in the article, but the Slashdot headline reads "Comcast won't give new speed boost to Internet users" and the headline doesn't say whether that's free or paid. Just that they won't give it.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[JackieBrown]

Why are so many anti-corporate posts homophobic and/or misogynistic?

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[rickb928]

Comcast isn't making you buy cable channels to get high speed Internet - it's essentially giving you a discount on higher speed Internet if you have TV service, and if you don't well, you get to buy faster Internet at their higher price.

Not the same thing as telling you that you can't have higher speed Internet without TV. Unless I missed that in the article.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're already making money hand over fist with huge profits, further (fleecing because they're the only game in town) expenses are just for the sake of greed, nothing more.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[i286NiNJA]

Actually yeah I don't like it because coke and fries are shit products and I don't buy shit even if it's free or almost free shit.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are so many anti-corporate posts homophobic and/or misogynistic?

Because only heterosexual men become enraged when they're ripped off.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is like you can't have any fries unless you buy a really expensive coke with throghup that no-one wants to drink.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[kenh]

So it's not in the article, it's not in the excerpt printed on slashdot, but the bit some random slashdot submitter made up when they submitted the article - that part proved Comcast won't offer customers the ability to buy faster internet service?

You have to work real hard to see how wrong you are.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[omnichad]

You already know that nobody reads the article. How many people do you think read the summary?

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Opportunist]

This isn't free. It's paying more to get more bandwidth. Yes, you also get something you don't need, but who gives a shit?

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Are they really?

Re:Let's manufacture some outrage

[gbjbaanb]

quite so - the article is written badly.

I mean, its basically saying "you get a free speed upgrade if you subscribe to our other services", or you can just buy more speed anyway.

Maybe Comcast should do it the way everyone else does it - bundle your cable and TV service together and we'll give you 10% off the combined bill. Here, Comcast is not reducing the money, but increasing the perks.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[jedidiah]

You are peddling a distinction without a difference.

I actually voted for the stupid Cheeto and I think this is shameless corporate shilling.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[StuartHankins]

Doesn't everyone hate Comcast? For new customers it's only a matter of time before they join the mob...

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[datavirtue]

You forgot to mention the highly offensive programming and commercials. A lot of people have gotten used to it by now as they have slowly boiled the frog but there is no denying that after you cut the cord you never have to worry about that shite popping onto your screen again. It isn't the money so much as once you get there it is really bad programming most of the time.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[datavirtue]

It is not free.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[datavirtue]

This is like Carl Jr getting upset because they are under contract with a french fry manufacturer but everyone starts avoiding the fries when they eat there. Now they have a problem. They can't stop buying french fries and they are under contract to buy a certain amount but demand has significantly shifted. Instead of making the hard choices they beat around the bush trying different promotions and gimmicks eventually begging people to take the fries for free with their meals. Because they are so steeped in the tradition of offering fries they can't see any other way out. Fat. Happy. Dumb.

Hopefully the management at these cable companies are inspired by the challenge of their business drastically changing underneath them. Flailing about trying to force shit on people because that has been your tool of choice for generations is just lame, pathetic, and weak. They need to start shedding their old contracts and business practices. If you are going to experience a change in your business you should do it gracefully. Why does everyone try so hard to cling on?

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Clearly you haven't tried amazon prime video with their pre-roll ads on every movie (fuck you amazon)

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

It is free if the bundle with higher speed is exactly the same price as they were paying last month for the bundle with lower speed. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm at least partially missing that. For 80-90% of the population, the only thing that they do that would even half way utilize a 25Mbps connection, is streaming video.

Wow, could you make some more baseless, unverified, small-minded claims? Regardless, it costs Comcast and their ilk NOTHING to provided a higher speed especially if they aren't using it. The infrastructure upgrades aren't user specific with the exception of maybe the modem. If they're going to provided these speeds, they're going to have to do the same infrastructure upgrade. This is a manipulative cash grab of a dying business model and just one step closes to fixing our internet problems as these idiots force themselves to be regulated to death.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks streaming video only needs 25Mbps has no idea what they're talking about. Those figures are a complete lie. They're incorrect. Go stream 1080p to your anything, and watch your network. Let me know how much bandwidth is being used. Then stream 4K and let me know.

Even 1080p video is going to be about 300 - 500 mb for a half hour. At best you're looking at 8 megabyte per minute of video. For a mediocre, crappy, 2 channel audio stream with base encoding. 25 Mbps would work if it was stable, but if you have25Mbps, it isn't stable. You'll be lucky to get even 2 megabytes per second. It's going to be buffering, always.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

In my house we routinely stream to numerous tvs, simultaneously to me playing games online. We have a 20mbps connection, and 0 issues with buffering.

Now I am not streaming 4k, cause well I don't need it. The biggest TV I have is 40 inches and we sit 10 feet or so from it.

In fact I would say most people do NOT need 4k. Why do you need that really? If you think you need 4k, I think you need to spend more time not watching TV.

Re: Let's manufacture some outrage

[david_thornley]

Really? I haven't noticed that on Amazon Prime, although to be honest we've been watching TV series more than movies.

Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to buy broadband, but not the tv service. Seems like comcast needs to be split up so their tv offerings become competitivly priced and the local regions own the backbone of the internet.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[rogoshen1]

But our regulatory bodies do the exact opposite of this kind of clear and rational thinking.

"Sure, let's let Comcast and NBC merge. what could possible go wrong there?"

The asshole(s) who thought this was in the best interest of anyone (outside of these two companies) needs a good swift punch to the throat.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[bws111]

What are you talking about? It is nothing more than a free one tier upgrade for customers who buy two of their products.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[Anonymous Coward]

The asshole(s) who thought this was in the best interest of anyone (outside of these two companies) needs a good swift punch to the throat.

Your mistake, of course, is in assuming someone thought that. You give too much credit to those who govern. They know it is against the best interests of the vast majority, but it brings them both money and power, so it happens.

As long as Americans vote for rich, pathological liars (at all levels of government) who say what they want to hear at campaign time, the problem will continue to worsen.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[hjf]

Where I live, my ISP doesn't force me to buy the cable service.
But if I bundle Cable + Internet they give me a 50% discount. Cable only is $40. Internet only is $40 (50/6). Cable + internet is $80 with a 50% discount...

Re: Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[Anonymous Coward]

what other symboitic relations can we create to overcharge the 99%.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[rogoshen1]

touche AC, touche.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[Opportunist]

Provided you punch with blades, we can agree on that one.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[mysidia]

They know it is against the best interests of the vast majority

But they CAN'T stop it unless it is so obviously illegal that they could deny it and their denial would stand up in court.

See.... the government's currently attempting to deny the ATT / Time Warner merger, and that's been temporarily delayed while the parties currently have proceedings underway in court to override the government's decision by getting a judgement that the merger is legal.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[StuartHankins]

How about bundling one punch with a second free punch

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[Anonymous Coward]

They need the numbers of cable subscribers to boost their ad sales over cable. That's why they are giving it a bit of a discount, and why users that pay only for internet cost them more money. Comcast's coffers get filled in more ways than simply billing their endpoint customers for their service plans.

Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me

[toddestan]

Most likely that's their introductory price. At least around here, $40 for both cable TV and internet would be a screaming bargain. They suck you in with a cheap price like that to bundle in cable TV, then later raise the price. I would check your bill carefully, because that price is likely to go up. Way up. Calling them up to cancel that cable TV service later can also be a pain. If you're only interested in internet, that's all I would sign up for, and ignore any offers for super-cheap TV service they try to sell you.

Why not bump everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd be better off just offering 1gbps to everyone with the same shit 1TB datacap and run to the bank with the overage fees.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Zurkeyon3733]

If you honestly think that the Cheap Bastards at Comcast have invested enough cash into that network to handle their entire customer base all of the sudden going to 1GBPS, I'll have x2 of what you are drinking! ;-P

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Narcocide]

Overbooking their network capacity was never something Comcast has shown any hesitation in doing. What makes you think that having enough bandwidth to handle their entire customer base was ever a concern for which they bothered accounting?

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

In Seattle, CenturyLink has 1 Gbps fiber with no caps for $80/month. Comcast's gigabit service also has no caps (I think), but is more expensive (or was, I can't keep track).

CenturyLink's gigabit service used to cost more, but they cut prices last year. I think people weren't purchasing their TV service, either. They had no choice but to cut prices to gain any marketshare (they were rather late to upgrading from DSL). Unfortunately, their 40 Mbps and 100 Mbps services are still capped.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[hjf]

And you really think anyone is using 1Gbps?

Most people use Wi-Fi. And wi-fi in real world conditions is not even close to saturating a 1Gbps link

Hell, Wi Fi can't saturate a 100mbit fast ethernet interface.

Why do you think ISPs are being so generous nowadays? Because 99% of people don't want wires. And they don't want to invest in a expensive router. So they use the shitty ISP-provided Router+AP Combo that won't give them even close to what their service is able to provide.

Not everyone is a nerd with a rackmount 10gbps switch and drops at every room. And most houses don't even need that.

It's like cars. Who needs a 500hp V8? And yet you see so many people driving those...

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, Wi Fi can't saturate a 100mbit fast ethernet interface.

Mine hits 300Mbps, and that's with 802.11n over 5Ghz. Not even ac.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[KingMotley]

Hell, Wi Fi can't saturate a 100mbit fast ethernet interface.

Not having a problem getting 250Mbps over WiFi to a single device here. And it's not even a good one. I could easily saturate a 1Gbps internet link over WiFi.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[hjf]

yes and your teenage daughter in the upstairs bedroom can hit 250mb wifi

COME ON.

You know damn well a synthetic speed test sitting next to the AP means nothing.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Obfuscant]

Overbooking their network capacity was never something Comcast has shown any hesitation in doing.

"Overbooking"? You mean not provisioning at 100% at the gateways? Yes, this has been SOP forever, just as it is with every network provider, and the telephone company before that.

NOBODY has 100% provisioning. You wouldn't want to pay what that costs.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[KingMotley]

Well, that's 250Mbps anywhere in my ~4100sq ft house, on any floor. Not standing next to the AP.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume everyone buys the $10 Kmart special wifi devices and hook them up to a $20 WiFi router like you apparently do.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a geek with 500 mbps fibre service to my home.

I can get about 450 mbps on my wifi (good Asus router helps). I also use systems which are plugged into the router.

Funny thing, I was paying about 20 USD for 200 mbps, and I got a speed bump to 500 mbps for the same price just a month ago.

Oh, am also uncapped, and push about 4 to 5 TB a month easily. And if running bit torrent, I can hit 500 mbps max, and rare downloads from cached servers (MS, etc), I can hit close to 500 mbps. Not in the US obviously.

Singapore, M1 is my service provider.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[hjf]

LOL.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I am. I download at least 20 Gigabyte per day not including game installations on PS4, Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC, also not including data used for Netflix or Amazon Prime, just for one person. Not including other people in the household using less data than I am. I pay that bend-over fee to escape the data cap, though, but, Comcast is pure shit so we routinely do not get out 1 gbps. The fastest I've ever seen Steam go was 82.5 megabyte, fastest I got on qBit was about 116 so it was getting there, but at those speeds and with Comcast's burst trash, it takes so long to get there that you'd have to actually bust out wireshark to see the real graphs, or it goes so quick you never see if anything is a sustained speed. And yes, I work for ATT, I've worked for Telecoms my entire life, I know what numbers I'm using and using them correctly.

Re:Why not bump everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I am. I download at least 20 Gigabyte per day not including game installations on PS4, Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC, also not including data used for Netflix or Amazon Prime, just for one person. Not including other people in the household using less data than I am. I pay that bend-over fee to escape the data cap, though, but, Comcast is pure shit so we routinely do not get out 1 gbps. The fastest I've ever seen Steam go was 82.5 megabyte, fastest I got on qBit was about 116 so it was getting there, but at those speeds and with Comcast's burst trash, it takes so long to get there that you'd have to actually bust out wireshark to see the real graphs, or it goes so quick you never see if anything is a sustained speed. And yes, I work for ATT, I've worked for Telecoms my entire life, I know what numbers I'm using and using them correctly.

Am I CONSTANTLY using 1 gigabit? No. Because I have a job, like anyone who can afford gigabit. And I don't run my shit while I'm not there because that's expensive.

I have the cable. Before this I was paying $200 a month including bendover fee for 250 mbps with no cable. I reupped with a 2 year contract promotion with 1 gbps + cable (the cable is pure trash the only good thing included is HBO. To get any real cable channels, it's an extra $200 a month to add them. You can't add individual channels). I unplugged the cable box 6 months ago to plug in a free Amazon FireTV I got at work and have never plugged it back in. Mostly because my TV only has 3 HDMI inputs and I currently have 6 devices that need to be plugged in without a switcher.

The pathetic thing is that I am currently paying about $10 less than I was before. I went through all this trouble to save barely $10 a month. I'm thinking about opting back out of unlimited data, too. I've decided that maybe my freedom isn't worth $50 a month to me.

You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[Tablizer]

Oligopolies = forced bundling; same as it ever was.

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[fahrbot-bot]

Oligopolies = forced bundling; same as it ever was.

FYI: Least popular verse from the Talking Heads' song "Once in a Lifetime"

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[hjf]

Sigh. The a la carte bullshit again.
Newsflash: a la carte is a cable company's wildest dream. They will sell you packs of 10 channels to your liking and charge you extra for the other channels.

And it's not the 90s anymore. We don't need a la carte cable. We have on-demand streaming. Grow up.

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up.

I fail to see what part of the OP's comment warrant this pompous "retort."

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[Tablizer]

I'm not sure what your point is. A lot of people I know want a-la-carte pricing. If we had more providers, at least a couple would sell it to us that way because there are a lot of people who want it.

it's not the 90s anymore. We don't need a la carte cable. We have on-demand streaming.

That's largely why streaming is eating into cable co's sales, the main point of TFA.

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[Tablizer]

Correction, the article links barely mention the recent shrinkage of the cable co's.

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[Opportunist]

Great! Sell me those 10 channels with the bandwidth I actually want out of the deal, and all the zero channels I want you can charge extra. As much as you really want to, honestly.

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[hjf]

And you think they will charge you less for "only 10 channels"?

Now everyone is outraged because "hurrr i pay for a lot of channels i don't watch".

If they give you a la carte, everyone will be outraged because "hurrr they charge the same but now they give me only 10 channels!"

Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha

[Opportunist]

Well, it seems that more and more of their customers don't really care whether they pay for one or a hundred channels they don't watch.

Ajit

[labnet]

Ajit must be loving his 10 pieces of silver. Hope it was worth it for the price of your soul.

Re:Ajit

[DaveyJJ]

Ajit must be loving his 10 pieces of silver. Hope it was worth it for the price of your soul.

You error in logic is to assume he actually has a soul.

Re:Ajit

[jwhyche]

Ajit must be loving his 10 pieces of silver. Hope it was worth it for the price of your soul.

I'm not sure if you are quoting scripture or not but Judis got 30 pieces of silver. But if the devil paid 10 pieces of silver for Ajit soul he got taken. I wouldn't have gone more than 2 pieces.

Re:Ajit

[Anonymous Coward]

Figures he would sell out for only 1/3 the price charged by the original Judas.

Re:Ajit

[labnet]

:) I was implying Ajit was even cheaper than Judas! I'm always astounded how cheap senators can be bought for legislation that works against their constituents.

Re:Ajit

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I have to say this is the first time I've ever anyone suggest that Net Neutrality would have forced an ISP to sell the same size pipe to all customers. Is your theory that people who want more bandwidth shouldn't be able to buy it, or that people who don't need bandwidth should be forced to pay for it?

Re:Ajit

[Narcocide]

No, your error in logic is to assume he didn't just steal yours instead and pawn it off without your consent.

Re:Ajit

[Narcocide]

That's the invisible hand of the free market at work, baby!

Re:Ajit

[ugen]

And those 2 pieces would be of manure, not silver.

Re:Ajit

[Darinbob]

I'd double check the coins to see if they were just silver plated.

Re:Ajit

[rogoshen1]

I'd wager he comes from a Hindu background, so instead of a Biblical reference maybe you should have gone with something like:

"I hope you are reincarnated as a spider monkey"

Re:Ajit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ajit must be loving his 10 pieces of silver. Hope it was worth it for the price of your soul.

Before he was in the FCC, he was a lobbyist for the cable/telco industry.

If there was ever a time when he wasn't a hired mouthpiece, that was a long time ago.

Now he's pretty much blatantly using his position to give everything those industries have ever asked for, and I'm sure when he's done at the FCC he'll go back to working for the companies he's supposed to be regulating.

I'm sure he sleeps quite well at night, because he's been a professional shill and weasel for a very long time now.

Re:Ajit

[JackieBrown]

The theory is that anytime anything happens that people don't like related to ISP, it is the fault of repealing net neutrality. The issue doesn't have to be related to anything actually covered by net neutrality, it just has to be related to something someone sees as unfair and the internet.

Re:Ajit

[Opportunist]

Last one to do this at least had the decency to hang himself.

Re:Ajit

[Anonymous Coward]

Bender: I gave blood.
Fry: Who's blood?
Bender: I dunno, some guy's.

Re:Ajit

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hope you are reincarnated as a spider monkey"

So...no change, then?

That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[HornWumpus]

You can pay $10 for a one step speed bump from comcast or you can get it for only $100 and get useless cable TV you won't watch.

Re: That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[Anonymous Coward]

on the other hand, even if you're watching a show, what about all the other content you're not watching at the same time? oh, 4 or 8 tvs in your house or bored room, that doesn't really change the equation much.

what will comcast do if you do get the bundle but never use the cable tv part and just stick with streaming Netflix & HBO and just do OTA for the rest?

Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[nehumanuscrede]

I wonder how much they would charge as an " installation fee " for you to bump that speed up by one tier.

You would also probably have to fight them tooth and nail NOT to include one of their shitty router / modem combos so they can charge you an extra $10 / month for that POS.

Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[RKThoadan]

As terrible as ComCast is they don't generally care about this so long as it's on their officially supported router list. You may have more jerks in your area than I do though.

Re: That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[omnichad]

what will comcast do if you do get the bundle but never use the cable tv part and just stick with streaming Netflix & HBO and just do OTA for the rest?

Profit?

Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[greenwow]

You would also probably have to fight them tooth and nail NOT to include one of their shitty router / modem combos so they can charge you an extra $10 / month for that POS.

I hate you for making me defend Comcast, but at least here in the Seattle area the routers with access points they use are very high quality. They're made by Technicolor and I think most are model TC8305C (IIRC). They're much more reliable and have a much longer range than the NetGear CM400 modem and Linksys E3000 router combo that we used to use. We pay for home Internet connections and equipment for employees, and I work for a very cheap company. We wouldn't spend the extra per month unless it was worth it. Also, if there is a problem, like Saturday before last when there were huge storms and power outages here in Seattle and three employees had modems and computers damaged, it was much easier to get an exchange on our Technicolor modems than it was dealing with NetGear's warranty.

Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[Anonymous Coward]

Those things work just too well. Connected to my neighbor's Technicolor router/AP that is three floors down and two units over once with my phone while I was troubleshooting his connection about three years ago, and still about half of the time my phone connects to it instead of my access point that's about 20' away. My NetGear cable modem requires rebooting about once a month. For him, I can only remember twice that he's called me about a problem that simply required rebooting in the past three years. The $10 per month is worth every penny extra if you're not technical. Yes, you can save money in the long term by buying your own modem and access point, but it's just easier to have Comcast configure it and maintain it.

Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed increase is literally the price of a bundle, actually. I can show you my bill.

Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10

[HornWumpus]

It's $10. The introductory price for a really shitty bundle. Don't do it.

"cord cutters not invited"... speed not needed!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is irrelevant. 60Mbps is already sufficient to stream 4K... up to 4 streams simultaneously.

ISPs should not be allowed to deceive their customers into thinking that they need faster speeds when what they really need is lower latency and reasonable prices. With rare exception will a 150 vs 60 vs 20 Mbps connection make a difference to my streaming usage or web browsing experience.

Re:"cord cutters not invited"... speed not needed!

[HornWumpus]

Holy compression artifacts batman!

Re:"cord cutters not invited"... speed not needed!

[QuantumLeaper]

I am a "cord cutter" and my speed is 100-120Mbs depends on the time of the day. I remember 18 years ago when I got my first Cable modem, I used to get 1.5Mbs. The problem I have had, in those 18 years, I have had 3 Cable ISP companies, Comcrap is the worst of the three. Just wait until more people have 4K TVs, we will have a problem with one 4K stream, by anyone other than Comcast. Also, I just love waiting on the Phone with Comcrap, if I have a problem. Last time two times I had a problem I was on HOLD for almost an hour and this was at 2 am, before that it was sometime around like 6 pm, I didn't time that time, but it was a LOT LONNNNNNNGER. That's why I decided to try 2 AM. Lucky I only have problems a couple years with Comcrap, that I need to call for help, most of the time I can fix the problem myself.

Re:"cord cutters not invited"... speed not needed!

[Opportunist]

Hey, it's still better quality with less compression than cable TV.

Next Comcast givaway ...

[fahrbot-bot]

First Prize: One hour of Comcast Customer Support

Second Prize: Two hours of Comcast Customer Support

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[Anonymous Coward]

First Prize: One hour of Comcast Customer Support

Second Prize: Two hours of Comcast Customer Support

The only winning move is not to play.

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[DaMattster]

Good god! I would rather have an enema than have to deal with Comcast technical support.

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[omnichad]

Is that enough to get past the hold queue?

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[ksw_92]

I believe that the correct procedure is to have an enema AFTER you deal with Comcast support. Something medicated to soothe the burning sensation from the encounter.

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[tidepool]

The last time I called them, I waited long enough in queue that I had managed to fix the issue myself *just* as my call got picked up (had moved, was 'moving' service) -- Told the tech that, heard rapid keyboard-clicking, and service went back out.

'We' then spent over an hour on the phone getting it working again...
He then politely asked if there was *anything else* he could do for me today...

"No sir, you've done enough".

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[Opportunist]

Actually it's more like:

Third prize: 2 hours of comcast tech support.
Second prize: 1 hour of comcat tech support
First prize: Only 5 minutes of comcast tech support ...before being allowed to cancel the service.

Re:Next Comcast givaway ...

[thegarbz]

Good god! I would rather have an enema than have to deal with Comcast technical support.

Why not both? When you get screwed by Comcast the least you could do is prepare beforehand so it doesn't get messy.

Company incentivizes higher spending: news at 11

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Next thing you know, auto makers are going to refuse to give a navigation system to people who don't buy the premium package. Bastards.

Provide a "service" to those who don't need it

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're providing extra bandwidth to the people who don't generally need it (people who aren't using streaming services). Isn't that a little like giving people who already have good well water access to a municipal system?

Re:Provide a "service" to those who don't need it

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a little like giving people who already have good well water access to a municipal system?

In the case of Comcast, it's more like giving people who have a septic system access to the municipal sewer.

Makes perfect sense...

[mi]

People, who watch regular TV, will not be using the increased bandwidth for as long every day to stream movies.

I fail to see, what's so outrageous here...

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Narcocide]

Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data, so yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you. So this is just another sly way for Comcast to charge you extra for using their network for competitor's services.

Also, the thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me, so I'm going to just assume you're being paid to shill for them instead. I bet they even offered you 3 months of discounted service, too, didn't they? Enjoy having all your encrypted traffic throttled to 128kbps sucker!!! (YOU did this. This is YOUR fault.)

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[omnichad]

Just because you're forced to buy the regular TV service does not mean that you want to nor will use it.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[mi]

yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you

It is not the internal bandwidth between Comcast facilities and their customers, I was talking about, but that between Comcast's network and the rest of the world. The data-packets of a movie broadcast by Comcast to its subscribers travel on the former. The data-packets streamed individually to different subscribers from different external services (such as YouTube or Netflix) consume the latter, much more limited, bandwidth.

The thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me and the rest of us here in the institution.

so I'm going to just assume you're being paid to shill for them instead. I bet they even offered you 3 months of discounted service

Yep, entirely too dumb to be allowed onto the Internet without a minder...

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[mi]

Just because you're forced to buy the regular TV service does not mean that you want to nor will use it.

You — the individual — don't have to do it. Customers — the people — undoubtedly will.

And even if none do (a giant if!), they will have all paid Comcast money anyway, so they win compared to offering the extra bandwidth to everyone. Like I said, makes perfect sense.

It is neither illegal nor unethical for Comcast to do that... Nothing to see here.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data, so yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you.

As is often the case in this sort of discussion, you're conflating LAN bandwidth with WAN bandwidth. One costs a tiny bit more than the other. I won't kill the suspense as to which is which.

Also, the thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me

Indeed.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[bws111]

Nobody is 'forcing' you to do anything. IF you have the TV service you get a FREE one-tier upgrade on internet. If you don't have TV service, you can pay for the upgrade IF you want it. If you buy a TV subscription JUST to get the 'free' upgrade, you are an idiot.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Straif]

Let me add to your depression by asking how exactly getting a free speed upgrade costs the consumer more?

All this program does is give customers who are also cable tv subscribers the next internet package up from their current one for free. There are no additional fees unless you own your current modem and it can't handle the higher speeds in which case you can continue at the lower speed for free or buy/rent a new modem for some additional amount. If you are already renting you just swap your modem for free.

For non-tv subscribers life continues as normal (unless you get jealous and decide to pay the $10 for the upgrade yourself).

In either case the bills remain the same, just one group gets an added benefit because they have a bundle of services instead of a single service.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is largely comcast's own fault if true. Your major players like Netflix and Amazon and others have offered major ISPs servers to minimize out of network traffic. Now in-network traffic is probably being utilized and this costs Comcast more in a sense- but it's Comcast's own undoing because they choose to run lines and offer services such that the line run is shared amongst customers rather than something like ADSL or fiber. Sure- at some point it does end up coming together- but its not the last mile situation that you get with cable. I'm on fiber and I was on ADSL prior. I've refused to subscribe to cable explicitly because cable companies are inherently dishonest to there customers. I have also not been happy with certain ISPs for other reasons- but mostly because of interfering with standards at the DNS level (returning IP addresses for non-existent domain names to sites run by the ISP and containing advertising mainly). Fortunately there is some level of competition where I moved. We have fiber and multiple competing ISPs who can provide it (last mile) as well as ADSL (would be crap though given my distance to telco, but they do offer bonded ADSL which does get me closer to the 10Mbps I was getting back where I lived before). I'm unsure what the cable company can offer where I live. I know its decent in town and probably acceptable where I am- but I wouldn't want to go that route if I can at all help it. I believe they too now offer fiber though. Which isn't too surprising considering the last mile is basically leased to any ISP willing to cover the cost of running the lines/leasing the poles and/or customer thereof depending on the business model of the ISP. In other words I selected high up front cost ($3k, which was good only because the poles were already leased) and low monthly payments (well, high, but low relative to spending $500 / month for other ISPs providing fiber).

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Narcocide]

As is often the case in this sort of discussion, you're conflating LAN bandwidth with WAN bandwidth.

No, this is false. Just because Comcast's network exposes your broadcast traffic to all your network peers doesn't mean that your neighborhood is a LAN. It's about as insecure as one, but it's not a LAN. What this means is that it may cost Comcast more if you stream from Youtube than their proprietary services but importantly, this doesn't actually cost your neighborhood any less bandwidth.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Narcocide]

I fail to see, what's so outrageous here...

What's so outrageous about this is that it was illegal until a couple weeks ago. I get that you're desperately trying to save face by pretending you understand the situation at a fundamentally greater level than me but it's just that... pretending.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[omnichad]

Unless the pricing of the upgrade tier is so high for non-TV subscribers that you'd have to buy a TV subscription to get a reasonable rate. And it's not like cable companies have a price sheet you can reference. Just promo rates that expire.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Narcocide]

... but importantly, this doesn't actually cost your neighborhood any less bandwidth.

And, just to be completely clear here, this means that you as the customer, will not notice any improvement in service from this change. In fact, it probably will just get worse and more expensive at the same time.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[mi]

What's so outrageous about this is that it was illegal until a couple weeks ago.

False. Do cite the law this would've violated in January. I'll wait.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[mmaug]

I have Comcast TV and Internet. The Cable TV box remains sealed in the box. My Inet service without Cable is $110/mo, with Cable is $80/mo. No, I did not get that confused--cheaper with more services. RCN is available 3 blocks over, and Comcast offers Inet-only for $40/mo at the same speed there.

But, hey, who needs net-neutrality? It's just holding the cable companies back! Or at least their shareholder value

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[SlaveToTheGrind]

What this means is that it may cost Comcast more if you stream from Youtube than their proprietary services

Um, yeah. And that's why they structure their service offerings to effectively pass that extra cost along to customers that use more external bandwidth. Which was OP's point in a nutshell.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not illegal anymore? And that's outrageous?

I'd hate to be around you when weed is legalized.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jim Kirk, is that, you?

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Obfuscant]

Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data,

No, it does not. Comcast cable TV is ATV encrypted. The Internet is a different system. "Regular TV" is broadcast -- it shows up at every house, and your STB or DTV adapter is told what it is authorized to decrypt. You use no additional bandwidth when you watch TV. You do use data bandwidth when you stream video.

If you have an ATV tuner you can see which "channels" the TV service is using, you just can't watch it.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[Obfuscant]

And, just to be completely clear here, this means that you as the customer, will not notice any improvement in service from this change.

Other than higher bandwidth for your data, no, I guess you won't. Why do you think that getting 150Mbps instead of 60Mbps for the same price wouldn't be an improvement?

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[thegarbz]

People, who watch regular TV, will not be using the increased bandwidth for as long every day to stream movies.

Your post makes no sense. Steaming movies is possible on even the shittiest cable connection Comcast offers and uses a pittance of the bandwidth. Hell last holiday I didn't even bother to give up my Netflix binge habit when the hotel WiFi sucked. Just used my phone along with it's expensive data plan and cap and moved on.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[mi]

Steaming movies is possible on even the shittiest cable connection

Not in proper HD-quality, when multiple family-members use different TVs and computers all at once.

Re:Makes perfect sense...

[thegarbz]

Yes even in those cases. A shitty mid 2000s era ADSL connection will happily support 4 HD streams at once. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about cable customers, those starting with the crappy 60mbit connections.

Typical Comcast

[nehumanuscrede]

Screwing over folks in any way they can.

"Comcast Won't Give New Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service "

I bet if Google or AT&T or $competition showed up with Fiber, Comcast couldn't bump those speeds up fast enough.
TV bundles wouldn't even be a consideration.

It would be all about emergency customer retaining in the face of competition.

Re:Typical Comcast

[iggymanz]

eh, I have one of their basic packages and it came with TV whether used or not, and no one is using it. so there's such a thing with comcast and no TV? all the package listings I see have it

Re:Typical Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine doesn't have TV. I got sick of their games. I can get just internet for the same price as internet + a basic TV package, but that's an "introductory" price. I inevitably forget about it and the prices jacks up 60 bucks a month or more, then I have to call and get put on to another "introductory" price. I got sick of it, and just opted to pay full price for internet and not have to remember to sign up for a new "introductory" price.

Re:Typical Comcast

[Narcocide]

I bet if Google or AT&T or $competition showed up with Fiber, Comcast couldn't bump those speeds up fast enough.

That's plan C. So far it's never come to that. Plan A (bribing municipalities to block Google fiber with crippling permit restrictions) so far has worked in almost all cases. Plan B (bribing Google directly) only has to occur occasionally.

Re:Typical Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

eh, I have one of their basic packages and it came with TV whether used or not, and no one is using it. so there's such a thing with comcast and no TV? all the package listings I see have it

Where I live, Comcast's "Internet only" is about $20/month cheaper than their "Internet + Basic TV" package. So yes, this is a big deal to some of us.

Re:Typical Comcast

[Straif]

How is it screwing over customers to add a speed upgrade to their bundling offer? Non tv subscribers can still get the speed upgrade if they want, they just have to buy the next internet package up from their current one.

For the tv subscribers they get a nice little speed boost.

For non subscribers absolutely nothing changes.

Re:Typical Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, Comcast's "Internet only" is about $20/month cheaper than their "Internet + Basic TV" package. So yes, this is a big deal to some of us.

Thank you for the reminder. We will be upping your "Internet only" rate to within $10 to $15 of the "Internet + TV" package* within the next 3 months. If you are not leasing a modem from us, you will be (or you'll just pay for it anyway). The modem will have a built in high gain WiFi antenna set on the default channel 6 (with a poor bandpass filter circuit), so you may as well pay us for wireless as well.

* Taxes and fees (that we likely will never have to remit to your state government) not included.

Re:Typical Comcast

[TraumaFox]

I hit the lottery on a local fiber-to-the-home deployment from Frontier (who took over for AT&T in Connecticut). They were so desperate to get people on my street to buy it that they sent reps door to door to let us know about it. Now I'm getting four times the speed at a lower cost than I was paying Comcast, no introductory rate or contracts, and not one spot of downtime in the two years I've had it thus far. Every time Comcast calls to try to get me to switch back and I tell them what I'm getting for what I'm paying, the reps insist I'm lying because of how good a deal it is.

Re:Typical Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually exactly how it works. Where I live (Lincoln, Nebraska) for years your internet options were this: Time Warner (later Spectrum, after they were bought out) or Windstream if you want broadband. That's it. Windstream was a little cheaper but well known to have crappier service (outages, slowdowns, etc) and somehow even worse customer support than Time Warner/Spectrum. Nobody liked their internet choices.

The city officials in Lincoln realized that the lack of competition was stifling not just to residential users, but also to businesses. But Nebraska law explicitly prohibits any municipality from laying their own fiber lines. So they got clever and somehow (I'm still not sure how they got this past the telcom lobbyists) managed to get a project funded to lay conduits throughout the city that could CONTAIN fiber lines. This allowed local providers (in this case Allo - no relation to Google Allo) to lay their fiber lines in existing infrastructure and compete directly with the existing telcoms. In the past year I went from paying $85 a month for spotty 50 MBPS (downstream only) service from Time Warner/Spectrum to paying $65 a month for (so far) spotless 300 MBPS (symmetric; upstream and down) service from Allo.

Why is this relevant to your comment? Well, because of this: Originally my service was for 100 MBPS (which is still more than I'll ever need) and when I called to cancel Time Warner/Spectrum I was informed that they would be willing to match the $65 a month price AND had just installed their own fiber on those same lines and could offer me the same 100 MBPS up and down service. Interestingly, I did not get this offer until Allo had the exact same service ready in my area. I was fed up with being screwed over for years and had no trust that Time Warner/Spectrum wouldn't just raise my rates again after a year or add "service fees" on top of my quoted price, so I dropped them and never looked back. Even more interesting, a month later Allo raised the 100 MBPS service to 300 MBPS at no additional cost. Probably to boast about their ability to handle traffic and to undercut Time Warner/Spectrum's attempts to FINALLY try to win back customers.

Windstream also started adding 100 MBPS service for around the same price, but it was 100 MBPS down, 10 MBPS up and was still spotty from what I heard.

tl;dr - The anti-competitive, monopolistic practices that Net Neutrality supporters have concerns about are real and I have lived them. Telcos would much rather spend their time and resources preventing competition than bettering their services in an open market.

Comcrap

[Archfeld]

This is the competitive internet that the FCC has 'fixed' for us. I've only got a single choice, Spectrum, and though they advertise service 'starting' at 60 mbps in our area they can only deliver 23-25 mbps and have no intention of upgrading the infrastructure to make good on their hollow promises.

Re:Comcrap

[greenwow]

That isn't the FCC's fault. Blame local city governments for granting monopolies like we have here in Seattle where the city council split the cable monopoly between Wave and Comcast without requiring them to offer service to their entire monopoly areas. They also don't punish Comcast for offering terrible service. In addition the socialist on our city council, Kshama Sawant, views not allowing Comcast to do repairs or upgrades as hurting corporations when in reality it just hurts consumers.

Re:Comcrap

[hjf]

The FCC can very, very easily write some ruling along the lines of "no service provider shall make exclusivity arrangements with local governments".

There you go.

Re:Comcrap

[greenwow]

If only that would happen! The socialist on our city council, Kshama Sawant, has a husband that works at Microsoft so she is very anti-Internet. She supports ridiculous requirements that Comcast and CenturyLink can't meet in order to, as she sees it, hurt large corporations when in fact they mainly hurt consumers.

Re:Comcrap

[Archfeld]

Being in the middle of no-where our local government had to offer a sweet heart deal to get even one cable company to even consider service here. Yuma is 3 hours from anywhere of significance, be it San Diego or Phoenix and 5 hours from LA, the only other thing out here besides desert is a Marine Airbase, and they have great internet but won't share with 'civilians'.

Re:Comcrap

[Obfuscant]

The FCC can very, very easily write some ruling along the lines of "no service provider shall make exclusivity arrangements with local governments".

They don't have to. It has been part of federal law for more than twenty years. Exclusive franchises for cable telecommunications are prohibited. Black and white. Here is a link. Specifically:

SEC. 7. AWARD OF FRANCHISES; PROMOTION OF COMPETITION. (a) ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE FRANCHISES.- (1) AMENDMENT.-Section 621(aX1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(aX1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following. "except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection".

That's 1992. Twenty-six years ago. ISPs don't need such a law since ISPs are not franchised to begin with.

There you go.

Re:Comcrap

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the FCC can't. Those agreements are for right-of-way and pole attachments. The FCC can only regulate regulated industry. What you say would require an act of Congress.

Antitrust

[LetterRip]

I hope the feds or states go after them for antitrust violations. They are leveraging their monopoly in high speed internet access to support their cable subscription business.

Re:Antitrust

[DontBeAMoran]

I hope the feds or states go after them for antitrust violations.

Why can't it be both?

Re:Antitrust

[Narcocide]

Oh... too late, the law for that was just repealed. Bummer.

On the other hand

[odin24seven1774]

Google fiber is so shitty that they only give me 1gbps and if I want to cancel I can do it with out talking to anyone what kind of shit is that, and to top it off when my self installation didn't go like planed they gave me 50.00 off of my bill what the fuck. worst service ever. I think I should switch to comcast. LOL

Re:On the other hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so you're one of the 0.00001% that google decided to actually get fiber service going on? I just hope by the year 2100 they've finished their first city - Kansas City.

Re:On the other hand

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope by the year 2100 they've finished their first city - Kansas City.

Just ask the incumbent providers if they think they'll be able to litigate it out for that long.

Phew....

[Freischutz]

Comcast Won't Give New Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service

No high speed internet without a cable TV bundle? Phew!!! ... Is that the stink of desperation I smell?

Re:Phew....

[cyberchondriac]

Wrong. It's no speed **increase* for free, w/o the bundle. That doesn't equate to "no high speed Internet". Just the upgrade isn't free without a TV bundle.
Not the greatest PR move, but this is Comcast we're talking about after all. Yes, they're A-holes, but OTOH, this hardly a monstrous thing to do; the outrage is out of proportion.

I smell such entitlement here in this thread, and the cries of "Corporate Shill! How much are they paying you" I'm seeing in other posts is hilarious. It's like Tumblr has invaded slashdot.

Re:Phew....

[Straif]

The headline is misleading. It should say:

Comcast Won't Give free Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service

This is a write up about a bundling deal Comcast is offering where tv subscribers get a free internet upgrade to the next package for free. Non subscribers are still free to pay the $10 or so to upgrade their speeds if they want to.

This is normal and normally not evil

[williamyf]

I live out of the USoA.

All telecom providers which offer triple play, offer special perks, benefits and plans for users which use two or more services, as opposed to people which use just one.

All banks give you special perks if you receive your monthly pay in their account via direct transfer. Also, they give you special perks and benefits if you pay your bills via automatic drect transfer from their account. (Domicialiacion, is called).

Airlines give you special perks if you are a corporate subscriber.

Is only normal that if you have more than one service with comcast (that being cableTV + Data) you get some perks ("free" speed increase) that other people have to pay for. As some other poster said, if you have NO use for the TV service, pay just $10 for the speed increase, instead of paying $100 for the "useless" TV service (and then get the "free" data speed bump). If, OTOH, you already have the TV+Data service, enjoy your free "$10 data gift card"

If you still can not wrap your brain about it, just imagine if you were a grandpa/grandma, who only uses the TV service, and the data is there for when the grandchildren come visit. Try then to bitch about that instead of giving you a $10 discount on the "useful" TV service, they are raising the speed of your "useless" data package...

Re:This is normal and normally not evil

[hjf]

My ISP bundles cable+tv with a 50% discount.

It costs the same to get only cable, only tv, or both...

On a related note

[dkone]

Verizon rolled out GB fiber in my area and their offer to me was that they would buy me out of my Comcast contract. Bottom line is that I will save about 30 bucks a month and be getting 1GB/880 service. I called Comcast while the guy from Verizon was in my house to see what they would do to keep me as a customer. They offered me 3 months free of HBO and told me if I left I would no longer be able to use the free Xfinity wifi. For those that don't know what that is, it is where Comcast uses a portion of all their customers wifi routers to carve out a free public guest network (yes you read that right, most Xfinity customers are broadcasting free public Wifi). When I asked her what my speed was she told me it was 200mb, so I pressed her on the up speed a couple times until she said it was 10.

Cya Comcast....

I am lucky that I have a choice of providers.

Re:On a related note

[nehumanuscrede]

" free Xfinity wifi "

What that really turns into is the over saturation / pollution of the available WI-FI spectrum. Trying to find an open channel while they keep installing their " hot spots " is nigh impossible. ( Nor do they understand that simply cranking the transmitter to maximum doth not make a better WI-FI experience )

Re:On a related note

[omnichad]

if I left I would no longer be able to use the free Xfinity wifi.

Well then it's not free, is it? It's more like the corporate advertising corruption of the word free. Like "Free 2-Day shipping with Amazon Prime"

Re:On a related note

[omnichad]

cranking the transmitter to maximum doth not make a better WI-FI experienc

It doesn't do that. It broadcasts their SSID across a larger area. They don't care if it works.

Free?

[sjbe]

People here are already apoplectic that some people are getting free shit and not everyone is getting free shit.

"Free"? In what universe is paying several hundred dollars more for a service you don't need free?

Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling laws.

Re:Free?

[burtosis]

I'm sure those pesky rules are being repealed as we speak. All this consumer protect^h^h^h^h over regulation is killing the industry.

Re:Free?

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling [ftc.gov] laws.

Not if they separately offer the faster Internet service for sale. As your link explains, the only way you can have illegal tying is if the bundle is the only way you can buy the product you want. Otherwise it's not "tied" by definition.

Re:Free?

[bws111]

You could at least read the pages you link to, and find out that you are completely wrong.

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Several hundred dollars for television? I have most every channel. Got bumped to 1 GB. Have their home security stuff. Have phone service. And it just breaks "several hundred dollars" total ($224 a month)

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

People here are already apoplectic that some people are getting free shit and not everyone is getting free shit.

"Free"? In what universe is paying several hundred dollars more for a service you don't need free?

Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling laws.

I agree with you. This should be an antitrust violation. Unfortunately, even the FTC says that is changing. From the page you linked to, last paragraph:

The law on tying is changing. Although the Supreme Court has treated some tie-ins as per se illegal in the past, lower courts have started to apply the more flexible "rule of reason" to assess the competitive effects of tied sales. Cases turn on particular factual settings, but the general rule is that tying products raises antitrust questions when it restricts competition without providing benefits to consumers.

So the general theory applies, that tying a general product to a monopoly product falls into antitrust, but "The law on tying is changing" and courts have started to apply the more flexible 'rule of reason' to assess the competitive effects of tied sales." With Trump as President, how long will consumer be protected?

Re:Free?

[OhPlz]

Yea, because Comcast never did shady shit during Obama's eight years.

Re:Free?

[jedidiah]

> I'm sure those pesky rules are being repealed as we speak. All this consumer protect^h^h^h^h over regulation is killing the industry.

Those rules date to Teddy Roosevelt. They have nothing to do with Obama. Although Obama was happy to ignore them too.

Trump make a silly side by side comparison between the 60s and now. The 60s was a small pile and the current regulations were a much biger pile.

The rule we're talking about here is in the small pile.

Re:Free?

[datavirtue]

When the business model dies you don't just get to raise prices to make up for it...unless you are the only game in town. The business model is becoming: Unlimited internet, $50 a month.

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, +5 informative because you posted a link to some BS you don't even understand. You only need to read up to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph to understand that anti-trust bundling is about products/services that are ONLY sold in a bundle, where if you RTFSummary it indicates that the high speed tiers are available for an additional price without the bundle (or for no additional price if you have the bundle)

This isn't new

[Trailer Trash]

When I upgraded to 300Mbit service here, it was only available if I also got cable TV along with it. It gets better. They wouldn't give it to me until I plugged in the set top box and went through its entire setup. Then, and only then, did I get 300Mbit service. I tried. I mean, the set top box sat in its box for a few days and I finally called and asked why my service wasn't upgraded. They made it clear that I'd have to plug that thing in.

The good part is that at least their set top box now includes Netflix and Youtube. If they'd get Prime Video I'd be 100% happy with it. We literally don't watch broadcast TV. I haven't seen a commercial in my house in probably 10 years.

Anyway, yeah, I don't like it. But I get 300Mbit service for $90/month, which I'm okay with. I used to be an internet-only customer for many years, but they put a ceiling on that at (I think) 100Mbit.

There's no competition where I'm at. AT&T is offering DSL out here, and calling it "fiber".

Re:This isn't new

[omnichad]

AT&T is offering DSL out here, and calling it "fiber".

They're doing that here too. Sending sales people around canvassing that don't know anything (plausible deniability if they "accidentally" lie). I asked how many pieces of equipment were involved in my house and how large the ONT is. They didn't know what that is. They said they could use my existing wiring. I said I don't have any existing wiring and that I thought the fiber was what's coming into the house. Oh, yes - it is, they say. Well then how are you going to use my existing wiring?

They said that my house was "qualified" for 100/100 speeds but that most in my area were only able to get 50. I said that's way too slow for fiber to the home - and that the range of speeds should not vary by distance on such a small scale. Yes, the fiber node is on a pole in my backyard. They tried to again confirm that it's fiber to the home.

They could not keep their story straight. Nor could they tell me the real monthly price after the promo expired.

Re:This isn't new

[omnichad]

And get this. I wanted to review the contract and they said that I could see it on the installation day, but they didn't have any way for me to see it before then. That would be after I drill my own hole in the house for the fiber (don't trust "professional" installation) and take time off to be at home.

Re:This isn't new

[Trailer Trash]

They came to my door a couple of times trying to sell me a "fiber" connection. I told them that fiber isn't being run down my road at this time, so they couldn't offer such and certainly couldn't offer something to compete with my 300Mbit Comcast connection. When I looked they're selling DSL but claiming it's "fiber" since they're running fiber to the vault. Geeze. By that definition dialup is fiber. They also claimed that Comcast isn't offering gigabit speeds around Nashville.

https://www.tennessean.com/sto...

You'd think they would know their competition at least that well.

What's weird to me is that they send salespeople to my door. I live pretty much in the country, albeit at the edge of town. My subdivision has acre lots, and the houses on this road are really sparse. They actually drive - two people in a car - from house to house. That means coming a hundred feet down my driveway to park and try to make a sale. After sending ten pounds of paper, by the way.

I was able to make them lose one sale, which I'm happy about. Someone mentioned on Nextdoor that they were dumping Comcast so they could try AT&T's new fiber service. I knew they didn't have fiber, so I gave them the exact question to ask the AT&T people (basically, "do I have fiber coming all the way to my house?") They reported a couple of days later that they were canceling the AT&T service since it wasn't really fiber.

Anyway, I'm not real impressed with AT&T.

Re:This isn't new

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound suspicious. Maybe there's some spy gear in that box that they *really* want you to hook up. You know, a microphone and a camera. Then sell that stream to anyone who wants to pay. Advertisers, government, pornographers..

Re:This isn't new

[greylion3]

When I upgraded to 300Mbit service here, it was only available if I also got cable TV along with it. It gets better. They wouldn't give it to me until I plugged in the set top box and went through its entire setup. Then, and only then, did I get 300Mbit service.

Does it have to stay plugged in to get 300 Mbps?

Who cares? I'm not going back.

[Rick Schumann]

I stopped using cable TV about 10 years ago now and there's no way I'm going back. I've got more on my DVR from free broadcast HDTV than I have time to watch. I don't even use the Internet enough to give a damn about any 'speed boost', even if I was watching 'streaming' anything (which I am not currently and are not likely to start). Screw you Comcast/Xfinity, time for you to change your business model, not use use the stick to try to drive people to your not-so-tasty carrot.

I'd love to get outraged but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to get outraged but I can't even get 30mbps here so excuse me if I don't care.

Isn't this, um, every business?

[Anonymous Coward]

My insurance company won't give me a discount on house insurance because I don't get my auto insurance through them! The horror!!

Not seeing the problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

You get what you pay for.

Comcast lets you buy the speeds, but sees that they can make more money by giving you the increased bandwidth if you bundle with TV.

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of pliers while sucking on a rotten lime than deal with their customer service department.

But this idea that one ought to get free upgrades without paying is flat out pure, unadulterated, entitlement.

Re:Not seeing the problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the expectation with technology is that cost will diminish over time. Building out the network, upgrading the equipment, these things require significant capital outlays up front, but then once the equipment is in place, the costs of ongoing maintenance and operatings are comparatively negligible.

Comcast is clearly signalling just this, by providing "free upgrades" to customers whose behavior matches their profit-maximizing profile. In other words, they're rewarding those customers from whom they have made the most money; in other words it's a form of rebate for overcharging for service.

Actually the reverse was true for me

[SuperKendall]

You would also probably have to fight them tooth and nail NOT to include one of their shitty router / modem combos so they can charge you an extra $10 / month for that POS.

So I got Comcast Gigabit service, using my own router at first - the tech complained a little when he showed up, but it was on the approved list so he installed it.

Fast forward about three months later, service goes out for days. Nothing I try (or Comcast tries) works, I determine router must be toast. I give up and go to Comcast store to get Comcast router cause I just want service back. I install it and speeds seem capped to 100Mb/s, vs 700+ I had been getting... why? Because the idiots at the store didn't have any gigabit equipment, so they gave me a normal cable modem that maxed out at a low speed.

Well then I just run to Best Buy and bought a damn gigabit cable modem of my own, one call and it was working. So it was actually EASIER for me to use my own gear than Comcast's stuff because they couldn't even get me the right equipment.

Re:Actually the reverse was true for me

[Anonymous Coward]

so you had a bad experience. i have never had that experience, and i went through the same route -- had a device that in theory supports 1gbps but not really, but i got 700mbps so cool. one day comcast upgrades, i lose connectivity. call comcast they deliver me a new device, connect it, test it and they're out.

so i had a good experience.

i have also just exploded your brain because it was EASIER for me to call comcast and have them bring me a device while I purchase the one I need. sorry to destroy your comcast hate with a bad egg. but i guess one or two bad apples spoils it for everyone else, or so the saying goes.

Re:Actually the reverse was true for me

[doug141]

...cable modem of my own, one call and it was working.

Around here it's operational faster if you don't call! Just plug it in and fire up a web browser, you get hijacked to a modem registration page, then it's working!

Re:Actually the reverse was true for me

[jittles]

...cable modem of my own, one call and it was working.

Around here it's operational faster if you don't call! Just plug it in and fire up a web browser, you get hijacked to a modem registration page, then it's working!

Their gigabit service actually has its own support in my experience. But when I signed up for it, they wouldn't even advertise it was available. You had to find the page on their website and request for them to contact you about availability. Of course, that might have changed by now on both counts.

In other news...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

In other news, Tesla Motors has announced that they won't sell their best cars to anyone who doesn't also own a horse and buggy.

Who cares?

[DaMattster]

I have more than enough speed to be able to do what I need to do and then some. I don't need 100mbit or even gbit services.

Grow Up. This is how most consumer services work

[schwit1]

Pay more, get more.

Buy 3 tires and get one for free
Buy 1 large pizza and a get a 2nd for half price

idiot leftests

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in Obama's "net neutrality" would have prevented this. But keep up the lies.

Should be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anyone says it, yes, I know what I think should be illegal and what is, are not always the same thing, and that my wishing something were illegal will not make it so.

Disclaimer for people who have to take things too literally aside, this sounds like illegal behavior of tying one service to another. Very similar to how Microsoft got in trouble in the 90s for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows... Right up until the George W. Bush admin came in and settled for a completely toothless agreement, but I digress. The broadband and TV services are very likely separate business entities within Comcast for tax reasons, so technically they shouldn't be required to operate "at arm's length" with one another. Not that the current admin is likely to do anything about it.

Already the case

[grasshoppa]

I'm a "cord cutter", in a sense, but I have video service through comcast as well. Why? Because it's cheaper; it's cheaper for me to sign up for the video/internet package than for straight internet ( by a couple bucks ).

I've never plugged in the cable box; it still sits in the unopened box they shipped it to me in.

Given their pricing schedules, I doubt I'm the only one with this arrangement.

Re:Already the case

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell the set top box

Re:Already the case

[Anonymous Coward]

Word of advice, you can probably send the box in and get a bill credit.

haha

[Anonymous Coward]

my dudes, don't fret. I'm on the other side of the planet (in europe) while with a different company but I'm treated by the same. Actually my internet is cheaper if I order TV lol... of course without movie channels.

Xfinity makes me want to puke

[strstr]

The price of xfinity is pathetic. For $175 dollars you get 260 channels and 1Gbps with a 1TB cap. The bitrate on xfinity video channels is greatly over compressed resulting in artifact and detail loss compared to bluray. (Two year agreement)

Verizon FiOS gives you 1Gbps symmetrical with upload too and 10TB cap, and nearly 500 channels for $110. The bitrate on their video is about four times higher resulting in much less artififacting and quality drops. More details etc. (Two year agreement)

Who the fuck does xfinity think they are?

https://www.trumpsweapon.com/

Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Houston and pay Comcast around $80 (after all the fees and taxes) a month for 60 Gb internet. Looks like ATT fiber has a 12 contract offer for $60 (Iâ(TM)m assuming itâ(TM)ll be close to $80 after fees and taxes) a month for 100 Gb. Even with my aversion to contract lock-ins this shenanigans by Comcast is making me wonder. Time for me to find out if ATT is willing to turn off the Wifi router they proudly offer for free, Iâ(TM)ll be using my own Wifi swarm, and bargain down on installation fee.

But will UPLOAD speeds finally increase?

[slampman]

No matter the tier, even the Business product, max upload in my area is 15mbps. I'm constantly moving big DBs around and stuff, and these upload speeds kill me.

It's not a natural monopoly

[Solandri]

Comcast is, in areas where they have a monopoly, a government-granted monopoly. You don't have to split them up, which can take over a decade of court proceedings and rulings. All the local governments have to do is allow other cable companies to offer service in their areas. That can be done in a matter of days.

Re:It's not a natural monopoly

[Obfuscant]

Comcast is, in areas where they have a monopoly, a government-granted monopoly.

Why keep spreading this misinformation? What area are you referring to, specifically?

All the local governments have to do is allow other cable companies to offer service in their areas.

Isn't it wonderful then that federal law preempts local government law, and federal law has prohibited exclusive franchise agreements for the last twenty years.

Re:It's not a natural monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that your new company would need to run cables to every house, which is very expensive. The current cable company has already recouped this cost, so they would be able to lower prices and drive the new cable company out of business. Hence it is a natural monopoly since it is very hard to oust the first mover. Yes, comcast has purchased/lobbied for laws that protect their monopoly, but this is only part of the problem.

Re:It's not a natural monopoly

[Obfuscant]

Except that your new company would need to run cables to every house,

If they are a cable company, yes.

The current cable company has already recouped this cost, so they would be able to lower prices and drive the new cable company out of business.

How does this change the fact that there is no government granted monopoly in effect? The protection they get is economic -- the cost to a new entrant is very high. It is always higher than an incumbent's operating costs since it involves infrastructure, for any industry. You want to enter the auto manufacturing business? You need a factory to build your cars, but the existing companies already have them. You wouldn't claim that the existing auto makers have a government-granted monopoly because of that, would you? The limit isn't regulatory.

It's also kind of hard to claim that cable companies have a monopoly on video content delivery services, either. The only monopoly they have is on cable-delivery of services, but the medium is not the message.

Re:Grow Up. This is how most consumer services wor

[Anonymous Coward]

The real issue is not this. The real issue is the governments involvement and granting of monopolies. I wish we had a free market- but most places aren't free. Where I live we have a slightly better situation than most regions. Here we are in the middle of nowhere (23,000 town people) but because of some government interference and investment by ISPs the non-free market is able to provide a level competition we'd not otherwise be able to get given prior government interference in the free market. So we at least now have some competition and I can subscribe to fiber internet from any of 5 or 6 ISPs on top of cable or ADSL. Ideally governments in the US would not have granted ISPs monopolies on the argument that 1. they wouldn't run lines otherwise or 2. we can't have competition because the roads would always be dug up / etc. These excuses were always bull shit and intended to undermine the free market and given select companies with a dominant position a monopoly in whatever areas they served. You can't enter a market today as an ISP because those ISPs which got those monopolies now have a significant market advantage. There investments have been returned to them many times over whereas your investment has not and they will ultimately be able to out-compete you to the point where you will not survive. Has governments not granted a monopoly it is likely that there would not be the disadvantaged to the same degree today or a lack of competition to the same degree. I have no doubt that there is a fundamental limit to the number of lines a community can sustain so if anything there is already going to be a limited number of physical lines run due to the high cost of investing in such infrastructure. However these ISPs would be more apt to do that if a free market had existed and we had some level of competition today. We only got somewhat lucky in that phone service and cable television service providers can both provide internet services to some percentage of the population so there is a bit of competition still in a certain percentage of most towns and cities (even if this isn't more than half of any given town- and I don't know what the actual numbers look like- not that it really matters for the point of the argument).

cellular that slows you down at 20G-30G is not goo

[Joe_Dragon]

cellular that slows you down at 20G-30G is not good for home use.

Comcast hates customers using the cheapest tiers..

[Anonymous Coward]

We had $50/month Comcast service and got regular early shutdown warnings, went over our 1 TB/month cap (between 4 people who stream everything, it went fast), and got jerked around by phone support for hours.

Now we have $110/month Comcast service with 150 Mb/s speed, unlimited data, and phone support gives me the ever-so-slightest quantity of respect (to my face). And, "coincidentally", I no longer have any reason to call them on a semi-monthly basis. At less than $30/person, I'll never go back.

I guess it's not a workable answer for everybody, but just pay them for what you want and your quality of life is likely to go up quite a bit. If you try to nickle and dime Comcast, they'll nickle and dime you harder.

Captcha: dispel

Oh man... Ex-finity...

[chaboud]

I recently had a chat session to add unlimited data to our 250d/10u Mbps Comcast plan, and *three* times, the CSR said something akin to "So your total, with new 1Gbps/35Mbps service and unlimited data will be..."

I had to repeatedly say "No. Stop. Just add unlimited to my plan. I'm not signing up for another commitment..."

I finished up with that support session and immediately signed up for AT&T gigapower (970Mbps u/d) fiber to the home. I'll be dropping off my Comcast hardware today. Honestly, that's the most satisfied I've ever been with Comcast support. They got me to stop using Comcast, which I consider a *huge* favor.

So let's thank Comcast for their most recent move. A big "not recommended" sign hung around Comcast's neck (even by Comcast), is a really nice thing to do.

xfinity also has crap HD lineup and have been drop

[Joe_Dragon]

xfinity also has crap HD lineup and have been dropping channels like Big Ten (out of market only from sports pack) Dropping MGM HD as well.

Re:Company incentivizes higher spending: news at 1

[hjf]

I was looking for this comment. Indeed.

It's even worse down here on the third world. ABS and airbags weren't mandatory. You had to pay your way up to safety.

Comcrap.

[Anonymous Coward]

They do this all the time. Par for the course. If there is an option take it. (other co.)

Re:Company incentivizes higher spending: news at 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked I had a plethora of auto manufacturers to choose from in my area. I could even go outside my area and buy a car if I wanted. I don't have that choice here. It is Cox or CenturyLink. CenturyLink is slow while Cox caps bandwidth. Ughh

You are still saving..

[nanospook]

Those with cable TV services are being screwed blind for the value of what they are getting. So perhaps getting more speed (which they won't use in general) is a good promo. If you are a cord cutter, you can still pay to get the speed increase. Either way, Comcast makes money.

Typical action from Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason Comcast still is around is because most communities hav little choice in cable services. But these tactics will hardly stop the bleed from cord cutters of tv services.

Bell Canada does this with FTTH

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and has for years. Make no mistake, with the "digital tv boxes", they are quite aware of how much TV you watch, when, where and what. They don't need Neilson for it either.

Besides the sheer awesome quality of mpeg2 video, one of the other benifits to OTA/ATSC/"cord cutting" - is not being tracked.

I'd be more impressed....

[tinkerghost]

if my current 100MB/s could support 2 5MB/s streams at a time without buffering.

Retention strategy

[WaffleMonster]

Speeds in excess of a few dozen megabits are worthless to most users so provisioning more is essentially free.

When customers call to cancel television service retention agent will say something like "Cost of Internet only at your current speed tier without TV is basically the same as what you have been paying for TV + Internet"

This does two things:

1. Makes customer re-consider ditching TV thinking they are already getting a "deal".

2. Makes customer more likely to retain higher megabit service they don't need.

My opinion speed hikes are exclusively a strategy to protect Comcast from revenue loss as rate of TV subscriber losses increases.

Giving Internet only users more bandwidth is the last thing on earth Comcast will ever do.

hundred million points

[mapkinase]

Next: not only you have to subscribe, you have to watch it as well.

What good are these high speeds with a 1-TB cap?

[Capt'n C. Runch]

Sustained data transfer at 250 Mbps will deplete your monthly 1-TB data allotment is about 9 hours. All you need is about 3 Mbps to be able to use up the monthly data allotment. Anything over 3 Mbps on Comcast is just burst speed. Some burst speed is useful to satisfy bandwidth demands for video streaming or simultaneous users, but anything over 100 Mbps with a 1-TB cap is at best a gimmick and at worst a scheme for Comcast to increase accidental data overage fees.

Still not good

[SuperKendall]

I think you missed the part where my network had been out for days and I was desperate to get it back. Yes they could have come out to get me working again - about three days later... sure it was technically easier but not really because I would have been tethering for internet the whole time on reduced speed. You are not thinking of a global "easier", just a local specialized case.

Not to mention waiting for a tech means you have to be around for a whole day window, and it often takes them an hour to examine everything.

There was no way I was going to be able to wait for a tech, vastly simpler and quicker (and I would even say easier) to just buy a cable modem from Best Buy and plug it in.

What do you think about CumCast?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, This is one pice of crap company. Can you please state your stories so others know? Here is my expirience. I got two Arris modems while back so I do not have to rent their equipment for 11$/mo. After my contract was done of course they hiked the price considerably. Sure I knew it was coming. So I did talk to them about it if they can "extend" as I hear they do in some cases. They could not do it. So I did cut the cord. About a week later I get calls with new promotions. So why could this not be done in first place? Well becouse they new at previous location I did not have othe real option. On top of this listen to this. On two ocasions when I disconnected my serive (one time for a 3 weeks and another for little over 1 year sicne I did use Verizon MiFI), each time I wanted to reconnect and use my personal Arris modem my ethernet port was forced to 100Mb. Even that is worked initially at 1Gb speed. They "could not figure out" what is the problem. So I got third new unit and this time before calling comcast I logged in to Arris modem I did see option to control ethernet speed and Reset to Factory in Configuration menu. After I connected modem and called comcast to enable. Looks like they updated new firmware sicne such options are gone. So this is my personal equipment!!!! Sure if you must then why remove such options from user? So I called Arris and I asked them about it and I was told that they do not contol firmware... CumCast does. So I am on third modem. Each one is connected to same Cisco router that has same configurations and I did not upgrade IOS. Another thing. I see comercials on public tv avertising service for 19.95 a month. When you call CumCast they will not tell you the price untill you tell them address. Hmm They will tell you all kind of bs that "computer will not allow him". So I asked how about large city I live in. Still they will not tell you. So only thing I can make out of this that prices very in same city for same bandwith for different locations. Pretty messed up. On some other ocasion I was talkming to someone who works in next town I used to live. This person has good contacts in citty hall and told me that this town has exclusive rights. What??? Man this is much worse then in Stalin area. Do not get me started with billing. You have to watch your monthley bills since they will be few bucks here and there added. Another thing that to install service and get paperless bills you have to pay 50$ one time fee that will be returned in 45 days. Funny enough I added myself reminder for 60 days and checked my credit card and there is no 50$. So one thing it they will put it back on my card, why not skipt the entire step? Well there will be some precentage of population that will forget about it. Still getting on call and talking to rep is a nightmare to get this resolved. Here is another example. While back I had biz account. So I called them and I am sitting on line for about 10 min. I am calling from my cell that is on account. so I decided to call from my son cell that they never got it while I am still on my phone. Bum. Got person right away. So I hung up and called again from my son cell again while stikll waiting on my cell. Bum again I got person. So therey you go. We love and care about our long time customers that have ween with us. these times are gone where company valued customers. The way it works today is "we have you by balls" we know you have mo other option sit in queue and wait wile we put new customers in front. The list is really long. Please share your expiriences...

This statement directly contradicts itself.

[waspleg]

Comcast says speed increases will kick in automatically without raising the customers' monthly bills -- but only if they subscribe to certain bundles that include both Internet and TV service.

Subscribing to certain bundles to get a speed increase does in fact increase your monthly bill.

Re:This statement directly contradicts itself.

[Obfuscant]

Subscribing to certain bundles to get a speed increase does in fact increase your monthly bill.

You don't have to subscribe to anything more to get the speed increase, so no, it will in fact not increase your bill.

It's about restricting competition

[sjbe]

Not if they separately offer the faster Internet service for sale. As your link explains, the only way you can have illegal tying is if the bundle is the only way you can buy the product you want

No that is NOT the only way you can have illegal tying. Even the short blurb I linked to says so quite clearly. The real question is whether the tying restricts competition without providing benefits to consumers. That is an open question in this case which I do not have the answer. It is clear that in many markets Comcast is clearly a monopolist with and interest in keeping out additional competition.

Re:It's about restricting competition

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Read the words from your own link:

For competitive purposes, a monopolist may use forced buying, or "tie-in" sales, to gain sales in other markets where it is not dominant and to make it more difficult for rivals in those markets to obtain sales. This may limit consumer choice for buyers wanting to purchase one ("tying") product by forcing them to also buy a second ("tied") product as well. Typically, the "tied" product may be a less desirable one that the buyer might not purchase unless required to do so, or may prefer to get from a different seller. If the seller offering the tied products has sufficient market power in the "tying" product, these arrangements can violate the antitrust laws.

If you're free to buy the products separately, by definition they're not "tied." From the Supreme Court of the United States:

For our purposes a tying arrangement may be defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product , or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier.[4]

[4] Of course where the buyer is free to take either product by itself there is no tying problem even though the seller may also offer the two items as a unit at a single price.

Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 US 1, 6 (1958) (emphasis mine).

I got upgraded

[movdqa]

I got upgraded from 25 to 60 in March I think. Doesn't really matter - I think that 25 is probably more than we need. I have internet-only. This policy is new I guess.

makes perfect sense

[roc97007]

Cable TV is a dying business. It makes sense to use a stranglehold on internet access to shore it up.

AT&T Uverse also discounts their internet serv

[Anonymous Coward]

to customers who buy a monthly TV package from them. It's called bundling services and is a marketing scheme that's entirely legal. Nothing to see here but /. mods spooling up youth and people too busy to look into things deeper than a headline. This site has gotten really sad since BeauHD or msmash choose what to release to the plebs. And cue the downvotes in 3..2...1

Wrong marketing

[Opportunist]

Hey Comcast, you should sell what people want and throw in for free what they might enjoy. What you do is trying to sell something people don't want and claim what they're after is a free bonus. That's not working, that gets people upset. It really is marketing 101, in other words, the true wording you should use is:

If you pay more for extra bandwidth, we throw in free cable TV as a bonus!

Unpopularity contest.

[jtgd]

Gee, were they running low on reasons for people to loathe them?

Is there an exception for the blind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some kind of discrimination against people who are blind, a legally protected class?

Asymmetric service

[MoarSauce123]

These bandwidth offers by Comcast are for asymmetrical service. It is not the same speed down as it is up.

Addmittedly off topic: ^H

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious how many current /.ers have actually hit backspace and received ^H from a terminal. I have not seen this since SunOS -> Solaris (or since bash/busybox became the "most common default shell")

Re: Addmittedly off topic: ^H

[Anonymous Coward]

Never on my own computer.

While connecting to random IPs in the 90's? All the time.

This isn't new

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast has always held back their highest speed tiers unless you signed up for TV service, it's been this way for over a decade. Oh right, this is Slashdot where everything old is new again.

Not buying our latest (most expensive) TV bundle?

[hAckz0r]

Welcome to the "slow lane", where any other competing video service is sure to suck worse than ours. Brought to you by the "Because we can" administration..

Lack of broadband competition

[Crypto Gnome]

The appalling lack of real competition in broadband in the US (ie way too many people have NO CHOICE AT ALL in broadband providers) is what causes this.

I'm lucky enough to live in an area where AT&T recently rolled out Fiber To The Home 1Gbps service.
-> Symmetrical 1Gbps
-> Unlimited Data
-> 600Mbps Service Guarantee
-> $10/month more than my Comcast 250Mbps

You cannot imagine how quickly I ordered their service and cancelled Comcast (and It was up and running a week later).

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just waiting a few months for my contract to be up and I am dumping comcast.

Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to sell a product, give a little extra. This is free enterprise

ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good so as a customer in Houston who already pays for cable + 1 Gbps, that means I am just getting fucked right , as they try to spread the already shitty network thinner to offer more throughput to people who aren't paying as much as I'm paying. F you Comcrap.

Tie-in sales illegal in USA

[alanbcohen]

Trying sales in the United States have been illegal for decades. The only question is will somebody bother to try to enforce the law?

Re:What good are these high speeds with a 1-TB cap

[FoolishBob]

Spot on ! Learned this the hard way.

Worse yet, Comcast provides no meaningful way to monitor your usage. The web page that they serve up is so coarse-grained that it's useless.

Caveat Emptor !

This is BS...

[martinfb]

This is just not right!

Would you use a gas station that insists on charging extra for a gallon of gas unless you also by oil!
I don't need oil right now! And, I am not budgeted for this slimy biz practice!

"Internet access" needs to be reclassified to distinguish it from "cable TV", and regulated separately.
Even though, Comcast is sending TV digitally down the same pipe.
And, Net Neutrality needs to be in place.

The real solution: break all the behemoth ISP monopolies up!
Promote REAL competition in this industry.