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

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

[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

[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

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

[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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.