Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the sneaky-bastards dept.

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.

41 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. "All of our customers are cutting the cord" by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re: "All of our customers are cutting the cord" by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > 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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. Let's manufacture some outrage by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re: Let's manufacture some outrage by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re: Let's manufacture some outrage by zieroh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which subreddit should I be reading instead of this site?

      I'd like to know this too.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    3. Re: Let's manufacture some outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re: Let's manufacture some outrage by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re: Let's manufacture some outrage by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Ken
  3. Seems like monopolistic behavior to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me by bws111 · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Seems like monopolistic behavior to me by hjf · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...

  4. You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Oligopolies = forced bundling; same as it ever was.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Oligopolies = forced bundling; same as it ever was.

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

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:You want a-la-carte? Ha ha ha by hjf · · Score: 2

      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!"

  5. Re:Why not bump everyone by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  6. That's a bump that would normally cost $10 by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re: That's a bump that would normally cost $10 by omnichad · · Score: 2

      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?

    2. Re:That's a bump that would normally cost $10 by greenwow · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Next Comcast givaway ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    First Prize: One hour of Comcast Customer Support

    Second Prize: Two hours of Comcast Customer Support

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Next Comcast givaway ... by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Re:Ajit by DaveyJJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  9. Re:Ajit by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  10. Makes perfect sense... by mi · · Score: 2

    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...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Makes perfect sense... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      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.

  11. Typical Comcast by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. On the other hand by odin24seven1774 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  13. Re:Why not bump everyone by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    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?

  14. Re:Ajit by Narcocide · · Score: 2

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

  15. Free? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Free? by burtosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  16. Actually the reverse was true for me by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. In other news... by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  18. Who cares? by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Already the case by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  20. Re:Ajit by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    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.

  21. It's not a natural monopoly by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  22. cellular that slows you down at 20G-30G is not goo by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

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

  23. Re:Why not bump everyone by hjf · · Score: 2

    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...

  24. What good are these high speeds with a 1-TB cap? by Capt'n+C.+Runch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.