Comcast's two-tier pricing angers broadband-only customers

Mercury news/Yahoo ^ | 6/11/03 | Michael Bazeley,

[mhking]

Realistically, there is nothing Comcast could have done to make you happy in that situation.

Of course, if Comcast was so damn proactive, they would have been paying attention to the county when initially told that a new subdivision was coming in. Considering that the phone company, et. al. were...

Feh.

As for the implied lack of quality of the homes, rest assured, I checked that out before putting any money on the table.

By the way - from what I understand, Comcast is short on the uptake with MOST of the subdivisions around here. So this is not an isolated incident.

Like I said - if Comcast was so damn interested in customer service, they'd be proactive. But they're not. They don't give a damn, and it shows. Too bad. Is there any wonder that satellite penetration in the Atlanta market is so high?

As I said in the beginning, as far as I'm concerned, that was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. As long as the existing customers bend over for the shareholders, Comcast will continue treating folks like dirt.

[MarkL]

Little known factoid of the cell phone number portability issue is that it will allow you to change your old home number over to your cellphone......

I had my land line shut off, and only use cellular, but I wanted to have a different number. Be advised that if you keep your land line number for you cell phone, there's no way to ensure that telemarketers can't call you, and stick you with the bill. At least with cell phones, there are certain ACs and exchanges that only belong to cell phones, and they know they'll get into serious trouble.

Mark

[MarkL]

Even if the router idea works successfully with Comcast which I doubt, you are in violation of the user agreement if you do so.

It would be like stealing cable service back when it was legal for the cable companies to charge you for each TV.

Not since the telecom laws that broke up AT&T were passed. Way back then, AT&T actually owned the equipment and premesis wiring, and they could tell you what you could and couldn't do, even in your own home. However, once the gubmint put an end to that, you're not breaking any laws by having an unlimited number of systems using a single link to the Internet. The simple fact is that they're selling bandwidth, and can't tell you what you can and can't do with the data once it moves out of their domain of authority.

Of course, if you voluntairly sign a TOS agreement that limits your ability to do this, then I suppose you could have legal problems. But it's doubtful that any provider would look to the law for redress, simply because it would be hard and expensibe to prove, as well as generating a huge amount of bad press.

Mark

[brianl703]

Is it really the county's job to arrange for utilities to be installed for a new development?

It sure isn't around here. A county can't grant an easement on the property to the utilities, for one thing.

What did your developer have to say about the situation?

[Pro-Bush]

I understand. I feel the same way towards MCI.

[MarkL]

Starting in July, $15 extra for an IP Address for home users.

Wow! You guys are so lucky! In order to get static IP addresses on Road Runner, you have to go with the second tier or higher RR Business plan, which starts at (I think) $169/month!

Mark

[mhking]

Is it really the county's job to arrange for utilities to be installed for a new development?

The county was supposed to set that when the streets were drawn; that's the way it works with the utilities (phone, water, power) as well. The responsibility is either with the county or with the cable company.

[brianl703]

Of course no developer could sell a house which wasn't wired for telephone or electric. I figure they probably made a special effort to be sure those went in.

[MarkL]

Just be aware NAT can do funky things to FTP..

Believe me, it's NOT just FTP. If you to telecommuting, and use a VPN, be sure that the router you have is compatible with the VPN. Most are NOT!

Mark

[brianl703]

Your county draws the streets for new subdivisions???

That's definitely not how it works here. Streets for new subdivisions are drawn out by the developer and paved by the developer.

[DannyTN]

Interesting, I didn't realize the same laws applied to the internet service. That's good to know.

[Ready4Freddy]

"...and stick you with the bill."

That's why god gave us FIMF, I guess. The telemarketer issue was mentioned / addressed about 80 posts ago.

[mhking]

AFAIK, that's the way it goes - I know for a fact that it went this way with this particular subdivision...

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[brianl703]

The developers in VA love being able to lay out their own streets. They can make them all dead-end streets that don't connect to adjoining developments, so you get situations where you have to drive 2 miles to get to a house you are only a few hundred feet from.

All of these, with few exceptions, end up as public maintained roads, too.

[timm22]

That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read here. I pay TAXES, A LOT of them. Yet I am not supposed to utilize the services that these Govt agencies were created to look into? One of the poorest arguements I have ever heard.

If those services are unConstitutional or immoral, then no, you shouldn't use them. Fixing prices for cable television is not a legitimate function of government, so you shouldn't try to get them to do so.

If you think that is ignorant, you may be at the wrong site.

[dennisw]

I will be exiting Comcast soon. Broadband is cool, I even bought me own modem, but their pricing is a RIPOFF compared to Verizon/Yahoo campaign to get people aboard their DSL for $30/month. I refuse to be a sucker in an economic down time.

[dennisw]

F Comcast...am with them now. I will give DSL a whirl then go back to 56k. I don't have a compelling need for broad band. I'll do all my bigass downloads then leave.

[brianl703]

I'm still trying to understand why a profit-seeking company such as Comcast would commit a profit-limiting move such as failing to wire a subdivision for cable service.

That is why I assumed that the fault would have been with the developer, who has no profit motive whatsoever in making sure that things are taken care of with respect to Comcast.

If it is indeed the County who is reponsible for advising Comcast of the need to place infrastructure in that development/subdivision, that is an interesting situation since the County is probably whom Comcast holds the franchise agreement (to serve an area for cable) with, and the County could use that failure to wire the subdivision against Comcast when it's time to renew the franchise agreement.