Comcast got too greedy too fast

[DeathBooger]

DOJ vs. Comcast

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

In its cable TV probe, Justice Department investigators are taking a particularly close look at the data caps that pay-TV providers like Comcast and AT&T Inc. T -0.08% have used to deal with surging video traffic on the Internet. The companies say the limits are needed to stop heavy users from overwhelming their networks.

Internet video providers like Netflix have expressed concern that the limits are aimed at stopping consumers from dropping cable television and switching to online video providers. They also worry that cable companies will give priority to their own online video offerings on their networks to stop subscribers from leaving.

Comcast fanned those fears in March, when it said that videos viewed on its own Xfinity app on Microsoft's MSFT +0.20% Xbox wouldn't be counted against subscribers' data caps in the same way as videos viewed using Netflix, Hulu or other apps. Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings accused Comcast of trying to get around federal rules that prevent Internet providers from favoring their own content over others on the Internet. Hulu's owners include Comcast and News Corp., NWSA +0.05% which owns The Wall Street Journal.

I'm glad I never had to deal with this crap. I hope the Justice Department does the right thing and gives consumers the choices they want.

[Rambowjo]

The US really just needs better telecommunication companies. The current ones seem like complete dicks.

[FlashIV]

I've had Comcast's 1.5Mbit Economy broadband for about two years now. It's slow but I'm used to it and I ping just fine if I want to do some gaming. I found out yesterday that their Economy package is now 3.0Mbit. I have no idea how long that's been in effect but I was disappointed that customers weren't automatically upgraded. I called to ask and had to pay $5 for some lady to click a button to give me the upgrade.

Unless I go satellite, Comcast is the only internet option I have.

[Al]

That's why I killed my Netflix streaming option, because of the Comcast cap.

[-Jes-]

Originally Posted by Rambowjo

The US really just needs better telecommunication companies. The current ones seem like complete dicks.

Yes well that's what happens when you don't regulate a market.

[Vaskadar]

Originally Posted by Rambowjo

The US really just needs better telecommunication companies. The current ones seem like complete dicks.

Because they are.

[Rambowjo]

Originally Posted by -Jes-

Yes well that's what happens when you don't regulate a market.

To be fair, I'm all for a free market, but well working and fair telecommunication isn't a luxury, at least it shouldn't be, especially not in a country like the US.

Originally Posted by FlashIV

I've had Comcast's 1.5Mbit Economy broadband for about two years now. It's slow but I'm used to it and I ping just fine if I want to do some gaming. I found out yesterday that their Economy package is now 3.0Mbit. I have no idea how long that's been in effect but I was disappointed that customers weren't automatically upgraded. I called to ask and had to pay $5 for some lady to click a button to give me the upgrade.

Unless I go satellite, Comcast is the only internet option I have.

I had 2Mb 7 years ago, and that from TDC, basically the worst ISP in Denmark.

[Capt.Toilet]

Internet video providers like Netflix have expressed concern that the limits are aimed at stopping consumers from dropping cable television and switching to online video providers. They also worry that cable companies will give priority to their own online video offerings on their networks to stop subscribers from leaving.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Overwhelm your networks my ass. I believe AT&T is the same way with their U-verse package. No cap if you go that route, otherwise it is a 150GB

[ambershee]

Originally Posted by FlashIV

I've had Comcast's 1.5Mbit Economy broadband for about two years now. It's slow but I'm used to it and I ping just fine if I want to do some gaming. I found out yesterday that their Economy package is now 3.0Mbit. I have no idea how long that's been in effect but I was disappointed that customers weren't automatically upgraded. I called to ask and had to pay $5 for some lady to click a button to give me the upgrade.

Unless I go satellite, Comcast is the only internet option I have.

That's incredibly ****. When Virgin upgraded their network, everyone got double the speed for free, except those on the 100Mbit package, ours went to 120Mbit and our bills were reduced by 1/3rd.

[IronMonkey]

Originally Posted by ambershee

When Virgin upgraded their network, everyone got double the speed for free, except those on the 100Mbit package, ours went to 120Mbit and our bills were reduced by 1/3rd.

Hrrmph, hrrmp, traffic shaping!

[TWD]

In my view the problem is that the same company shouldn't provide both the wire and the service. Things would be better if one company provided the wire, and you could choose from among numerous service providers for the actual internet. You could then pick one with a plan and network that best fits your needs.

[Thrash123]

I've got AT&T here. I've got the highest offering they have in the area (6mbps down), and I've never hit my 150gb/mo cap, with both my girlfriend and I watching stuff on Netflix and Amazon Prime regularly (especially now with me working at home - I tend to have either music streaming, or some TV series going).

I do wish I could get something better, though. The next county is getting FiOS, as part of that broadband stimulus... Great. Good for them. Now the more podunk area gets faster 'net access than the more populated areas (I live downtown, right smack in the middle of the historic district of a tourist town). Our only other offerings are Charter cable (hell no) and cellular hotspots (with only spotty 3G service in the area, once again, no thanks).

My AT&T service is rather spotty, itself. Frequent disconnects, and YT starts to have serious buffering problems after one or two videos.

Money never goes where it should anymore. Power outages and boil orders are common around here. Hell, I just got a notice a few days ago that the levels of "Disinfection Byproducts" are higher than the max allowed in our water.

Aah, politics. How I loathe thee.

[DarkED]

I have Time Warner. Luckily, we have no caps yet that I'm aware of. The CSRs say bandwidth is not capped (but then again, who knows.) I didn't see a drop in speed after downloading ~300 GB last month so I'm assuming there really isn't one.

The bill is high but I get 30+ mbit down, 5 mbit up. I say 30+ because I'm paying for 30 mbit but have experienced speeds approaching 40 mbit in off-peak hours.

Still, it's worth every penny to download files at 4+ megs/second

[Capt.Toilet]

Originally Posted by DarkED

I have Time Warner. Luckily, we have no caps yet that I'm aware of. The CSRs say bandwidth is not capped (but then again, who knows.) I didn't see a drop in speed after downloading ~300 GB last month so I'm assuming there really isn't one.

The bill is high but I get 30+ mbit down, 5 mbit up. I say 30+ because I'm paying for 30 mbit but have experienced speeds approaching 40 mbit in off-peak hours.

Still, it's worth every penny to download files at 4+ megs/second

You must have your own dedicated line because when I had crapwarner I had the 10mbit line and I sure as **** wasn't getting that.

[Zur]

Originally Posted by TWD

In my view the problem is that the same company shouldn't provide both the wire and the service.

Wisdom+1.

[toniglandyl]

internet in the USA is really terrible if you're tight on money.

In France, we can have 30Mb/s + telephone + some TV channels for 30 euros per month. 10 more euros for 100Mb/s.
no download limits.

get more companies fighting against each other !
for mobile phones it was pretty expensive over here until "Free" came around and did an unlimited option for 20 euros per month (that's unlimited calls, messages and internet). a nice slap to the face and all the others had to react.

[Kyllian]

Originally Posted by -Jes-

Yes well that's what happens when you don't regulate a market.

Doesn't help when the government is on the side of the telecomms most times

Originally Posted by TWD

In my view the problem is that the same company shouldn't provide both the wire and the service. Things would be better if one company provided the wire, and you could choose from among numerous service providers for the actual internet. You could then pick one with a plan and network that best fits your needs.

Problem is Comcast owns the backbones in many areas, so every other ISP either has to pay Comcast to use the wires or just set up wireless systems
It's probably cheaper to just rent a few square feet of rooftop than rent the lines from comcast

What's annoying me with Comcast is they don't say what your actual connection speed is going to be
It's all "up to XMbps with PowerBoost" with no mention of what "normal" is going to be
Mine says "up to 20Mbps"(2.5MB/s) and once powerboost cuts off, my speed pegs out at around 1.5MB/s

Makes me miss SouthDakota, the main ISP there charges about half the price Comcast does for better bandwidth

[DarkED]

Originally Posted by Capt.Toilet

You must have your own dedicated line because when I had crapwarner I had the 10mbit line and I sure as **** wasn't getting that.

I had the same problem when I lived in the ruburbs (mostly rural/somewhat suburban area.) Now I live in a major city, we have lots of fiber and capacity here.

[Zxanphorian]

Originally Posted by TWD

In my view the problem is that the same company shouldn't provide both the wire and the service. Things would be better if one company provided the wire, and you could choose from among numerous service providers for the actual internet. You could then pick one with a plan and network that best fits your needs.

That sounds like a better idea that there would be more choices and less conflicts of interest, but I see some complications. The companies would complain about the regulations that would be needed, and service company could complain that the wire company is overrating the infrastructure's capabilities while the wire company could complain that the service company is using too much bandwidth. And this idea wouldn't necessarily alleviate the issues with the service provider supplying their own video service. If they lose the cable for instance, they can easily switch the feed to the internet. This could stifle innovation with petty squabbles with the government or between service companies and with independent video providers (like Netflix).

The best idea would be leaving the infrastructure to the local and state and maybe the federal government, and the service to the individual companies. To alleviate some tax burden from the citizens, service companies would donate money to a "wire fund" to different localities in which they want to invest in and target potential customers with advertisement. And video service should be separated from the actual internet service.

The problem in the US is that the different companies are competing with walled cities and toll booths, not competing for a common area. Separating wire/service will cause more fracturing and more walled cities and more toll booths. Think about it, do we in the United States see oil companies or car companies own roads or require a certain combination of oil-car/car-road/road-oil, of course not. The roads are publicly-owned. The wire (roads) should be public, and the service (cars) should be separate and video (oil) should be separate as well.

Like toni said, let's get some more competition. Our companies are content in gouging customers and other companies to use their networks, and aren't willing to innovate because there is no need to with their wall/toll ideology. It really is a race to the bottom, not a race to the top.

(Woo tl;dr)