
Why Comcast Should Be Sued - d0ne
http://www.frooglegeek.com/why-comcast-should-be-sued/590
======
ender7
Oh, competition, wouldn't it be nice to have you around.

Of course, given the massive up-front infrastructure investment, such
competition is unlikely to materialize. What would be wonderful is if the
government ran fiber to everyone's homes, and then let companies lease it from
them. I wonder what the cost would be to last-mile a major city....

~~~
lotharbot
> What would be wonderful is if the government ran fiber to everyone's homes,
> and then let companies lease it from them.

<http://www.utopianet.org/why-utopia> \-- sixteen cities in northern Utah have
done exactly this. My dedicated fiber connection runs about $35 a month for 10
up/10 down, no caps that I'm aware of.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/google-
besto...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/google-
bestows-1gbps-fiber-network-on-kansas-city-kansas.ars) \-- Google is running
fiber in Kansas City, KS. I'd assume they've run the numbers and can cost-
effectively last-mile the whole city.

~~~
devicenull
I remember reading somewhere that they are doing it, and releasing all the
information about how they did it, as well as common pitfalls. The purpose of
that was to give other cities the information they needed to successfully
implement it.

------
CGamesPlay
How did this kinda of article make its way to the front page? This kind of
math makes no sense whatsoever, and the fact that Chris has probably never
seen 13.125 down his pipe should have been an indicator that this was flawed
logic.

Love to hate on Comcast, but I try to be intelligent about it.

~~~
DrHankPym
I'm really tired so I'm not 100% sure it's exactly linear, but if the
bandwidth is around half then you get twice as much usage. So instead of 5
hours it would be 10 hours, which I'm guessing is around 1.4% of the month.

------
samlevine
It's a consumer plan, they're always absurdly oversubscribed. It doesn't make
any sense to charge consumers for a leased line because even if they're
listening to Pandora and watching Netflix like crazy they won't hit the
(currently) high data cap.

If you don't want caps (either explicit or defacto) get a business plan from
Comcast; It's quite afordable relative to other options that businesses would
pay for. Of course it isn't anything different than what you're paying for
right now, but they won't shut it off after you've uploaded the contents of a
1TB hard drive to a backup service.

~~~
jarrettcoggin
I disagree.

I had 3 roommates at one point, and all 4 of us were subscribe to Netflix. It
was VERY easy for us to hit the cap with everyone watching Netflix alone, let
alone playing games or streaming music in the common areas.

After I moved out and got married, my wife and kid routinely have Netflix
playing in the background as they sit at home during the day while I'm at
work. When I go home, I usually have work to do at home as well, which only
adds to the usage.

Using numbers found in the article, if you use Netflix on a daily basis for 3
hours a day watching HD content purely, it would park you at about 210GB of
the 250GB cap according to Netflix themselves:

[http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/netflix-lowers-data-usage-
by...](http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/netflix-lowers-data-usage-
by-23-for.html)

So yes, using Netflix and Pandora can easily put you over the cap.

EDIT (for clarity): This article talks about the quality settings in the
account settings area, but if you adjust the settings to allow for highest
resolution, it would still apply.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> I disagree.

With which point? I think you're trying to say that most consumers WILL hit
the cap based on your experience - but how typical is your experience? You're
an HN reader with 3 roommates, some of whom are probably HN readers too. And
how many other people leave Netflix on all day, instead of just leaving the TV
on a cable channel?

There will come a time - really fucking soon, too - when your story is
representative of the average broadband user - but we're not there yet.

~~~
uxp
> but we're not there yet.

The problem comes when you read between the lines. ISPs like Comcast aren't
giving a massive push to strengthen and expand their networks, instead they
are punishing the (according to Comcast and other's) %1 of users that do hit
that cap.

I've had a 250 GB softcap on my ISP's account for 7 years. 7 years ago, it
wasn't all that possible to actually hit the 250GB cap unless I tried _really_
hard, but right now with 720p or higher quality movies available instantly,
and without hours and hours of buffering required, it is easy for a heavy use
family to hit those limits, possibly in a single day. I've actually hit 300GB
in a single weekend before.

Comcast and others are cutting the consumers off that are the ones that they
should be aiming to please, as those are the ones that dictate how everyone
_else_ is going to use the service the day after tomorrow, whether they like
it or not.

------
jtwb
Deceptive marketing? Yes. Inflated prices? Yes. Lack of competition? Totally.

But using law to impose your "moral perspective" on a pricing structure is not
a solution.

The problem is that there exists no plan with reasonably-priced, reasonably-
fast non-capped internet access, while there is a demand for it.

This is a market failure caused by a lack of competition in the market.

We should seek out and advocate for solutions which increase competition in
the consumer broadband marketplace and ignore foolish non-solutions like this.

~~~
fourk

      "The problem is that there exists no plan with reasonably-priced, 
      reasonably-fast non-capped internet access, while there is a demand for it."

I believed the same thing until recently. HN User Aloisius let me know about
Web Pass, which is unfortunately available only in buildings with 100 or more
residence units, in this post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2711784>

    
    
      "symmetric 100 Mbps uncapped service in San Francisco for $33/month"

------
jarrettcoggin
Having done this same calculation myself, this was part of the reason I moved
to Business Class. That and that I actually wanted to start a business
eventually.

I think the ratio should be something much higher, such as 80%, not 0.69%.
That would give you 7.56 TB of available bandwidth of the maximum possible
9.45 TB, based on the 105Mbps speed listed. And that's only downstream.

~~~
ams6110
You have business class at home? What is the cost delta compared to their
residential service?

~~~
kelnos
I'm not sure what residential costs these days, but I have Comcast Business
12/2 for $60/mo. I managed to get the installation fee waived when I set up
the service a couple years ago. I also negotiated away the contract; well, I
had to sign a 2-year contract, but got them to drop the cancellation fee. A
contract with no termination penalty isn't a particularly big deal (and I've
already had the service for 2 years, anyway). They even moved the service to
my new apartment when I moved for no cost.

~~~
pasbesoin
The installation fee kind of sucks, especially given that I already have
residential service. Did you use an argument along those lines to get it
waved, or another line of negotiation? Likewise, if you don't mind sharing,
how'd you convince them to set a $0 cancellation fee?

I guess I can find my own way, but a little perspective couldn't hurt.

~~~
kelnos
That sucks that you had to pay for installation; yeah, I pointed out I already
had residential service, so they wouldn't need to come out and they could just
send me the modem, and that worked (I was actually surprised).

The $0 cancellation... I just asked for it, and got it. I never thought stuff
like that worked, but apparently it's true: it never hurts to ask.

It may have helped that I directly contacted an account rep who a former IT-
dept colleague had worked with and recommended to me. It's possible that the
"so-and-so gave me your name and said you were very helpful" bit gave me
better/more personalized service. Hard to say.

------
tzs
The author's premise is wrong. I don't get faster connections because I want
to download more data than I could on a slower connection. I get faster
connections so that I don't have to wait as long for my downloads to complete.

~~~
sukuriant
Same result

To expound upon that, being able to receive more bits through the pipe will
likely result in being more willing to download/stream will likely result in
more downloads/streams, so just by being able to get things faster will you be
more likely to get more things.

------
wmf
Your Internet usage is probably bursty, so you want bursty service; a 1% share
of 100 Mbps is dramatically faster in practice than a T1. Someone is about to
suggest that ISPs advertise minimum speeds instead of burst speed, but that
doesn't serve the interest of most customers since perceived performance does
correlate strongly with burst speed.

------
daimyoyo
If you want to sue based on immoral business plans consider that T-Mobile
recently doubled the cost of incoming text messages for prepaid customers.
These are texts you can't control getting, yet when you do they charge you
anyway. Incidentally, their highest mobile data plan includes 10Gb for $89.99.
At the same rate as they charge for texts, that plan would cost $6.4Million. I
honestly don't understand why congress hasn't demanded cell phone carriers
include texts in the cost of plans.

------
shawnee_
Comcast's primary goal right now is to prevent a raising of the debt ceiling.
Once this is done it will be much easier for the FCC to be eviscerated and
destroyed -- or at the very least, maimed. With that pesky FCC out of the way,
Comcast will then be free to take a deep breath and expand its belly,
unrolling that flab of inefficiency even further, stifling and suffocating as
many sources of potential innovation and competition as possible.

With no viable threats (as Comcast will be both the Gatekeeper _and_ the
traffic police), its ability to dictate who can drive in the fast lane and the
slow lane and who is even allowed to drive on the road at all will spill over
from the highways to the suburbs to the rural country roads.

[http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2011/07/white-
house...](http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2011/07/white-house-slams-
cuts-to-fcc.php)

~~~
roc
I have no doubt that Comcast's lobbyists take every opportunity to push for
"starve the beast"-style cuts to the FCC. But I sincerely doubt they think it
remotely in their interest to see the US _actually_ default.

Being able to squeeze more profit per subscriber loses its luster if another
economic calamity causes home internet access to become a luxury again. They
already see the danger that they may become a dumb pipe that only provides
backhaul access for wireless cells. (see their wireless deals and
partnerships)

If another economic snap forces people to choose between their home internet
and their smartphones, guess who wins and guess who hemorrhages subscribers
like a POTS provider? And they'll have a hell of a time convincing people to
pick those plans back up, years later, if/as things recover. Even though home
phone service has become dirt cheap with VoIP offerings, that hasn't brought
back customers. If people cut Comcast and start to go wireless-data only,
it'll be terribly hard to reverse.

To say nothing of Comcast's investments and stock price, which would tank
(along with most everything else) in the crisis that would follow an actual
default.

~~~
shawnee_
Good points, but default is not the automatic consequence of failing to raise
the debt ceiling.

The issue is just creating more noise and static that distracts from the core
issues that the GOP doesn't want people to notice: that the GOP wants to cut
funding to the FCC, and without the FCC and more stringent net neutrality
regulations, companies like Comcast can exercise whatever kind of monopolistic
behaviors they want.

------
CoryMathews
wow I am lucky to get 25Mbs down (avg ~15). much less 105, and I have the
highest available residential plan.

Is South Texas just that far behind the normal Internet speeds?

~~~
silentOpen
I live in Pasadena, CA, in the middle of LA county, one of the most populous
in the USA and I have the following choices for maximal bandwidth:

AT&T DSL at 6Mbps/1.5Mbps for $40/mo Charter Cable at 60Mbps/?Mbps for $100/mo

I think both plans have caps, though I've never hit them. Charter wouldn't
tell me their upload speeds and demanded I give them my SSN so I went with
ATT.

The United States does not care about its economic future. It cares about
keeping the next quarter's profits up for the corrupt telecom cartel that's
turned bribing local governments into a science.

