Comcast blasts Consumerist, Consumerist blasts back

[DrPizza]

It would be amusing to see this escalate between the two:
http://consumerist.com/2014/04/30/i...eadlines-so-heres-one-for-them/#more-10161950

(And, of course, as usual, The Consumerist lacks editorial review to fix things like spelling errors (beyond spell check), etc.)

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am not sure why Comcast bothered,.. it's not like they even care.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I think the people worried about things like net neutrality have it all wrong. I think it would be totally fine to have side deals for faster pipelines, as long as I can choose between many broadband providers. That way, if Comcast (for example) were to start throttling Netflix, I could threaten to move over to Cox unless they agree to resolve the issue. As it stands right now, the only options where I live are Comcast, cellular, or dial up, so I have no leverage to force Comcast to be good to me. And I live in a city!

 

[BeeBoop]

I think the people worried about things like net neutrality have it all wrong. I think it would be totally fine to have side deals for faster pipelines, as long as I can choose between many broadband providers. That way, if Comcast (for example) were to start throttling Netflix, I could threaten to move over to Cox unless they agree to resolve the issue. As it stands right not, the only options where I live are Comcast, cellular, or dial up, so I have no leverage to force Comcast to be good to me. And I live in a city!

No, you have it wrong. I do not have the option to switch providers because there is no competition where I live. This goes for 90% of all other cities in my state.

 

[Sonikku]

I think the people worried about things like net neutrality have it all wrong. I think it would be totally fine to have side deals for faster pipelines, as long as I can choose between many broadband providers. That way, if Comcast (for example) were to start throttling Netflix, I could threaten to move over to Cox unless they agree to resolve the issue. As it stands right not, the only options where I live are Comcast, cellular, or dial up, so I have no leverage to force Comcast to be good to me. And I live in a city!

If you're paying for 20mpbs, you should be getting 20mpbs. If they throttle down your netflix streaming to 1mpb then you're not getting the service you paid for.

 

[Anubis]

No, you have it wrong. I do not have the option to switch providers because there is no competition where I live. This goes for 90% of all other cities in my state.

thats what he said

 

[SunnyD]

I am not sure why Comcast bothered,.. it's not like they even care.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c38fb80a0d/comcast-doesn-t-give-a-f-ck

 

[crashtestdummy]

If you're paying for 20mpbs, you should be getting 20mpbs. If they throttle down your netflix streaming to 1mpb then you're not getting the service you paid for.

That's nice in principle, but incredibly difficult to enforce from a government-regulation standpoint (as we've seen lately). It'd be much easier if I, as the customer, could simply tell Comcast "I know what you're doing. Stop it, or I will spend my money elsewhere."

 

[Markbnj]

That's nice in principle, but incredibly difficult to enforce from a government-regulation standpoint (as we've seen lately). It'd be much easier if I, as the customer, could simply tell Comcast "I know what you're doing. Stop it, or I will spend my money elsewhere."

Well, no question, competition would make everything better. But in the meantime Comcast is essentially a regulated utility in local markets. On the one hand, that means regulators probably don't have a lot of reasons to block the merger, because two companies that are regulated monopolies in different local markets put together doesn't equal much of a change.

On the other hand, it should mean that the FCC has plenty of reasons to be very vigorous in guarding against Comcast's use of that monopoly power to extort money from content providers. Why aren't they? Oh, right, because Comcast hires FCC commissioners and board members for cushy jobs just to make sure that responsibility continues to be ignored.

 

[BurnItDwn]

If ISPs are going to offer "fast and slow" channels, they should only legally be allowed to advertise/sell based upon the slowwest channel.

So, if they give 10mbit for netflix, but, they give 50mbit for downloading from their own servers, they should be able to advertise a 10mbit connection.

If they are going to throttle any content, they can only advertise the slowwest throttled speed IMO.

 

[BeeBoop]

That's nice in principle, but incredibly difficult to enforce from a government-regulation standpoint (as we've seen lately). It'd be much easier if I, as the customer, could simply tell Comcast "I know what you're doing. Stop it, or I will spend my money elsewhere."

Compared to getting competition to move into my area? How do you propose doing that? Your way sounds much more difficult considering no one is pushing for or talking about increasing my options. How is it any easier to implement when you have no support for your idea? Government regulation is actually on the table right now and has a lot of support.

 

[crashtestdummy]

It's not as simple as that. How do you legally demonstrate that someone is throttling a connection? Even if you could convince a jury through data like this that throttling was happening, the ISPs will just find more subtle ways to achieve the same goals. The only way you're really going to win is by breaking the monopoly, either by creating municipal broadband or requiring those companies to lease their pipelines to third parties. I don't see a way that any kind of enforcement of "net neutrality" will actually be effective.

 

[dr150]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c38fb80a0d/comcast-doesn-t-give-a-f-ck

That's exactly how I felt when I tried to re-negotiate my increased internet rate last month.

 

[squarecut1]

On the other hand, it should mean that the FCC has plenty of reasons to be very vigorous in guarding against Comcast's use of that monopoly power to extort money from content providers. Why aren't they? Oh, right, because Comcast hires FCC commissioners and board members for cushy jobs just to make sure that responsibility continues to be ignored.

Legalized corruption. So very common

 

[Markbnj]

The government should let Comcast finalize their acquisition of every meter of last-mile coax in the land, and then nationalize the bastards. They can become a bloated national regulated utility for fifty years or so, and then a federal judge can break them up.

 

[MistaFreeze]

That's exactly how I felt when I tried to re-negotiate my increased internet rate last month.

Aha wow, spot on!

 

[ElFenix]

If you're paying for 20mpbs, you should be getting 20mpbs. If they throttle down your netflix streaming to 1mpb then you're not getting the service you paid for.

YOU CAN GET 20 MBPS!*










*except for on the few things that actually benefit from 20MBPS

 

[SunnyD]

That's exactly how I felt when I tried to re-negotiate my increased internet rate last month.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

:twisted:

 

[BeeBoop]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

:twisted:

lol, good video.

 

[It's Not Lupus]

consumerist used to have a larger readership. now there are hardly any comments on their articles.

 

[Mixolydian]

I always wanted to start my own cable company. Obviously it's a huge undertaking, but fun to think about nonetheless.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I always wanted to start my own cable company. Obviously it's a huge undertaking, but fun to think about nonetheless.

You would hang up awesome/interesting streetlights on the utility poles with the cable lines!

 

[Mixolydian]

You would hang up awesome/interesting streetlights on the utility poles with the cable lines!

Damn straight.

 

[kranky]

consumerist used to have a larger readership. now there are hardly any comments on their articles.

They had to turn off their old commenting system and are implementing a new one which is in beta now.

 

[MongGrel]

Damn straight.

Gopher it, I'm in.