Yes. And to answer your Sat question....the biggest problem is the upload speeds. They are limited to 12.8KBps and the download is limited to 40KBps. Also it is affected by the weather and sunspots. Those numbers are if you reach maximum potential of signal. That is serveral issues along with the latency problems. Sat is NOT an option for any business. They cater to home people who can't get any high speed access at all.
Yes. And to answer your Sat question....the biggest problem is the upload speeds. They are limited to 12.8KBps and the download is limited to 40KBps. Also it is affected by the weather and sunspots. Those numbers are if you reach maximum potential of signal. That is serveral issues along with the latency problems. Sat is NOT an option for any business. They cater to home people who can't get any high speed access at all.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
I'll disagree. There are THOUSANDS of remote retail BUSINESSES out there that use satellite services because they have no other feasible broadband choices available. Many of them would be HAPPY to pay $57 a month for cable modem service.
Sorry I pay $100 a month, not $57. $57 is what their doing to regular subscribers, we get things from them in the mail all the time. They've jacked up rates like twice in the past 8 or so months. I originally had Comcast Home and switched to Pro because of the better service they were supposed to offer. It's BS, It's the same stuff with your caps moved a bit and nothing else. It's not even reaching the suggested "Up to 3.5Mbps/384Kbps" That is COMPLETE BS. You get less than a MB usually. People have been complaining about it.
Remote Retail maybe, but not Internet Software/Website development. Sat isn't an option if you do a good amount of uploads a day.
Again, the problem isn't the PRICE we're paying, get that out of your head. It's their tactics to make you pay more, and the absolute crappy service they provide. They've gone as far as telling me they don't care as long as they have my money. I've spent hours on the phone with these people. They just dont care. It's the overall aspect of this company that sucks.
Originally posted by: RalphKramden
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Please.
You need to cite your specific example of when you were told THAT.
I was told by managment that I had already paid my bill and despite my outages they were not going to refund my money because they direct withdraw money from my checking account. They said as long as I had "some" connectivity that they consider that service and would not present me with any refund.
I asked him "so basically you have my money and there's nothing I can do because you guys cant find the problem" he said "yes as long as you have some connection at some point".
Hence, we have your money, screw you.
The biggest problem was the outages were just odd. They happen one minute, fine the next. I couldn't pinpoint any particular time. But my connection was going down serveral times a day and everytime I sat on hold for 20 minutes trying to talk to someone at Comcast, my line came back alive and they were like "well you have a connection, sorry"
I talked with managment serveral times over a 2 month period and was promised to get my money back and "compensation". Even on one Friday night a supervisor with Comcast called me and said he read my case profile and he would be taking care of me and that they hadn't been telling any customers this, but a select group who were having problems they were going to compensate. Of course it never happened.
They specifically lied and said I had no issues when I was getting tracerts to Yahoo and Comcast itself in the first HOP (inside of comcast own gateway) of over 1000ms. I was given these excuses
1. Line problems (they sent 2 techs out to check my computers - what a joke - they then sent two DATA/Line Techs out to test my lines. Each time they all said I had "Hot Lines" and some of the best around, absolutely no problems).
2. Even AFTER 4 people had been to my place, they continued blaming my lines.
3. I was told that AT&T had a router down in Atlanta and that was the cause
4. I was told my management that they were upgrading equipment that they found faulty and It'd be fixed in 3 days ( I called back a week later and it turns out that there WERE no upgrades in my area and I was told a complete lie)
5. I was told there was a server down outside of Comcast that was causing my latenency and line dropping issues
6. I was told they found the problem - it stayed broken for 2 more weeks
7. I was told my node was overloaded (when the two line techs came out, they told me 247 people were on my node, a node which is at 20% usage!!! more complete lies)
8. I was told my problems were "because of peak usage during hours of my usage) I tested this by trying it at midnight, same tracert ping problems.
Finally in January I was told by a guy inside comcast that he indeed believed that Xbox roll out was at fault and he thinks they potentially overloaded some of the backbone of comcast. It dropped 50k new users that they were not expecting. MS and Comcast teamed up. ME and many others in the Middle TN area got the shaft and Comcast told blaintent lies over and over about problems.
Does that about sum it up?? Want to imply i'm a liar again?
I found out they had been charging me with a modem rental for 8 months, even though I had owned the modem for 2 years and they just all the sudden up and started charging me. Nice stealing eh? They did refund my money and called it a "gitch" in the system, they asked if i had received a letter about it. Of course not. I had my Parents check their bill, same thing, they started getting charged for a modem, and were never told about it.
KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: RalphKramden
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Please.
You need to cite your specific example of when you were told THAT.
I was told by managment that I had already paid my bill and despite my outages they were not going to refund my money because they direct withdraw money from my checking account. They said as long as I had "some" connectivity that they consider that service and would not present me with any refund.
I asked him "so basically you have my money and there's nothing I can do because you guys cant find the problem" he said "yes as long as you have some connection at some point".
Hence, we have your money, screw you.
The biggest problem was the outages were just odd. They happen one minute, fine the next. I couldn't pinpoint any particular time. But my connection was going down serveral times a day and everytime I sat on hold for 20 minutes trying to talk to someone at Comcast, my line came back alive and they were like "well you have a connection, sorry"
I talked with managment serveral times over a 2 month period and was promised to get my money back and "compensation". Even on one Friday night a supervisor with Comcast called me and said he read my case profile and he would be taking care of me and that they hadn't been telling any customers this, but a select group who were having problems they were going to compensate. Of course it never happened.
They specifically lied and said I had no issues when I was getting tracerts to Yahoo and Comcast itself in the first HOP (inside of comcast own gateway) of over 1000ms. I was given these excuses
1. Line problems (they sent 2 techs out to check my computers - what a joke - they then sent two DATA/Line Techs out to test my lines. Each time they all said I had "Hot Lines" and some of the best around, absolutely no problems).
2. Even AFTER 4 people had been to my place, they continued blaming my lines.
3. I was told that AT&T had a router down in Atlanta and that was the cause
4. I was told my management that they were upgrading equipment that they found faulty and It'd be fixed in 3 days ( I called back a week later and it turns out that there WERE no upgrades in my area and I was told a complete lie)
5. I was told there was a server down outside of Comcast that was causing my latenency and line dropping issues
6. I was told they found the problem - it stayed broken for 2 more weeks
7. I was told my node was overloaded (when the two line techs came out, they told me 247 people were on my node, a node which is at 20% usage!!! more complete lies)
8. I was told my problems were "because of peak usage during hours of my usage) I tested this by trying it at midnight, same tracert ping problems.
Finally in January I was told by a guy inside comcast that he indeed believed that Xbox roll out was at fault and he thinks they potentially overloaded some of the backbone of comcast. It dropped 50k new users that they were not expecting. MS and Comcast teamed up. ME and many others in the Middle TN area got the shaft and Comcast told blaintent lies over and over about problems.
Does that about sum it up?? Want to imply i'm a liar again?
I found out they had been charging me with a modem rental for 8 months, even though I had owned the modem for 2 years and they just all the sudden up and started charging me. Nice stealing eh? They did refund my money and called it a "gitch" in the system, they asked if i had received a letter about it. Of course not. I had my Parents check their bill, same thing, they started getting charged for a modem, and were never told about it.
I can believe everything that you say about their service. Customer service is the pits in all of these cable internet companies. I would take your complaints to the PUC, FTC, and the AG in your state, maybe it will push them into resolving your problems and not making up lies that you have no way of know if they are or not when they tell you. I've had trouble with my internet once or twice and I knew that the excuses they where telling me were BS, but what am I going to say as I don't know 100% they are full of crap.
I still believe that they should be able to charge what they want. It's part of free enterprise.
KK
Quite a change from your original. " They've gone as far as telling me they don't care as long as they have my money."
You didn't cite when they told you that.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,475
- 19,974
- 146
You assume far too much. I do not work for a cable company, Linus.
I have a very firm grasp on reality. Get Satellite service or a T1 line.
I am not defending their actions, I am pointing out your inaction. It's shortsighted people like you that allow companies to treat people like crap. I refuse to have laws passed that threaten the freedom of everyone to pamper people like you who do not have the courage of your convictions.
They are NOT a monopoly unless other service providers are blocked from doing business in your area. I highly doubt DSL and/or satellite service is blocked from doing business in your area. DSL may choose not to be there, but that does not make the cable company a monopoly. If all else fails, get a T1 line.
You can kick and scream all day long that I do not have responsibilities, and if that makes you feel better, so be it. It wont change the fact that I support my disabled and aged mother AND my severely mentally ill brother with in-home care. It wont change the fact that I support four of my nephews and nieces with education and living funds. It wont change the fact that I pay for the nursing home of my GF's grandmother. And it wont change the fact that I'm responsible for over 100 full and part time employees in my stores.
The problem here is not the cable company, nor MS. It's your twisted sense of entitlement and unwillingness to bite the bullet and drop the cable comapny.
Uh how as that quite a change? They said exactly just that. They already took money out of my account, and they weren't going to credit me because they didn't care If i was having problems. I said it in the first paragraph. I asked him if they were going to just take my money and not fix the problem, they said yes. Need reading glasses?
As to when they told me that, It was in Dec 2002.
Amused - your ego and self delutions of knowing all are getting in the way of thinking about the real problem here. You can sit around and call me names and try and belittle me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Comcast is hurting their customers when they know they truly have no alternative. I'm not screaming and crying, I gave my input on a thread and you act like Comcast is in the right. It's apparent by the fact that even a Senator is sending letters to the FCC that Comcast is engaging in some unfair business practices. Oh well, Go Big Business!! I'm done arguing about this, all i was trying to do was give my input. You on the other hand approve on what Comcast is doing, your only solution is to let them do it and move on.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,475
- 19,974
- 146
I am NOT defending Comcast's business practices. I AM defending individual freedom. You need to learn the difference. Comcast is an idiot for treating their customers the way they do. However, the even bigger idiots here are those customers that keep on paying Comcast month after month for sub-par service and to be sh!t on. You DO have alternatives, you just don't LIKE them. Life isn't easy. Get over it. Find another way instead of supporting laws that supplant everyone else's freedom to appease your selfish sense of entitlement.
The only delusions here are yours.
The fact that an ultra-left-wing socialist senator is trying to take away the freedom of a business is not surprising to me. They despise individual freedoms and personal responsibility because it means people will be less dependent on the government which in turn means the government has less power, which in turn means that the liberal elite cannot maintain authoritarian control over our lives. When you give up Comcast's freedom to be idiots, you end up giving up your own freedom as well. Just because it isn't your bull being gored this time, doesn't mean it isn't your turn next time.
You own a business. How would you like it if you had to raise prices to cover costs, only to be told you cannot under penalty of law? How would you like it if you were fined by the government because you displeased an irrational customer?
Be very careful what you wish for. You only see your own selfish problems, and want big brother to take care of them for you. I see the bigger picture of constantly eroding freedoms and growing government control over our lives and businesses.
No where in the Constitution do you have the right to force businesses to please you. Your only recourse is to not do business with them. The fact that you don't like the alternatives simply magnifies how strong or weak your conviction is.
Originally posted by: Amused
Like OH MAH GAWD! Let's get McDonalds?, too! If you buy only a burger, without fries and a Coke?, you pay a premium. I want the Happy Meal price?, dammit!
Unfair!
Unfair!!
I'm entitled to do business with anyone and everyone on MY terms only! Their freedom be DAMNED!!
I'm entitled!!!
I'm entitled!!
Unfair!!
Unfair!!
Folks, that's how they price it to add incentive to buy their other products. It's a common practice across industries. If you don't like it, don't use their product. Broadband, and internet access is a LUXERY. You are not entitled to it, much less entitled to it on your terms.
Thank you.
AFAIK except in very limited test areas 2 -way sat is not available for consumers...and regular sattelite requires a phone line+ phone service.
The point is the cable companies have been given certain monopoly rights over the years, both by local governments and federal agencies. The reasoning for doing so was speed the spread of cable access. In the process of gaining these monopolies the cable industry became quite good at manipulating the agencies that regulate them.
All senator Boxer is doing is working within that regulatory system to balance the efforts of the cable industry to use their monopoly position, as the owners of the cable infrastructure, to their advantage. Anytime a company accepts monopoly rights from a government it also is subject to regulations to limit their ability to profit from that monopoly.
Both the cable industry and Ms. Boxer are using their 1st Amendment rights and the right to participate in governmental decisions.
All senator Boxer is doing is working within that regulatory system to balance the efforts of the cable industry to use their monopoly position, as the owners of the cable infrastructure, to their advantage. Anytime a company accepts monopoly rights from a government it also is subject to regulations to limit their ability to profit from that monopoly.
Both the cable industry and Ms. Boxer are using their 1st Amendment rights and the right to participate in governmental decisions.
I would love to know how cable internet companies have a monopoly
The issue raised is the bundling of monopoly cable television with internet cable. To the extent the cable company can use cable television access to increase it's internet cable business, by pricing packages for example, it is possibly an unfair use of it's monopoly that should be at least looked at by the regulating body.
So, the government should be able to tell you what you're going to sell your product at and dictate how much of a profit you're going to make?
*cough*bullsh|t*cough*
Excuse me, I swallowed wrong.
It's a service that is provided by more than one company where one company doesn't own more than 51% of the total market share. I say again: WHERE'S THE GODDAMN MONOPOLY?
Cable television in the USA was given monopoly rights by the government. Over the years there have been changes but cable companies still are protected by certain regulations, keeping some of their monopoly status. Whether they should or not isn't the point, the fact is they are still protected monopolies at least with regard to cable television access.
If they have a product, cable televsion, that is a protected product, which they bundle with an unprotected product, there is an issue of them having an unfair advantage in the unprotected market.
Additionally there is the issue of why the cable company, or the phone companies, are given monopolies in the first place. These companies were granted monopolies for the of getting voice telephone service and cable television service to the largest group of users in the shortest time. The fact that the infrastructure that has been created can also be used for internet access wasn't contemplated at the time the monopoly was given to them. There isn't any particular reason that these companies should have their monopoly advantage extended into this new area.
If they have a product, cable televsion, that is a protected product, which they bundle with an unprotected product, there is an issue of them having an unfair advantage in the unprotected market.
Additionally there is the issue of why the cable company, or the phone companies, are given monopolies in the first place. These companies were granted monopolies for the of getting voice telephone service and cable television service to the largest group of users in the shortest time. The fact that the infrastructure that has been created can also be used for internet access wasn't contemplated at the time the monopoly was given to them. There isn't any particular reason that these companies should have their monopoly advantage extended into this new area.
"So, the government should be able to tell you what you're going to sell your product at and dictate how much of a profit you're going to make?"
In the case of government sanctioned monopolies that is exactly how it works. On the other side of the coin these companies are given exclusive rights to sell a given product in a particular market.
In the case of government sanctioned monopolies that is exactly how it works. On the other side of the coin these companies are given exclusive rights to sell a given product in a particular market.
Link me. Show me where the government allows them to have a monopoly --and even if you do, it's a government sanctioned monopoly. Get over it. Quit your bitching.
I'm not bitching. I'm trying to explain why there is a potential issue with cable companies giving preferential pricing for a product in a non-protected market to the consumers of their protected market product.
Cable companies should have the same freedom to price their internet products as any other competitor. But they shouldn't have more freedom than their competitors by virtue of them having a monopoly for some of their other products.
Cable companies should have the same freedom to price their internet products as any other competitor. But they shouldn't have more freedom than their competitors by virtue of them having a monopoly for some of their other products.
The only "potential" issue is customers who think they deserve more than what is offered for prices that may as well be free.
Are you ignorant, joking, or just being defensive because you work for these kind of companies? In the city where I live, there is only allowed to be one cable provider, who last got the contract through a private deal with the city. Tell me that is not a monopoly. I dont need to link sh*t to you, because these arrangements are commonplace across the entire fuggin country. I've seen them here in michigan, I've seen them in Ohio, I've seen them in Kansas, and undoubtably I'm not the only one who knows about this, so quit acting like a fool and denying that these backroom deals exist.
Shouting (caps), using bold, and taking the Christian's god's name in vain is not likely to help you persuade anyone. I suggest you take a less confrontational approach. If your agrument is solid, you shouldn't need to shout and stomp. On to the debate:
I'll make this short because I am using the crappy library's computers. I had a nice long reply typed out twice and they kicked me off
It should be obvious that broadband and dialup are two different products. Broadband has increased speed with higher cost. You can do things with a broadband connection you simply cannot do with dialup. Therefore, a market is going to exist for broadband where dialup is not a viable substitute. I brought this up in my economics class because we happen to be studying imperfect market conditions (monopolies, price ceilings, taxes, subsidies, etc...). Even though there may be more than one company making a good, if only one company makes a specific type of good, a monoplistic condition can exist. Particularly if this good has superior features (which broadband has over dialup). For example, according to my book, many auto manufactures have a normal line of cars, and a luxury line. Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infiniti, and Toyota/Lexus are examples. A Saturn dealer and a Lexus dealer can exist side by side and not affect each other's sales. In fact, dealers have taken this a step further by offering several different makes of cars. Near my house, there are dealers that offer different qualities of cars from different manufacturers in order to capture more market share. I asked a dealer once why they did this, and he said some people shop for a particular quality of car and won't buy a cheaper one, or more expensive one. At least with cars, you can consider Infiniti, Mercedes, and Lexus if you don't like what Lincoln has to offer. So, submarkets exists for goods. This is not always true with broadband internet.
Also in my area where I lived 2 years ago, the only broadband choice was DSL. The cable company (AT&T at the time) did not offer service. I lived in a nice part of town with many business professionals. It happens they make up a large portion of the broadband market, so having a competitive market here would have helped consumers. As it were, DSL prices in that area of town were MORE EXPENSIVE than they were where I live now, which has 2 broadband options. This is consitent with conditions in a monopolistic market, where suppliers can sell less of a product, at a higher price, than they would if competition existed. All this does is shrink the surplus pie for everyone.
It has been pointed out in this thread that satellite companies offer broadband. I think satellite is another class of service entirely because: they often rely on dialup for outgoing communications, which adds costs and lessens service quality; and to get two-way satellite costs up to twice as much (last time I checked) as equivalent DSL or cable modems. Now if a product costs twice as much for the same quality, then I argue it is NOT a good substitute. If/when satellite costs come down without dropping service levels, they will be a valid substitute.
I hope this clarifies my argument. I would post more but I see my alloted time at the library computer is up, so I'll have to come back and visit this thread later.
I'll make this short because I am using the crappy library's computers. I had a nice long reply typed out twice and they kicked me off
It should be obvious that broadband and dialup are two different products. Broadband has increased speed with higher cost. You can do things with a broadband connection you simply cannot do with dialup. Therefore, a market is going to exist for broadband where dialup is not a viable substitute. I brought this up in my economics class because we happen to be studying imperfect market conditions (monopolies, price ceilings, taxes, subsidies, etc...). Even though there may be more than one company making a good, if only one company makes a specific type of good, a monoplistic condition can exist. Particularly if this good has superior features (which broadband has over dialup). For example, according to my book, many auto manufactures have a normal line of cars, and a luxury line. Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infiniti, and Toyota/Lexus are examples. A Saturn dealer and a Lexus dealer can exist side by side and not affect each other's sales. In fact, dealers have taken this a step further by offering several different makes of cars. Near my house, there are dealers that offer different qualities of cars from different manufacturers in order to capture more market share. I asked a dealer once why they did this, and he said some people shop for a particular quality of car and won't buy a cheaper one, or more expensive one. At least with cars, you can consider Infiniti, Mercedes, and Lexus if you don't like what Lincoln has to offer. So, submarkets exists for goods. This is not always true with broadband internet.
Also in my area where I lived 2 years ago, the only broadband choice was DSL. The cable company (AT&T at the time) did not offer service. I lived in a nice part of town with many business professionals. It happens they make up a large portion of the broadband market, so having a competitive market here would have helped consumers. As it were, DSL prices in that area of town were MORE EXPENSIVE than they were where I live now, which has 2 broadband options. This is consitent with conditions in a monopolistic market, where suppliers can sell less of a product, at a higher price, than they would if competition existed. All this does is shrink the surplus pie for everyone.
It has been pointed out in this thread that satellite companies offer broadband. I think satellite is another class of service entirely because: they often rely on dialup for outgoing communications, which adds costs and lessens service quality; and to get two-way satellite costs up to twice as much (last time I checked) as equivalent DSL or cable modems. Now if a product costs twice as much for the same quality, then I argue it is NOT a good substitute. If/when satellite costs come down without dropping service levels, they will be a valid substitute.
I hope this clarifies my argument. I would post more but I see my alloted time at the library computer is up, so I'll have to come back and visit this thread later.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter