Major Comcast Investor Wants CEO Booted > LOL @ "Comcastrophe"

LOL @ "Comcastrophe"

Comcast is getting what they deserve

Comcast does not like publicty of any kind (especially bad publicity). Angering enough subscribers will eventually cause a backlash and hate.

reply to CableTool

said by CableTool:

Haha, After stating they would terminate their service for a year, they cancel their service?
I dont get it?
Yup... they really showed Comcast...

So let's recap... a customer abuses the network and is warned and the customer ignores the warning.

They are terminated as warned..

What do you not get? or are you simply blinded by your quest to 'get comcast'.. oooohhhhh..

How in the world do you figure they abused it???

The subscriber who got terminated hasn't ever been able to get a clear answer regarding what constitutes abuse.

reply to fiberguy
I wouldn't characterize someone who participates in online discussions as being "out to get" a corporation.

I mean... it's not like I made a video, or a blog, or went charging into the local office with a hammer.

reply to JTRockville

Re: LOL @ "Comcastrophe"

reply to JTRockville

Re: Comcast is getting what they deserve

reply to JTRockville
The subscriber who got terminated got a clear answer regarding abuse. First, there is a terms of service - a document here that those that frequent this site believe it doesn't apply to them in the first place.. ("Typical Residential Use" - I guess the typical residential user downloads 500GB of data a month) and second, he was told he was using way too much bandwidth and to cut it back "to about half"...

I'm terribly sorry if that's not clear enough.

That user knows how they were using the bandwidth and maybe should have stopped trying to push the envelope like they did.

reply to fiberguy
Odd that the user in question hasn't changed their network "usage" habits at all, yet is NOT considered to be "abusing" the service they have now from Xmission.

So it seems to be acceptable for a subscriber to cop the attitude that "I pay for it, who are they to tell me how I can and can't use it", as long as they don't subscribe to service from a cableco.

>said from fiberguy:

> "JT, .. in just about EVERY discussion thread involving Comcast, you always jump in with a reason that Comcast is, well, pretty much the anti-Christ.
>
> The consumer that was cut off, in my opinion, DID go way above and beyond the call of duty to look a fool. Does Comcast post a solid cap limit? no.. as you and everyone here knows, there is none. And I believe we'll discover life in outer space before we discover any caps that Comcast may have. The user that was abusing the system, like all of them, KNOW what they are doing wrong when they are warned. They are either downloading a bunch of movies, running servers, I mean - we've all been through this before. You can't be an amateur and download that much data."

My statement stands. I don't know how much I downloaded and neither does Concast. They tell me one number and my wife another number (speaking to the same security department rep in fact). And stating that it's ok to terminate someone for using a service we purchased is just B.S. It's like buying a car and paying taxes for the roads but you can't drive on it too much... Oh and we can't tell you what that is either. Complete lunacy.

>
> "These people that abuse the bandwidth KNOW what they are doing, are smug about it, play a victim VERY well, and then admit that they knew what they were doing while trying to justify their behavior with arguments such as "but they sold me unlimited use" or "it's mine, I pay for it, who are they to tell me how I can and can't use it".. some go as far to say they run a business from home. :P So I won't feel sorry for these people."

We run a home business which doesn't use Internet services. I can't imagine people can't understand that simple and clear statement. I've been through that before and it's amusing.

Playing the victim? I paid for it and I'm not supposed to use it?

Cough cough bullshit cough cough..

>
> "Too many people are imposing their own expectations/views/definitions onto what the service is (I read about it EVERY DAY and there ARE MANY different ones) instead of taking the time to read what the service really offers. For that, people often do themselves in then cry foul. The one biggest expectation that people have is that Comcast has to define the caps.. the truth is, and it's not a popular belief, that they don't. However, those that abuse the system work very hard to do so. Do I agree that publishing a cap, even a lose cap, would be a good idea? In SOME ways, yes.. in others, I can understand why they don't.. It opens an un-necessary can of worms that really doesn't need to be opened.. (see Time Warner Sets New Limits at 5GB)"

Concast (cable ISP in general) is about the only service I know you can advertise unlimited and get away with not providing what they offered. Isn't that false advertising?

>
>" I participate in online discussions quite a bit as well as you, and I constantly am called a shill simply because I don't agree with the premise of the argument and the way it's being presented.
>
> MANY of the posts/threads on this site are leading from the get-go and don't facilitate a truly non-objective discussion."
>

I feel sorry for you fiberguy. Sounds like you're ok with false advertising.

>" The subscriber who got terminated got a clear answer regarding abuse. "

A clear answer but the company CSR's even today will tell you there are no limits. So how do we define abuse?

>" First, there is a terms of service - a document here that those that frequent this site believe it doesn't apply to them in the first place.. ("Typical Residential Use" - I guess the typical residential user downloads 500GB of data a month) and second, he was told he was using way too much bandwidth and to cut it back "to about half"..."

No guidelines were provided. Telling someone to cut back drastically and yet provide NO guidelines is akin to saying you can't drive too quickly down a road but we can't tell you how fast that is.

>
> "I'm terribly sorry if that's not clear enough."

Yeah, they are sorry aren't they. So now there are people pushing competition to kick their a$$. I'm terribly sorry myself ;D

>
> "That user knows how they were using the bandwidth and maybe should have stopped trying to push the envelope like they did."

cough cough bullshit cough cough.

People booted off had no idea how much they were downloading nor that it was a problem EVEN after going out of the way to contact the company over two days and THEY said it wasn't a problem.

Sounds like someone is making excuses.

reply to fiberguy
Comcast's TOS doesn't clarify anything, and you know it. "Way too much" is way too vague.

So why should the user stop trying to push the envelope, when switching from Comcast to a network service provider seems to be the most sensible way around Comcast's super-secret limits?

It does make you wonder though - what makes Comcast think anyone would switch back to them when the year is up, after having been treated like a criminal for doing nothing more than using the service as advertised?

reply to anonymister
Enjoy your slower DSL there bud. Not going to re-open your problem again... not to mention, how do you know I was speaking about you specifically? I don't even know who you are.. one thing is for certain.. all the cases are the same.

This is an old and VERY tired discussion.

reply to JTRockville
Where did I speak of anyone going back?

The TOS is clear.. however, you don't seem to think it is. I told you the answer in "vague" and anyone with a brain in their head can figure it out..

1) Does the average person open their connection up and down load all they can? - No. To see some of the numbers they are pulling, they'd almost have to. It's not typical use.

2) Are some of these people running servers? Yes. Pretty clear it's a violation.

3) Stop making excuses. Typical residential use isn't what the OVER WHELMING majority of those kicked off were using the service for - and they know/knew it!

4) Yawn!