|
You can always cancel your service with ComcastLook no Netflix customers want to pay a $1 more for a Internet Service they do not get because that is not their ISP. Stop your whining Comcast customers and just cancel your service with them the best way to hurt them show them who is the boss. |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
2 recommendations |
said by DigitalManny:Look no Netflix customers want to pay a $1 more for a Internet Service they do not get because that is not their ISP. Stop your whining Comcast customers and just cancel your service with them the best way to hurt them show them who is the boss. and if my only other choice is AT&T.... ? who can only give me 8mbps down... ? |
|
TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA
3 recommendations |
to DigitalManny
And go with who, exactly? If broadband Internet is essential to you for whatever reason (and it is becoming a necessity in modern life), then going without Internet isn't a valid choice. If Comcast is the only option in your area, then they know that customers can't vote with their wallets by leaving. |
|
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN
1 recommendation |
to DigitalManny
said by DigitalManny: Stop your whining Comcast customers and just cancel your service with them And then just stay off the Internet because you have no other choice of provider, right? That is the problem a lot of people have. If there was actual competition they wouldn't be a Comcast subscriber. I know I dumped Comcast as soon as Wide Open West became available in my area. Then I made the mistake of moving. I'm all for letting Comcast and every other ISP switch to metering. All they have to do is be regulated as a utility. They screwed up when they got us off of the hourly dial up plans we were on and promised all you can eat Internet. Now they want to go back and are amazed that their customers are against it. |
|
|
to TechyDad
It absolutely is a valid choice. Internet is not a necessity for one thing. Second, the whole 'there isn't another option' thing is kind of weird. I don't believe anyone that says they hate Comcast and then gives them money every month. It's very black and white. See I would rather have no internet versus giving in and paying someone I constantly complain about. It's about staying true to yourself not buying out of a false 'necessity'. Finally, how can Comcast make money in an area if everyone left them one day? |
|
3 recommendations |
Telebob
Anon
2014-May-16 1:55 pm
Un said by hello123454:It absolutely is a valid choice. Internet is not a necessity for one thing. Ummm for some of us who do make a living using the internet, it is! Not everyone is Facebooking and watching cat videos, some us actually use it for work! Makes as much sense as "if you hate the electric company, cancel your service" |
|
TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
to hello123454
As Telebob pointed out, some of us make our money online and thus can't simply choose not to have Internet access. I'm a web developer by trade. If I don't have Internet service, it makes it nearly impossible to take on freelance projects. And "Internet service" means broadband, not 56K dial up. (Don't have a landline anyway so dial up is out.)
Even putting aside people who make their money with the Internet for the second, the Internet is becoming a necessity in modern life. This doesn't mean checking Facebook every five minutes, but getting a job (posting your resume online), keeping up with friends/family, viewing content (e.g. Netflix).
It shouldn't be a choice of "Get Comcast or get offline". |
|
jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA
1 recommendation |
to hello123454
said by hello123454:See I would rather have no internet versus giving in and paying someone I constantly complain about. Some might be able to say the same thing about water service. It's just a matter of the level of inconvenience that you are able to accept. For you, it does not seem to be much of an an inconvenience to go without internet service. Not everyone is in your position. The internet is not only about delivering Netflix videos. |
|
maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
to DigitalManny
said by DigitalManny:Look no Netflix customers want to pay a $1 more for a Internet Service they do not get because that is not their ISP. Stop your whining Comcast customers and just cancel your service with them the best way to hurt them show them who is the boss. The problem with that is.... that the competition isn't much better. My only other alternative on the consumer market is AT&T U-Verse. I could probably qualify for the 45/6 plan as I am pretty close to a VRAD, but they too have been playing with usage caps for years, and have probably already perfected it, but are waiting on the competition. They aren't implementing caps yet, because most of their competition hasn't and they are losing customers. But as soon as the big ones like Comcast and twc (merged or not) are starting to implement data caps, you can be assured that they are right behind. So either way, you will have capped internet. The only other alternative is a possible independent ISP. Sonic is moving into this area, but is (for now) only offering 20/2 VDSL. It's unlimited (at this moment), and since they are an independent provider mostly only operating in the California SF and LA areas, they will have to have a clear edge to the big boys, so will most likely stay unlimited. They do have a 1 Gbps fiber as well, but for now only in one city. The big boys have been fighting a "third alternative" for years. Pretty much in 95% of the country (if not more) you have 2 choices only: the resident cable company, and the resident telco company. In some cases there may be a wireless company, but usually they arent offering a great deal, and is really only handy when you are out of the service zone of cable/telco. But only few areas have a real alternative to cable/telco - google fiber is of course one, sonic as mentioned above is another, and there are some other independent companies and/or cities with municipal broad band options.... but they are being fought to the point some of them had to cancel their plans simply because AT&T/Verizon etc sicked 500 lawyers on em. And the proposed FCC rules aren't very promising either, and they voted on party lines too. |
|
maartena
1 recommendation |
to hello123454
said by hello123454:It absolutely is a valid choice. Internet is not a necessity for one thing. Second, the whole 'there isn't another option' thing is kind of weird. I don't believe anyone that says they hate Comcast and then gives them money every month. It's very black and white. See I would rather have no internet versus giving in and paying someone I constantly complain about. It's about staying true to yourself not buying out of a false 'necessity'. Finally, how can Comcast make money in an area if everyone left them one day? I will fall in the category of people that will accept limitations in favor of having no internet. If both TWC and AT&T will implement caps, I will stay with one of them, because living without ANY internet for me.... is not an option. Period. And I think that I am not alone. I think 95% of customers of either a cable company, or a telco company WILL NOT go without internet, if both of them decide to implement data caps. So you can suggest the "speak with your wallet" all you want. That might work for wireless service, where you currently have 4 big providers, and several smaller ones to choose from, but it simply doesn't work for residential services. The "cancelers" are simply not going to make enough of an impact. The notion that "everyone" will leave comcast (or at&t/verizon) simply isn't happening. You may be an exception that will truly move forward without internet, but I guarantee you that more then 99% will remain on some form of internet, even if that means data caps. The influence you will have by cancelling, is absolutely zilch. Also, for me it is a necessity. I work from home, with a VPN into work. My commute to the office would be about 45 minutes, or an hour and a half per day, or 7.5 hours a week, or 30 hours a month, or 360 hours a year that I would spend in the car, burning expensive fuel. I save a lot of money and time by being allowed to work from home. If some of that money has to go back to overage caps, so be it. I won't be canceling internet altogether. I might switch if the OTHER provider does not offer any caps, but NO internet, is simply not an option. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to TechyDad
said by TechyDad:As Telebob pointed out, some of us make our money online and thus can't simply choose not to have Internet access. Then you should both have Comcast Business accounts and then caps would mean nothing to you. |
|
1 recommendation |
to train_wreck
At least you have another choice, or any choice at all. I live in the "Metro Atlanta Area", yet AT&T, Comcast, Charter(I'm not sure either provider offers service in my county, but both do offer service to surrounding counties), and others offer no wire-line broadband internet access. My single choice is Verizon Wireless, and my bills for the last year have been between $900 and well exceeding $1,000(last month, like most of the last 12 months, exceeded $1,000, at $1,230.08), for less use than the average household...in 2012.
Satellite internet access isn't an option, as it causes problems with the main reason we have internet access: access to work networks. Given that consumer satellite internet service won't cover one of the reasons for internet access(and one of the most important ones, too), I see no reason to even consider it. Beyond that, at least one satellite ISP(Hughsnet is what I am talking about) uses bullshit marketing "doubletalk" to mask overages. From what I remember, "restore tokens" allow for a "reset" of the imaginary data meter prior to the monthly data allotment reset. Of course, this is all academic(until data transfer performance improves over consumer-grade satellite internet service), since one of the important reasons for having internet service is incompatible.
At this point, I am going to build my own solution. I have purchased a few LMS6002D-based SDRs(software-defined radios), and will be purchasing some amplifiers and directional antennas. I am also looking for a property(either family, friends, or other interested third-parties) that has access to affordable internet access(i.e. wireline) within a range that will allow me to setup a useable "point-to-point" wireless internet connection. I will have a 2x2 MIMO setup with the SDRs(the SDRs will synchronize two boards, and supposedly up to four, for 4x4 MIMO). The logistics of spectrum use, and legal issues have already been solved, so I have already moved on to hardware acquisition.
This all irritates me, as we have the population concentration for, at the very least, AT&T to offer DSL or "Uverse" out here. Though, AT&T won't be bothered to remove the load coils on the 1950s-era lines out here. So, I am having to seek my own solution, or I could pay AT&T almost $400 a month for a DS1 line, with a two year contract. So, while there are technically "solutions" for internet access, they are all far from affordable, or reasonable. |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
|
to tshirt
said by tshirt:said by TechyDad:As Telebob pointed out, some of us make our money online and thus can't simply choose not to have Internet access. Then you should both have Comcast Business accounts and then caps would mean nothing to you. yeah, but that's a more expensive solution offered by the same company causing the problem (overages), and a problem that (IMHO) is artificial in the first place. not to mention business class comes with its own sets of issues/limitations. |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
to hello123454
Please, go run a hotel on a T1 or DSL and explain to your guests why they can't stream Netflix or YouTube. Those are the only choices in many areas. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:yeah, but that's a more expensive solution offered by the same company causing the problem (overages), and a problem that (IMHO) is artificial in the first place. not to mention business class comes with its own sets of issues/limitations. Not artificial, just costs you don't wish to acknowledge. and if you don't like any of their product you can seek service elsewhere. It is not Comcast's fault that your Telco (or any other provider does not provide a cheaper/faster/unlimited service that you find more acceptable. You can only buy from them what they are willing to sell, in the way they are willing to sell it, which seems to acceptably fit at least 99% of the market. |
|
jjeffeoryjjeffeory join:2002-12-04 Bloomington, IN
1 recommendation |
to hello123454
How can you apply to jobs at monster.com without an internet connection? There are no local offices... How can little Johnny do his homework without the internet? Little johnny lives 30 miles away from a library, and Big John has to work 3 jobs ( found on monster.com to make ends meet. The family can only afford 1 car. Instead of paying bills online, Sally has to walk a couple miles to the grocery store to pay the 'lectric bill and buy stamps for the other bills. Luckily, Sally doesn't have to pay for water as she's got a well and a pump, but the 'lectric is important for heatin' the house in the winter. |
|
|
to tshirt
"Choice? Choice is an illusion given by men with power" - The Merovingian
So you're saying we take the choices we're provided and don't complain.
BS. Clearly when competition comes to an incumbent, they have a come to Jesus moment with their customers, lowering prices and attempting to improve CustServ.
Why wasn't this done before competition came to town? Because we know you don't have any other choice so we don't care about you as a customer.
With such attitudes, even Comcast won't remain in business forever. |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to tshirt
I would love to see the methodologies explained as to how they figured out how much data costs to transfer. It costs the same amount if the network is idle or being used. |
|
|
|
to tshirt
Do you have any evidence to back your claim it's not artificial? After all, there's nothing for him to "acknowledge" if you have no factual data. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-May-16 11:03 pm
Can you back the claim it's artificial? he admits it is just his opinion. But their is a bigger question that that is Why does this privately built privately owned (publically traded) company owe you any explanation of their cost are or what margin they choose to charge? |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
|
said by tshirt:Why does this privately built privately owned (publically traded) company owe you any explanation of their cost are or what margin they choose to charge? maybe because we're the ones paying the "costs"? |
|
|
to Montezuma
400 per mo. for DS1 is cheaper than 1000 for wireless. If you haven't made the jump already, part of your 1000 per mo. is not for network access, or you're paying for multiple devices. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Even a VZ Wireless MiFi with 10GB doesn't approach 1000. |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
to ArrayList
That is not completely true. An ISP cost to an area can double with very little or no revenue increase. If many customers on a node start using more data like getting a subscription to Netflix and the node is at or exceeding capacity then the ISP has the choice of delivering bad service or buying more equipment for the node. If the customers are not exceeding caps then the ISP does not get any more revenue. |
|
WhatNow |
to maartena
In NC what the incumbents stopped was the government setting up fiber networks using tax money that came from everybody even if you did not take the service. I think a city can do a network if the set it up as a private would completely independent of the the city tax money and equipment.
The other problem is the networks stop at the city boarder leaving anyone in the county without better service.
If people hate the telcos and cable they could get together and build their own private or co-op network. The best solution is to separate the transport from the content. If a private company built a dark fiber network the every building and the just charge a connection fee. The content provides the content connection at a common site and service at the customer. I would hope Comcast, AT&T, TWC even Dish or DirecTv would compete for customers. If you just wanted internet several Local Jane ISPs might provide that service. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to train_wreck
Do you demand the same detailed info from the butcher, baker, grocer, doctor? |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN |
if it's a cost i don't understand or agree with, absolutely |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to WhatNow
If there is not capacity, then they should be required to prove it, publicly and transparently. This bullshit about not having capacity is meaningless until they actually show that they don't have it. |
|
TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
to tshirt
said by tshirt: Not artificial, just costs you don't wish to acknowledge. and if you don't like any of their product you can seek service elsewhere. But that's just the point. There is no "elsewhere" to go. In my area, the only broadband provider is Time Warner Cable. That's it. I can't go "elsewhere" if TWC does something I don't like. They could implement a 5GB cap and $10 per GB overage fees (like they wanted to do at one point and likely would still love to do) and I'd have no choice. said by tshirt:It is not Comcast's fault that your Telco (or any other provider does not provide a cheaper/faster/unlimited service that you find more acceptable. You can only buy from them what they are willing to sell, in the way they are willing to sell it, which seems to acceptably fit at least 99% of the market. No, it isn't Comcast's fault that the teleco doesn't provide a competing service just like it isn't TWC's fault that Verizon's FIOS build stopped short of my area. However, this does mean that TWC has a monopoly in my area. If you want broadband by me, you need to use TWC. "It's not our fault nobody is competing" is not an excuse to use monopoly power to do whatever you want. And as far as it not being their fault that no competition has arisen, look at what happens when municipalities - even ones not served by the cable companies/telecos try to form their own broadband services. They get sued as being "unfair competition" by the big ISPs. Yes, even if they aren't in an area the big ISPs serve, they still think of it as being "unfair" because they might someday decide to serve there and the people should just sit there waiting for Big ISP, not form their own ISP. This isn't a healthy market, it's a monopoly - or, at best, a duopoly - where the big players are colluding to stay out of each others' way and gouge their customers as much as possible. |
|
TechyDad |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:Then you should both have Comcast Business accounts and then caps would mean nothing to you. And how much extra would I need to pay for those business accounts? What if I don't do *that* much business online? I do freelance work on the side and can go for months without a project. Am I required to get a Business account if I do *any* business online? On the other hand, we stream Netflix on a daily basis. This is where the caps actually would hurt the most since we watch Netflix instead of TV most of the time. (We're close to cancelling TV entirely.) Should I be required to pay extra for a Business account because our bandwidth usage comes from streaming video? Is it fair if Comcast exempts their own video services from this cap but requires that I pay extra if I want to see someone else's video service? Does their Internet service suddenly "not include" streaming video access? |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
|
to TechyDad
said by TechyDad:This isn't a healthy market, it's a monopoly - or, at best, a duopoly - where the big players are colluding to stay out of each others' way and gouge their customers as much as possible. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly is the word you're looking for, i believe said by TechyDad: Is it fair if Comcast exempts their own video services from this cap but requires that I pay extra if I want to see someone else's video service? according to comcast, yes. according to me, absolutely not. i might even call it a conflict of interest. |
|