Oh Comcast, How Low Can You Go?

[Commodore]

So by now, I'm sure most of you have heard of the absolutely abysmal customer service record of Comcast as well as their business practices that can only really be described as thuggery. Well it seems now Comcast has sunk to a new low and just flat out insults those who attempt to cancel their service.

Via Elliott.org, a Spokane, Wash., resident named Lisa Brown claims that, after she called Comcast to cancel her family’s cable, her husband’s name was changed from Ricardo Brown to “A**hole” Brown on her most recent cable provider bill.

Seriously, how has there not been some sort of class-action lawsuit against this company criminal organization yet?

Link

 

[gay_Aleks]

Because half of America would suddenly have no Internet?

 

[sophie]

Aren't monopolies lovely?

 

[Commodore]

Because half of America would suddenly have no Internet?

Just force Comcast to transfer all of their service and infrastructure to local phone/cable companies.

 

[jackelgull]

Are there any local cable/phone companies? I mean as far as I know Comcast and verizon are the only companies that operate within my area.

 

[nc-1701]

This is probably one of the few cases where a strong case for nationalization of the industry can be made.

 

[Commodore]

Are there any local cable/phone companies? I mean as far as I know Comcast and verizon are the only companies that operate within my area.

That's where the government has to step in and create local companies out of the remains of the big national corporation. They did it in the 80s with Bell Telephone Company so I see no reason they can't do it again with Comcast.

 

[timtofly]

Isn't the government a monopoly?

 

[Commodore]

Isn't the government a monopoly?

1. What's your point?

2. How is it relevant in any way to the topic at hand?

 

[sophie]

That's where the government has to step in and create local companies out of the remains of the big national corporation. They did it in the 80s with Bell Telephone Company so I see no reason they can't do it again with Comcast.

Because ex Comcast/TWC execs run the FCC and the big ISPs lobby Washington heavily. It's not going to happen, however many times Obama waxes eloquent about how nice it sounds in theory.

Just pray that Googlefibre or Elon Musk's satellite solution work out. But considering the big ISPs are already effectively shutting down Google fibre...don't hold your breath.

 

[timtofly]

1. What's your point?

2. How is it relevant in any way to the topic at hand?

The government did break up ATT, and that is when Comcast stepped in. In my area there is Comcast, Charter, and ATT for a direct line. But the choice is not that you have three to pick from. The choice is where you happen to live. There are only a few places where the lines allow you to choose. The breaking up of the monopoly allowed the other cable companies to run their lines where they had the best market, not that every company ran lines where no one would ever use them. Comcast has the best network of cable where I live. If ATT would change all their lines to high speed and replace their outdated cable in my area, then maybe I could have a better choice.

From my point of view, Comcast is not a monopoly, but the only company willing to put the time and effort into giving me what I can use.

 

[BvBPL]

Are there any local cable/phone companies? I mean as far as I know Comcast and verizon are the only companies that operate within my area.

Depends on where you live. Cable contracts are negotiated by each town and city. Some have their own municipal service.

 

[Tahuti]

This is probably one of the few cases where a strong case for nationalization of the industry can be made.

A lot of people in the Netherlands complain about privatisation of cable, even though nothing in the Netherlands comes even remotely close to what I've heard about Comcast.

Besides, I honestly believe that countries with nationalised cable will likely be vaulted by Post-Soviet countries who did privatise cable in terms of sophistication, unless it was some kind Singapore, which the US definitely ain't. What about trust busting? AT&T originated from a court ordered break up, didn't it?

 

[tetley]

You should ask your Canadian friends what they think of their top 2 cable companies.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The worst thing about Comcast is that I look forward to using their internet service when I go back to Chicago. Compared to Mediacom, by god, they might as well be Googlefiber.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Because ex Comcast/TWC execs run the FCC and the big ISPs lobby Washington heavily. It's not going to happen, however many times Obama waxes eloquent about how nice it sounds in theory.

Just pray that Googlefibre or Elon Musk's satellite solution work out. But considering the big ISPs are already effectively shutting down Google fibre...don't hold your breath.

I doubt Google would give up so easily on Google Fibre. I mean, come on, it's not like they lack lobbyists. Whose lobbyists will win, in this epic battle, remains unknown.

 

[IglooDame]

Just force Comcast to transfer all of their service and infrastructure to local phone/cable companies.

Verizon did that in northern NH/Vermont, to a company called FairPoint, as near as I could tell it was in order to dump unprofitable rural areas. That's been born out by FairPoint going bankrupt, emerging from bankruptcy in time for many of its workers to go on strike, and is widely regarded as having worse service than any other ISP/phone/cable company in the country. But, it's still the only choice for the vast majority of its customers.

The root problem isn't, in my opinion, that Comcast or TWC is Too Big, it is that they and all the smaller operations typically operate with localized monopolies.

 

[Cheetah]

The Internet is infrastructure, and in the interest of the free market, all infrastructure should be nationalized.

 

[Tahuti]

The Internet is infrastructure, and in the interest of the free market, all infrastructure should be nationalized.

Not necessarily. In fact, modern railways started out as private ventures that controlled both the tracks as well as the trains, and nationalisation only gained traction at the beginning of the 20th century. Nowadays, there have been half-hearted attempts at reprivatisations of railroads in the EU, and all of them have been failures as management over the tracks and the trains were separated, which historically was never the case in privately owned railroads and likewise is not the case in most Asian countries like Hong Kong and Japan where railroads always have been commercial private ventures to this day.

The problem of privatising infrastructure is not inherent market failure (which definitely does exist elsewhere), rather, that the current regulatory environment in the form of zoning laws form a major barrier to entry of competitors. In times when railroads were built through the US by private companies, this was hardly a problem as zoning laws hardly existed in the US (indeed, practically nowhere).

Abolishing them is politically impossible, though at least it should be tried to relax them to facilitate infrastructure competition. If political circumstances really insist on non-commercial ownership of infrastructure, they should be consumer co-operatives rather than state-owned enterprises.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not necessarily. In fact, modern railways started out as private ventures that controlled both the tracks as well as the trains, and nationalisation only gained traction at the beginning of the 20th century.

Early railways were hardly models of economic efficiency.