If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   This must be those "benefits to consumers from deregulation" FCC Chairman Pai was talking about. Comcast announces that it is RAISING the price of its slowest stand alone broadband internet service to $75/mo in market where they're the only provider   ( bgr.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, cable companies, IPTV, Broadband, Cable television, Broadband Internet access, Coaxial cable, standalone broadband plan, price  
•       •       •

1796 clicks; posted to Business » on 29 Dec 2017 at 12:50 PM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-12-29 09:29:36 AM  
Heckuva job, Pai.
 
2017-12-29 09:35:28 AM  
I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

I'm starting to think that fellow may not be on the up-and-up.
 
2017-12-29 09:49:01 AM  

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.


Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?
 
2017-12-29 09:51:03 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?


Which reason would you like. Because they bought out all the competitors? Because the government paid them to install the infrastructure? Because they fight like hell to prevent municipal broadband?

Probably some other reasons that I'm too lazy to think of.
 
2017-12-29 09:51:21 AM  
Obvious tag kinda says it all
 
2017-12-29 09:53:13 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?


because way back in the Before Times when Cable TV was a new thing, Cables companies sought, and were often granted monopolies on cable TV services in smaller municipal areas as a condition of providing the service.   As comcast absorbed all these small mom and pop cable companies they gained the rights to those monopolies....and have repeatedly gone to court to enforce them
 
2017-12-29 09:56:57 AM  
Nice job, Pai, you farkin' asshole.  But at least we can now pay more to watch your moronic ass do the Harlem Shake.  Get cancer, today.
 
2017-12-29 10:10:02 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?


I'm sure Obama was behind it.
 
2017-12-29 10:19:19 AM  
I'm surprised it took them this long.
 
2017-12-29 10:19:28 AM  

Gubbo: Which reason would you like. Because they bought out all the competitors? Because the government paid them to install the infrastructure? Because they fight like hell to prevent municipal broadband?


Magorn: because way back in the Before Times when Cable TV was a new thing, Cables companies sought, and were often granted monopolies on cable TV services in smaller municipal areas as a condition of providing the service. As comcast absorbed all these small mom and pop cable companies they gained the rights to those monopolies.


Sounds like a failure of government to me. Hell, in our little wasteland I can think of at least 3 different providers (none of them are Comcast) and we're trying to get a 4th in but since it's a co-op there are some government hurdles to jump. FWIW, there were no monopolies granted and the market seems to be working quite well for us.
 
2017-12-29 10:22:06 AM  
The freemarket is a beautiful thing... somewhere.
 
2017-12-29 10:23:30 AM  
Damn. That's 5 more dollars a month. What could I cut for $5/month?

Hmmmm
 
2017-12-29 10:24:35 AM  
TFA mentions cord cutting. The cable companies have leaned nothing from that. They killed their golden goose and by luck they have another golden goose and they already thrown it in the pot and turned it to simmer.
 
2017-12-29 10:24:55 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Hell....working quite well for us.


{citation needed}
 
2017-12-29 10:27:29 AM  
Maybe some of the freepers may have to cancel their broadband access now. More time for them to go outside and play with the leopards that keep wondering nearby their homes.
 
2017-12-29 10:27:41 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Sounds like a failure of government to me. Hell, in our little wasteland I can think of at least 3 different providers (none of them are Comcast) and we're trying to get a 4th in but since it's a co-op there are some government hurdles to jump. FWIW, there were no monopolies granted and the market seems to be working quite well for us.


Because everywhere is just like where you live, and you got yours, so screw everyone else, am I right?
 
2017-12-29 10:28:15 AM  

Gubbo: Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?

Which reason would you like. Because they bought out all the competitors? Because the government paid them to install the infrastructure? Because they fight like hell to prevent municipal broadband?

Probably some other reasons that I'm too lazy to think of.


Probably offered the best product at the best possible price, thereby creating consumer loyalty and pushing customer satisfaction to record numbers.

Send this post to ten of your friends and Comcast will give you five dollars off your first month of high-speed broadband internet!
 
2017-12-29 10:28:25 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Gubbo: Which reason would you like. Because they bought out all the competitors? Because the government paid them to install the infrastructure? Because they fight like hell to prevent municipal broadband?

Magorn: because way back in the Before Times when Cable TV was a new thing, Cables companies sought, and were often granted monopolies on cable TV services in smaller municipal areas as a condition of providing the service. As comcast absorbed all these small mom and pop cable companies they gained the rights to those monopolies.

Sounds like a failure of government to me. Hell, in our little wasteland I can think of at least 3 different providers (none of them are Comcast) and we're trying to get a 4th in but since it's a co-op there are some government hurdles to jump. FWIW, there were no monopolies granted and the market seems to be working quite well for us.


Wait, failure of government while also proudly happy over deregulation. You can't have both of those sides of the argument, sorry.

Also citation needed.
 
2017-12-29 10:48:14 AM  
You libs just don't get it. COMPETITION is only possible where major market players have a stranglehold on regulatory policy that they bend and shape to their will, allowing them the FREEDOM to choke out other providers or actively collude with them.

Wait, forget that last part.
 
2017-12-29 11:02:44 AM  

Jake Havechek: Because everywhere is just like where you live, and you got yours, so screw everyone else, am I right?


You couldn't be any more wrong. You see, I am one of those people that think that competition is a good thing and that government appointed monopolies are a bad thing and result in exactly what we are seeing now. Your mileage may vary.

Voiceofreason01: {citation needed}


Gubbo: Also citation needed.


AT&T
Suddenlink
Hughesnet
WesTex Connect

There may be even more. You are welcome to research that further if you wish.

Taylor Telephone Coop is dropping fiber optic in and around the area but we're not sure if they can come into town.
 
2017-12-29 11:04:33 AM  

Rev.K: You libs just don't get it. COMPETITION is only possible where major market players have a stranglehold on regulatory policy that they bend and shape to their will, allowing them the FREEDOM to choke out other providers or actively collude with them.

Wait, forget that last part.


And the reason those corporations get a "stranglehold on regulatory policy" is because the market is not free enough.

If corporations and small businesses were allowed to control standing armies and nuclear weapons, there would be more means by which the little guy could defeat the large company.  Hell, a single truck bomb in the right place could destroy a corporate headquarters and the entire leadership.  Even a company as big as Comcast would have a hard time coming back from that.

Now, some may suggest this is over the line, that "you have been banned for 24 hours", and that the FBI will be knocking on my door shortly, but what the FBI calls "the multiple crimes I have committed over the course of decades", I call a TRULY free market.

Open your eyes to the legitimate business possibilities of murder and terrorism, and you will achieve substantial year-to-year profit-sharing for shareholders.  THAT is what it means to be free.
 
2017-12-29 11:06:54 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson:

No, I don't think you know about the monopolies engineered into the system very early on so they could do exactly this.
 
2017-12-29 11:09:58 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Jake Havechek: Because everywhere is just like where you live, and you got yours, so screw everyone else, am I right?

You couldn't be any more wrong. You see, I am one of those people that think that competition is a good thing and that government appointed monopolies are a bad thing and result in exactly what we are seeing now. Your mileage may vary.

Voiceofreason01: {citation needed}

Gubbo: Also citation needed.

AT&T
Suddenlink
Hughesnet
WesTex Connect

There may be even more. You are welcome to research that further if you wish.

Taylor Telephone Coop is dropping fiber optic in and around the area but we're not sure if they can come into town.


So without saying where you are, you can list names. That's good. You're aware that the vast majority of Americans have one broadband option, two if they're very lucky. You seem blessed in your make believe location.

/we're not counting satellite
 
2017-12-29 11:23:42 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?


It was the sole provider. The FCC recently declared that having a data plan on your phone is considered broadband now. Now everyone has broadband! Thanks FCC!
 
2017-12-29 11:42:56 AM  

Gubbo: So without saying where you are.


Anson, Texas. Figured that you had been around long enough to have know that. My bad. The handle is a play on this book which by the way is an interesting read. I moved here about 8 years after the events in the book occurred.
 
2017-12-29 11:47:38 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Gubbo: So without saying where you are.

Anson, Texas. Figured that you had been around long enough to have know that. My bad. The handle is a play on this book which by the way is an interesting read. I moved here about 8 years after the events in the book occurred.


img.fark.netView Full Size
Ok lets see. We were ignoring satellite and wireless cause they aren't really broadband.

So you have AT&T which covers most of your zip code. With a fastest speed of 18megs. Which is shamefully slow.

Your other options that you chose have either pathetic non-existant coverage or a max speed of 3 megs.

So, in reality you have one choice for fast broadband. Just like the rest of the US. Congrats on being like everyone else.
 
2017-12-29 11:55:26 AM  
I've got 15 Mbps / 400 Gig per month for $40 with my local Ontario ISP. Meh. It's enough to PornHub stream, and that's all I care about
 
2017-12-29 12:05:25 PM  
The rate adjustment has nothing to do with the FCC or Net Neutrality. Price increases have nothing to do with QoS to 3rd Party Web-Services and Network Protocols. And there was nothing in the Net Neutrality Guidelines about End User rate adjustments, Service Rates have always been at the sole discretion of the Vendor

Now in regards to the Monopoly status -- I lay that squarely at the feet of Cable Industry Lobbyists who paid off State Legislatures to effectively outlaw or prohibit Municipal Broadband in at least 20 States
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2​0​14/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits​-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

Here's a headline on this from back in 2016 when the FCC still served to protect the people from the Cable Lobbyists
http://fortune.com/2016/08/10/municip​a​l-internet/
 
2017-12-29 12:18:28 PM  

Gubbo: So, in reality you have one choice for fast broadband.


Suddenlink sucks ass. AT&T and Windstream  Hughesnet (which you discount because it farks up your narrative) are pretty reliable and just as fast as our friend gopher321 has in Canukistan. We'd love to have the coop but there are...wait for it...government regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before they can roll out to a wider area.  So no, we don't have just one. Thanks for playing though.
 
2017-12-29 12:25:24 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Gubbo: So, in reality you have one choice for fast broadband.

Suddenlink sucks ass. AT&T and Windstream  Hughesnet (which you discount because it farks up your narrative) are pretty reliable and just as fast as our friend gopher321 has in Canukistan. We'd love to have the coop but there are...wait for it...government regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before they can roll out to a wider area.  So no, we don't have just one. Thanks for playing though.


It isn't my narrative. Non wired connections are generally very expensive, slow, come with really low data caps and have terrible latency.

For all intents and purposes, if you want fast broadband you have one option in your zip code.
 
2017-12-29 12:26:45 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Gubbo: So, in reality you have one choice for fast broadband.

Suddenlink sucks ass. AT&T and Windstream  Hughesnet (which you discount because it farks up your narrative) are pretty reliable and just as fast as our friend gopher321 has in Canukistan. We'd love to have the coop but there are...wait for it...government regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before they can roll out to a wider area.  So no, we don't have just one. Thanks for playing though.


I'm stuck on Hughesnet because Comcast, the provider in our area, won't run service across the road to our house. There are houses less than 2000ft from me that have farking broadband. Anywho back to Hughesnet, they were pretty good until NN got repealed on Thanksgiving. Service started sucking the same day.
 
2017-12-29 12:53:43 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Gubbo: So, in reality you have one choice for fast broadband.

Suddenlink sucks ass. AT&T and Windstream  Hughesnet (which you discount because it farks up your narrative) are pretty reliable and just as fast as our friend gopher321 has in Canukistan. We'd love to have the coop but there are...wait for it...government regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before they can roll out to a wider area.  So no, we don't have just one. Thanks for playing though.


Hahaha. You think Hughesnet is broadband. Do the clouds taste like cotton candy in your world? Try to play an online game on Hughesnet. You'll chuck your X-Box or PS-4 out the window in about 5 minutes. And then rip the dish off your roof.
 
2017-12-29 01:03:19 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You couldn't be any more wrong. You see, I am one of those people that think that competition is a good thing and that government appointed monopolies are a bad thing and result in exactly what we are seeing now. Your mileage may vary.


Competition is good. But where most people live, there isn't any competition due to one provider having exclusive access. People can argue all day long about why this is the case, but it doesn't really matter. It's the reality we're living with. And it's why we needed the net neutrality rules that were repealed. 

As it stands now, we're farked because ISPs can do whatever they want.
 
2017-12-29 01:08:32 PM  
Comcast or ATT (at a whopping max downstream speed of 6 mbps) in my area. Last time I did a speed test, I got 123.7 mbps on my cellular carrier (Sprint). Comcast was something like 15 mbps, even though the connection I used was supposed to be 60 mbps.
 
2017-12-29 01:09:30 PM  
This had nothing to do with net neutrality...
 
2017-12-29 01:10:04 PM  

twat_waffle: Comcast or ATT (at a whopping max downstream speed of 6 mbps) in my area. Last time I did a speed test, I got 123.7 mbps on my cellular carrier (Sprint). Comcast was something like 15 mbps, even though the connection I used was supposed to be 60 mbps.


Whats the data cap on you cell plan?
 
2017-12-29 01:12:50 PM  

squegeebooo: This had nothing to do with net neutrality...


True. But it shows the mentality of Comcast. If they can do something, they will do it.

In this case it is raise prices when they are in a monopoly.
 
2017-12-29 01:19:52 PM  

Gubbo: Wait, failure of government while also proudly happy over deregulation. You can't have both of those sides of the argument, sorry.


Actually, yes you can, since it's not a binary solution.

Deregulation to make things better does not make things perfect. Being happy because some deregulation has happened won't stop people from saying "hey, we stopped some FCC regulation, how about we do something about government-mandated communications monopolies now?"
 
2017-12-29 01:25:26 PM  

twat_waffle: Comcast or ATT (at a whopping max downstream speed of 6 mbps) in my area. Last time I did a speed test, I got 123.7 mbps on my cellular carrier (Sprint). Comcast was something like 15 mbps, even though the connection I used was supposed to be 60 mbps.


Interesting i just ran a speed test on my phone with wi-fi on and then withit off so it would use cellular data instead

Through the home wifi (Verizon Fios) I got 56mpbs down and 53 up...which is about half of the Max speed I supposedly pay for but fast enough

through the cell (sprint) same DL (54) but only 6mpbs upload
 
2017-12-29 01:46:03 PM  

Jake Havechek: Dancin_In_Anson: Sounds like a failure of government to me. Hell, in our little wasteland I can think of at least 3 different providers (none of them are Comcast) and we're trying to get a 4th in but since it's a co-op there are some government hurdles to jump. FWIW, there were no monopolies granted and the market seems to be working quite well for us.

Because everywhere is just like where you live, and you got yours, so screw everyone else, am I right?


Hey, I lost a lot of empathy for people in Republican districts in this last election.  So as services are cut to the poor Republicans who voted for this shiat, I'm finding less empathy for them than I once had.  I live in derpland, WI, and we've got Spectrum to wrestle with...only slightly better than Time Warner.  Their cable service sucks even worse than TWC, but at least their internet backbone is slightly more reliable.
 
2017-12-29 02:06:40 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?


Because they (and their forebears) lobbied the local and county councils and the state legislatures to make it nearly impossible for any competitor to get the access necessary to install their own cables or fiber.
 
2017-12-29 02:10:37 PM  
reactiongifs.usView Full Size
 
2017-12-29 02:23:07 PM  

Sliding Carp: Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?

Because they (and their forebears) lobbied the local and county councils and the state legislatures to make it nearly impossible for any competitor to get the access necessary to install their own cables or fiber.


Was this before, during, or after the government was just throwing money to upgrade their infrastructure.

/I'd love to see the cable co's reaction to local loop unbundling
 
2017-12-29 02:23:21 PM  
What you guys are overlooking, as always, is how much this pisses off liberals.

For those of us who hate liberals more than we like the internet, it's totally worth it.
 
2017-12-29 02:25:34 PM  
Gee, funny how they cock knocking conservatives don't recognize a monopoly when they see one.
 
2017-12-29 02:27:45 PM  

Jake Havechek: Gee, funny how they cock knocking conservatives don't recognize a monopoly when they see one.


Regional monopoly. It makes, apparently, a big difference for them.

/that or they just don't care...
 
2017-12-29 02:29:12 PM  

squegeebooo: This had nothing to do with net neutrality...


yeah, failing to see any reason why they couldn't have done this anyway
 
2017-12-29 02:36:48 PM  

Magorn: Dancin_In_Anson: That Guy What Stole the Bacon: I was assured by Pai that this is a PERFECT example of competition in the marketplace.

Why is Comcast the sole provider in certain areas?

because way back in the Before Times when Cable TV was a new thing, Cables companies sought, and were often granted monopolies on cable TV services in smaller municipal areas as a condition of providing the service.   As comcast absorbed all these small mom and pop cable companies they gained the rights to those monopolies....and have repeatedly gone to court to enforce them


Now, in theory, exclusive municipal franchises have been illegal since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  And, I assure you, if you go look at your city's franchise agreement with Comcast, Cox, TWC, whomever... it will say "this non-exclusive franchise" up in the first paragraph.

That said, there's a lot of daylight between the law and reality.

If you try an establish a competing service ('overbuild' is the industry term), expect to get a torrent of nuisance lawsuits from the incumbent operator.  They do it for sport.  Beyond that, you have first mover incumbent advantage.  You can spend millions to even get started on a FTTH overbuilding project.  The local incumbent can decide to offer 100/10 DOCSIS 3.0 for $30 a month, on their existing infrastructure, if that's what it takes to drive you out of the market.  Then, they roll it back up to $120.
 
2017-12-29 02:42:36 PM  
Fscking shiatPai. 

Drop dead you traitor.
 
2017-12-29 02:42:41 PM  

rcain: The rate adjustment has nothing to do with the FCC or Net Neutrality. Price increases have nothing to do with QoS to 3rd Party Web-Services and Network Protocols. And there was nothing in the Net Neutrality Guidelines about End User rate adjustments, Service Rates have always been at the sole discretion of the Vendor


You need to lay most of your blame at the feet of city and county governments, which control the franchise agreements, leasing rates of utility common areas, and control access to rights of way.  That's where the primary barrier to entry is.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report