Hey @Comcast why is my internet speed 31down\9up when I pay for 150down?
February 1, 2016 9:17 AM   Subscribe

 
But why, why do they use backslash?
posted by Phredward at 9:22 AM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm a little surprised that Comcast hasn't dropped a filter into whatever software they use to monitor social network mentions, since he seems more invested in trolling than reaching a resolution.

Though, I suppose, since it's all automated anyway, it doesn't take any additional effort to respond. At least that way, no one can accuse them of ignoring him.
posted by madajb at 9:30 AM on February 1, 2016


The idea is to create an image on Twitter that Comcast does not deliver advertised speeds. Doesn't matter if Comcast does not respond, the guy doesn't even want Comcast to fix his specific problem. He wants to make them fulfill their obligations to all of their customers.
posted by rustcrumb at 9:33 AM on February 1, 2016 [44 favorites]


A rhetorical question, of course, since the answer is always, "because you have no choice but to deal with it."
posted by indubitable at 9:34 AM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't think getting Comcast to respond or fix his connection is the point.

Comcast lies. So do most ISPs, really. What they advertise and what you actual get aren't the same thing. Good to see someone calling this out.

His code is here, and I'm totally going to set this up to do the same thing this week.
posted by Frayed Knot at 9:34 AM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Surely this
posted by gottabefunky at 9:34 AM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think getting Comcast to respond or fix his connection is the point.

He's going to some pains to not give them his location, so they can't just fix his issue and leave it at that.
posted by bonehead at 9:36 AM on February 1, 2016


fulfill their obligations

"Obligations" is too strong of a word. At best, they've made contractual promises (and I bet those are hedged as "best efforts"). A contractual promise can be broken, and if it's cheaper to break it and pay damages, then that's the economically smart thing to do.

Given that hardly anybody sues Comcast for breaking their promise, and even if they did -- and won -- the damages would be trivial, they have no incentive to provide the service they promised.

The FCC or the FTC could do something about this, if they wanted to.
posted by spacewrench at 9:37 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Man, I use my raspberry pi to query my home internet speed every 30 minutes, save the results to a database, and then upload the results to a web server where I can view it even if I'm not home. You mean, with one more step, I could have been internet famous?
posted by tippiedog at 9:40 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Once we can finally automate complaining, the future will be bright!
posted by bobloblaw at 9:51 AM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Now we just need to distribute a couple hundred of these things across the country. Then we'd be able to put together a class action oh wait never mind.

another Supreme Court 5-4 Decision Recap brought to you by Hillary Clinton 2016
posted by leotrotsky at 9:51 AM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm a little surprised that Comcast hasn't dropped a filter into whatever software they use to monitor social network mentions, since he seems more invested in trolling than reaching a resolution.

I'm pretty sure that Comcast's social network outreach program consists of a 14-year-old intern who sits in a janitorial closet, occasionally tweeting out ASCII art of a raised middle finger, with dickbutt thrown in once in a while for variety. When your business model is "fuck you, we'll lie about everything and you can't stop us because there's no one else to get your internet from," you're probably not all that worried about some bad press on Twitter.
posted by Mayor West at 9:54 AM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Not to be a Comcast apologist or anything but IT'S THE INTERNET. Your ISP can not guarantee speeds on a download test unless they game the test.

And I have to say only 20 times in 3 months? I'd kill for that sort of consistency of speeds nothing looks "broken" here.
posted by bitdamaged at 10:01 AM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I get upset that Comcast even has "lanes" of speed. It is all the same equipment with arbitrary caps.

The data being used that slows down the network exists for all users regardless of what they pay, advertised speed is generally an theoretical maximum. That is true for all ISPs.

It is all a sham to get people to pay more.
posted by AlexiaSky at 10:03 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that Comcast's social network outreach program consists of a 14-year-old intern...

Let me paint a different picture.

It's probably a large group of marketing professionals, scattered all over the country, that are paid well, and they're deeply concerned about their outgoing messages. So concerned, that they're often paralyzed by a) over-analysis of the issue, and b) only a very basic understanding of the medium, which contributes to their over-analysis. "Don't wanna make a mistake, let's study the issue some more."

However, these marketing groups never, ever talk to the people actually in charge of monitoring and maintaining Internet speeds. Nor do they know how to even get started in talking to these people. Who are they? Do you know? I don't know. And if they were to speak with them? It'd be a typical corporate adversarial relationship and nothing will ever change.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:06 AM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Not to be a Comcast apologist or anything but IT'S THE INTERNET.

With almost any other provider, sure. With Comcast, it is Comcast.
posted by zippy at 10:06 AM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is there one of these for U-Verse? Because I've actually been thinking about switching to Comcast.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:10 AM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


indubitable: "A rhetorical question, of course, since the answer is always, "because you have no choice but to deal with it.""

Totally not true. I could go to Verizon FIOS which, um, sucks just as bad as Comcast. So, nevermind.
posted by octothorpe at 10:20 AM on February 1, 2016


[…] their ads tend to walk a fine line of all-but-promising-guaranteed speeds without actually, technically, legally promising said speeds in fairly fine print.

MY ISP (mediacom) says in the fine print that they won't even bother unless you are below 80% of advertised speeds. For a while I was going down all the time or running too slow to stream shows. I started to suspect they were throttling Netflix, so I called in to cancel, telling the guy on the phone, "If I can't get Netflix to work reliably then I don't much need you do I?" He asked where I would go instead (DSL is my only other option in my area). I told him no where, that's how much I despised their inconsistent speeds and unreliability. I would use nothing over using them. They managed to fix it finally. Guy was pretty flabbergasted that I would consider dropping them over Netflix not working.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:23 AM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I want to make a bot with a description of "This bot sends out a tweet whenever comcast gives a shit about its customers" and then never send a single goddamn tweet.
posted by boo_radley at 10:26 AM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The measuring process used is a bit flawed, since an automatic independent server does not know what else is already happening on the line to eat up bandwidth, e.g. you may have a Netflix stream going that is already close to maxing out the connection. Even in the middle of the night things happen which unexpectedly suck up bandwidth, like a TiVo deciding to download a whole new version of its operating system, iPads backing up to iCloud, etc.
posted by w0mbat at 10:32 AM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


ProTip: You wouldn't even need to write any code, just create a sockpuppet Twitter account.
posted by The Tensor at 10:32 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


After reading the Reddit thread I can't really recommend the same tactic. It's incredibly unproductive because it might not be insufficient bandwidth at the headend with the results he's seeing. It might be some sort transient line noise issue and there's really no troubleshooting being done. It could be something internal to the premises, something from the drop point to the headend or it could be insufficient bandwidth provisioned at the headend.

But without proper troubleshooting this is the equivalent of a toddler complaining their bowl of ice cream isn't chocolatey enough.
posted by Talez at 10:33 AM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


So it's easier to believe that nobody is capable of controlling for network traffic that they're sending through their connection than it is to believe that Comcast has legitimately shitty service? Is this the ISP version of the people popping into science threads and blindly asking, "YEAH BUT DID THEY CONTROL FOR THIS OBVIOUS THING THAT I JUST THOUGHT OF??"
posted by indubitable at 10:37 AM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's easy for comcast to pull reports about what traffic in an area is doing on average over a period of time. Instead of upgrading equipment comcast decided to introduce throttling or "tiers" with advertised speeds. By slowing down some network traffic it controls the maximum bandwidth for an area.
However, transmission lines, switches and routers all have their own maximums too. There really is a maximum transmission speed.
It also had no contol on what happens outside is network.
posted by AlexiaSky at 10:47 AM on February 1, 2016



I get upset that Comcast even has "lanes" of speed. It is all the same equipment with arbitrary caps.

The data being used that slows down the network exists for all users regardless of what they pay, advertised speed is generally an theoretical maximum. That is true for all ISPs.


Rong, rong, sorry. I get that you can't control the entire internet but all things being equal if you have a fast reliable connection you will generally get good test results when connecting to a high speed backbone connection used by your typical speed test. The software routing technology for rationing bandwidth is literally called quality of service and is an RFC standard used for all sorts of things including prioritizing voice traffic and other forms of streaming data where realtime is important.

In my experience Comcast is waaaay better than CenturyLink as long as you don't use a piece of shit combined DOCSIS modem/wireless router. Research that decision lest you end up in blame game hell trying to get them to properly support your device or replace theirs when it becomes super unreliable.
posted by aydeejones at 10:47 AM on February 1, 2016


So it's easier to believe that nobody is capable of controlling for network traffic that they're sending through their connection than it is to believe that Comcast has legitimately shitty service? Is this the ISP version of the people popping into science threads and blindly asking, "YEAH BUT DID THEY CONTROL FOR THIS OBVIOUS THING THAT I JUST THOUGHT OF??"

Back in the old country I used to work for an ISP. Speed faults were the absolute worst. The only thing worse than speed faults were transient speed faults. 85% of the time when you get the customer on the line, when the issue is occurring and ask the NOC how much traffic is really belting through it and it's running flat strap the customer comes back sheepishly come back with "oh it was that thing I had forgetten about that I'm still running". The other 4% was the speed being fine but the argument being the equivalent of "well why can't I get my full bandwidth to this server hosted on a dialup modem in east Helsinki?". A single case was someone getting DDoSed (and we eventually had to close their account). 10% of the time it was actually a line fault that we could see. 80% of the time there it was something internal the customer had fucked up while 20% of the time it was something the DSL provider could actually fix.

98% of speed fault calls are literally trying to play detective on the customer's own network and internal wiring. So yes, I'm calling bullshit and I'm calling them out as a petulant little child.
posted by Talez at 10:48 AM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


By "better" I mean that I had 60Mbit test results on a 50Mb advertised connection with Comcast every time I checked vs the 20 I'm lucky to get with my "40" advertised CenturyLink. But at my last house CenturyLink was better because there are so many points of failure or breakdown in either case and it's a matter of how many fucks they give in your neighborhood etc.

Businesses routinely pay for huge bandwidth amounts and in my experience they will consistently test as advertised, from a 1.5 T1 to a 100Mb MPLS
posted by aydeejones at 10:50 AM on February 1, 2016


Comcast actually overprovision the connection itself by 20%. Probably to minimize the amount of stupid lawyering pedantic customers can sometimes do.
posted by Talez at 10:51 AM on February 1, 2016


When your business model is "fuck you, we'll lie about everything and you can't stop us because there's no one else to get your internet from," you're probably not all that worried about some bad press on Twitter.

Maybe.
It's probably just luck of the draw, like calling the 1-800 number and getting an accidentally helpful person, but the one time I used twitter to shame Comcast, they were very helpful, even scheduling a tech for me and guaranteeing an arrival time.
If I can do that and not have to "Press 1 to wait on hold for 5 minutes", I consider it a win.

Regardless, complaining about a service and not giving the company at least one attempt to fix it is childish.
For all this guy knows, there is a loose cover on the cable vault down the street and it would take 5 minutes for his problem to be fixed.
posted by madajb at 10:53 AM on February 1, 2016


It’s weird to always read so much shit about Comcast. My internet has been great for a decade, usually faster than promised speeds, with any problems fixed pretty quickly. I don’t know how to account for that.
posted by bongo_x at 11:02 AM on February 1, 2016


On a side note, I’m really unclear why so much of online discussion thinks internet service should be free at all levels. I can’t really think of other services that work like that. If that’s what we want it should be socialized.
posted by bongo_x at 11:04 AM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Obligations" is too strong of a word. At best, they've made contractual promises (and I bet those are hedged as "best efforts"). A contractual promise can be broken, and if it's cheaper to break it and pay damages, then that's the economically smart thing to do.

I've actually been down this road. Not with comcast, but with centurylink.

I was paying for ""7mb"" service, which was the maximum they could supply to that location supposedly. Cable wasn't an option there, and the house was in a weird blackout area comcast didn't serve(even though it was inside seattle, and actually pretty damn centrally located). We thought about a wireless ISP(ugh, clearwire), but already knew they sucked and only offered like 1.5mbps.

I literally got about 1mbps all the time. Maybe 2-3 once in a long while. They kept trying to blame inside wiring until i literally hooked the modem straight up to the demarc with a cord out my window. Then they admitted it was some kind of line issue, but that they were never fixing it.

So, i started calling basically every day. When i really bench pressed them on it a VERY condescending L2 csr said "we don't guarantee 7. 7 is peak, 3 is average, and 1.5 is the minimum" it's our 1-3-7 plan" so yea, that's a thing. I did, however, end up with a RIDICULOUS amount of discounts and bill credits that ended up making my service free even after i moved just from complaining so goddamn much. And the thing is, i would chalk this up to just being in an unlucky location if i hadn't heard the same damn story from other people or ended up getting in an utter nightmare situation with them at work across multiple locations.

In retrospect i wish i had called every tv news channel and tried to get one of their "problem solver" people to do a story about how hosed i was getting.

In my experience Comcast is waaaay better than CenturyLink as long as you don't use a piece of shit combined DOCSIS modem/wireless router.

This is also my experience. The comcast service is good, in a basal way. Their support and devices can be really awful though. They also do scummy stuff like accept returns of equipment then blame you for not returning it and try and charge you utterly ridiculous prices(my friend still owes them like $500 for a piece of shit modem you could buy for $60 at best buy at the time and a cable box)

Not to mention the fact that they're cheap as hell about replacing equipment. Seriously, letting someone plod along on a decade old modem or a 1st gen dvr from the same era that barely runs anymore unless they complain and bring them in? I'm talking about leased equipment too obviously. It just seems scummy as hell to keep charging someone the same price for something that outdated. And the thing is, they didn't used to. They used to regularly mail out new equipment(or schedule someone to put it in) and have you send back the old stuff.

I will say though, that as much as comcast support sucks, they are at least not lying liars who lie about the service. I've never had an issue with them that wasn't the hardware, or maybe once some internal wiring problem. Holy shit is their support as infuriating as the absolute worst prepaid phone carriers and shitty hardware vendors though.
posted by emptythought at 11:26 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


as much as comcast support sucks

Incidentally, if you purchase Business Class service (for somewhat more money) you get to talk to competent tech support and things get fixed. (To be honest, my Comcast is not that bad. The speed isn't great -- no doubt less than I pay for -- but it rarely goes down, and I don't have to dick around with "Did you try restarting your computer? Your modem? Your microwave?" when I call.)
posted by spacewrench at 11:38 AM on February 1, 2016


I have had Comcast for years. I started at 39.99/mo. I now pay 69.99/mo. I have never changed anything. I didn't have one of those cheap starter prices either. Just base internet, no cable, no deals. I can't complain or switch because there's no other providers at all here. Not a single competitor comes to my area.

That being said I just checked my d/l and got 95 down 10 up. Compared to a friend of mine who is in a dorm and paying 69.99 for 4 down 1 up. I feel pretty fortunate.

This stuff really really really needs to be regulated.
posted by M Edward at 11:51 AM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Totally not true. I could go to Verizon FIOS which, um, sucks just as bad as Comcast. So, nevermind.

As a service, fios is actually pretty good. Speeds are pretty rock-solid and at least what was advertised, and you don't have anything like that awful contention problem when everyone starts with the netflix. The tv is pretty good too -- they don't recompress their channels* so mostly the hd doesn't look like dog shit.

It's when you have to deal with verizon customer service that you end up in the dark shaking and whimpering "hold me"

*ISTR they do switch mp4 channels to mpeg2 for legacy devices?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM on February 1, 2016


But without proper troubleshooting this is the equivalent of a toddler complaining their bowl of ice cream isn't chocolatey enough.

That depends. Was the child told the ice cream was the chocolatiest ever?
posted by rhizome at 12:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It should also tweet the latest amount his local congress critter has received from Comcast.
posted by srboisvert at 12:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've not done any comment snapbacks for years, I'm long overdue for another....

Madajb: [...]since he seems more invested in trolling than reaching a resolution.

Sigh... campaigning to change Comcast's deceptive business practices is trolling now.

spacewrench: "Obligations" is too strong of a word. At best, they've made contractual promises (and I bet those are hedged as "best efforts").

That's an excessively legalistic way to look at it. A customer will use a different meaning of the word obligation here, and is going to see what Comcast is doing and think why the hell am I being charged this, for that?, and probably come to indubitable's realization: oh, because they can. That is an impression, in the long run, that no company can afford its customers to have.

bitdamaged: Not to be a Comcast apologist or anything but IT'S THE INTERNET. Your ISP can not guarantee speeds on a download test unless they game the test.

If they can't promise speeds, then why are they promising speeds?? By this logic, no ISP could ever promise any internet service speed at all. A cut wire could be an unforeseen bottleneck.

Shit happens, and companies make their money in part by shoveling it. There's a reason servers are rated at a number of 9s instead of guaranteeing absolute certainty, sure, but their makers still work hard at nine-maximization, and it's the same with ISPs.

If they don't deliver what they promised, it's their responsibility to either work at improving (not long term, but immediately, go out and fix it!), or rein in their promises, or change their metric to something reflecting that uncertainty, or something blah blah yeah I see your eyes glazing over, that's not catchy enough in the eyes of a buyer of service, is it?

Comcast effectively wants to be able to sell you use of a certain breadth of pipe, without concern for the pumps they use to fill it, or speed or availability from the upstream source, or the number of other people who may be using it at the same time.
posted by JHarris at 12:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'll just mention that we have 1 gigabit service for $70/month. Using generally available online speedtests it's never dropped below maybe 970 or 980Mb, both up and down. We've had maybe two very brief outages in the past year.

I just want to point out that it is very possible to deliver fast, reliable internet at a reasonable price and if you don't have this in your particular area--certainly if it's within city limits anywhere in the U.S.--you should be complaining loud and long about it.
posted by flug at 1:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


bitdamaged: "Not to be a Comcast apologist or anything but IT'S THE INTERNET. Your ISP can not guarantee speeds on a download test unless they game the test."

Yes, but there are some low bars that they rarely clear.

If users in Northern Virginia are unable to attain the advertised speeds when hitting an AWS East edge server (20 miles away in Reston), it's safe to say that Comcast are not living up to their end of the contract, because this is the best-case scenario imaginable.

Similarly, Comcast advertise a maximum speed; not an average speed. If there is network congestion, users on their 50Mbps tier should see the same performance as users on their 150Mbps tier.

This never happens in practice.
posted by schmod at 1:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


In my experience Comcast is waaaay better than CenturyLink as long as you don't use a piece of shit combined DOCSIS modem/wireless router.

Truth. My wife and I dumped our Technicolor Yawn combo modem/router, and our speed and reliability went up incredibly. From our bedroom - and we live in a small one-bedroom apartment, so that's maybe 18 feet - we were getting 7mbs when paying for 50, on the wifi. Replacing them? Netflix in bed went from useless to often. And we don't need to reboot it nearly as often. They tried to soak us with a no-return fee, but I went to an Xfinity storefront and had a receipt for the return, which was one of the smarter things.

Our other options were CenturyLink, who offered 10mbps (and they have a building literally across the street from where I live) and Wave, who offered ....5mbps. Comcast was the fastest option we had. Both my wife and I need to work from home from time to time, so we needed the speed.

Still, calling them is a horrible experience, and getting it installed was ridiculously stupid (partially because whoever renovated our apartment between the previous and us took out the connection you could run a line in from the outside and mortared it over), but we can get some solid speed in.
posted by mephron at 1:37 PM on February 1, 2016


For all of my fellow engineers pointing out the many, many problems one can see with an Internet connection, you need to look at this:

http://i.imgur.com/qdnnLzg.png

He's never gone above 90Mbps, NOT ONCE in a a significant period of time (I think that's 24 hours, but hard to tell for sure). That's on a line advertised as delivering 120Mbps.

Yes, this could still be a CPE problem, but this guy seems to know what he's doing. So I would call this damn strong evidence that Comcast misrepresented what they sold him.

But it's not his usage pattern, or random Internet slowness.
posted by Frayed Knot at 1:47 PM on February 1, 2016




He's never gone above 90Mbps, NOT ONCE in a a significant period of time (I think that's 24 hours, but hard to tell for sure). That's on a line advertised as delivering 120Mbps.

He's using a Raspberry Pi which has a 100mbps Ethernet port. It most certainly is a CPE problem that he's not gone above 90mbps.
posted by Talez at 1:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Meh. Kids these days. I remember that I had to get two phone lines just to get 33.6K Internet. Event he upstart Wireless Internet guys wouldn't come out to do a test. And then glorious DSL was available.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:05 PM on February 1, 2016


I spent literally 75 hours on the phone with Verizon (over a couple months) trying to fix my DSL speeds. When TWC suddenly started offering speeds comparable to FIOS, I was gone in a second. F* You, Verizon.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:24 PM on February 1, 2016


I'd venture that perceived (or even actual) performance lags cable-internet marketing by 5-10 years.
posted by rhizome at 2:47 PM on February 1, 2016


He's using a Raspberry Pi which has a 100mbps Ethernet port. It most certainly is a CPE problem that he's not gone above 90mbps.

I stand humbly corrected.
posted by Frayed Knot at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016


I'd rather just use my phone to read the internet than ever go back to DSL Hell.
posted by octothorpe at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016


I'd venture that perceived (or even actual) performance lags cable-internet marketing by 5-10 years.

If this is true, it's been sort of a bathtub curve thing then. Because excite@home in the paleolithic era when mefi was a hot new site was pushing like, 40mbps out when they were only advertising what... 20?

They basically left everyones modems uncapped and just maybe did load balancing.

I'd rather just use my phone to read the internet than ever go back to DSL Hell.

During the aforementioned DSL hell year/the great internet famine of 2011 my phone, which didn't even have LTE, was getting something like 4-8x the performance of my home internet. I couldn't tether, but i spent an awful lot of time burning through the data on it and rarely turned the wifi on.

Now, with LTE, the connection has to be better than 20mbps for it to even be worth turning the wifi on. And the latency, which used to at least be an advantage for the slow DSL line back then, is low enough now that isn't even a real improvement either.
posted by emptythought at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016


Top end for 100mbit (Cat 5, 100 Base-T) is well below 90mbs, so something is missing.

I use (10mbit) DSL, and Netflix has always been good. Maybe the menus are slow to switch, but movies rarely have connection-related issues.
posted by rhizome at 4:37 PM on February 1, 2016


I spent literally 75 hours on the phone with Verizon (over a couple months) trying to fix my DSL speeds. When TWC suddenly started offering speeds comparable to FIOS, I was gone in a second. F* You, Verizon.

Perhaps the most maddening part of that is Verizon's total indifference to losing customers on their copper network. Not even the benign indifference of a sclerotic corporate dinosaur with no competition, but a deliberate indifference as part of a plan to let their highly regulated POTS network rot in favor of more lightly regulated, profitable spaces like wireless. My employer moved offices down the street a few years ago and we were in there for two weeks, phones and internet offline, while Verizon did their song and dance until my boss finally gave up and went with the cable company. That's a personal anecdote, but I'm hardly alone here.
posted by indubitable at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The only workable solution is to have competition. We had a great experience calling our cell company a few months ago to politely ask if we were getting the best rates, resulting in an instant 40 percent savings. The same call to Comcast the other week resulted in a "oh, we noticed that you haven't been charged the right rate, so your bill will be going up starting next month." Because there is currently no other option we are paying it, but are counting the days until Google Fiber starts its service locally.

The cable monopolies have done such an awful job, charging high prices for poor service, and either it needs to be regulated like other utilities, or there needs to be competition in all markets. I don't care that there is only one municipal water company, because they aren't overcharging for poor service -- the regulations and oversight are working. That would be fine for internet, or I'd be happy to reap the rewards of a competitive marketplace where I had other options and could vote with my wallet. But monopoly pricing and service suck ass and shouldn't be the norm for so many places.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016


Perhaps the most maddening part of that is Verizon's total indifference to losing customers on their copper network. Not even the benign indifference of a sclerotic corporate dinosaur with no competition, but a deliberate indifference as part of a plan to let their highly regulated POTS network rot in favor of more lightly regulated, profitable spaces like wireless. My employer moved offices down the street a few years ago and we were in there for two weeks, phones and internet offline, while Verizon did their song and dance until my boss finally gave up and went with the cable company. That's a personal anecdote, but I'm hardly alone here.

It's because twisted pair copper is completely obsolete, expensive to maintain, expensive to repair, even more expensive to replace and can't match co-ax or fiber in revenue generation. Much like the 3KHz of bandwidth we got out of narrowband POTS topped out at 56kbps, G.992.5 already butts right up against the laws of physics of what is possible from the bandwidth available. ADSL tops out at 24mbps and this is only in urban areas where they almost definitely have faster co-ax cable connections. Verizon will give me twice that on FiOS for $45/month. How are you supposed to do anything with ADSL revenue if co-ax and fiber is kicking your ass on the value proposition up and down the street? And it costs a fraction of what you pay to maintain copper twisted pair!

So you end up with all the customers outside traditional cable service areas who have literally nothing else to fall back on. Their lines are old, in some areas they're simply buried in paper, the connections are ratshit, you get lots of complaints about speed, dropouts, connection downtime. Then you have to send techs out. You have to deal with foreign batteries, lack of cabinet space in COs for DSLAMS, problems with backhaul provisioning to remote locations. All while making fuck all money. Then Comcast or some other asshole finally extorts a concession out of the small town you've had all locked up, rolls out their co-ax to these outer areas and offers twice the speed for $10 less. All of your capital expenditures you've spent deploying ADSL to these sparsely populated areas are basically written off and you're up shit creek without the proverbial paddle.

Would you want to stay in that business? When you can just hand them a Jetpack produced for $20 and proceed to charge them $10 a gig for every hour of Netflix?
posted by Talez at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016


It's because twisted pair copper is completely obsolete, expensive to maintain, expensive to repair, even more expensive to replace and can't match co-ax or fiber in revenue generation.

The phone companies (well, mostly company, singular) got to build this amazing network out in the way back, as a monopoly and with a government guaranteed rate of return. Then they (the baby bells, including what is now Verizon) inherited this windfall and did jack squat to improve it from 1982 until the present.

Wired providers didn't fail solely because copper wire is hard to maintain; they also failed because they did nothing to improve their infrastructure.
posted by zippy at 10:10 PM on February 1, 2016


It's because twisted pair copper is completely obsolete, expensive to maintain, expensive to repair, even more expensive to replace and can't match co-ax or fiber in revenue generation.

There's an easy test for this: Verizon would have offered to run a fiber out to the premises. It's not like we cared what the physical layer was as long as we ended up with phone and internet (see also: we went with the cable co). But no, Verizon is not interested in being in the business of providing any kind of hard line connection. If you haven't noticed, they stopped building out Fios years ago. They're trying to cherry-pick the most profitable areas to serve and neglect the rest, all while getting the preferential treatment of a regulated utility that's theoretically supposed to serve everyone.

Would you want to stay in that business? When you can just hand them a Jetpack produced for $20 and proceed to charge them $10 a gig for every hour of Netflix?

I mean, I'd like to charge $1000/GB and buy up literally all the available spectrum in the area, but that would kind of suck for everyone else, wouldn't it? But you're right, it shouldn't be a business. It should be owned and run by the local government like any other natural monopoly utility. That person upthread writing about their $70/month gigabit connection? That's the rate charged by EPB. Shame that the telcos and cable companies lobbied the state legislature to make that same arrangement illegal everywhere else in TN.
posted by indubitable at 4:37 AM on February 2, 2016


« Older Unpublished Black History   |   In Case you don't already know everything there is... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments