Com(crap)tastic!

[rhoenix]

Promoters of Comcast Internet are fond of boasting their superiority over DSL and other types of connectivity, pointing to the cable service's "mindblowing speed" and "unlimited" usage plans. Here's what they won't tell you: Comcast has a secret cap on the amount of data users can download, and those going over the limit can find their accounts terminated with little notice.

Just ask John Stith, a Comcast subscriber in Colorado, who downloads audio and other types of files to assist his legally blind stepson. Stith recently received a call from a company representative who said Stith was using too much bandwidth and would be terminated in a moment's notice if he continued to do so. He asked if it would make any difference if he restricted heavy usage to early-morning hours when bandwidth was more plentiful, or barring that, what the limit was so he could comply with the policy. The answers: no and we won't tell you.

"This whole policy seems a bit two-faced when they promote activities like watching webisodes and listening to Internet radio," says Stith, who by no means is the only Comcast customer to report this type of treatment. In addition to another person we spoke with, we found plenty of complaints online, including this blog dedicated to one person's dispute. (The Boston Globe also has a story here.)

Post Existentialism

The runaround reminds us of the plight of Joseph K in Franz Kafka's The Trial. The protagonist is tried and ultimately executed for breaking a law that his prosecutors refuse to reveal. The posthumously published novel became an overarching parable for man's existential predicament in the 20th Century. Now it's become a model of how the cable provider, which operates as a monopoly in many regions, treats its customers.

It also demonstrates internet cable's Achilles' heel. Yes, it may be faster than DSL (although with EarthLink and others offering speeds of 10 Mbps, that isn't universally true anymore). But, unlike cable, when you use DSL you can rest assured your next door neighbor's bandwidth won't come to a screeching halt as soon as you download a weekend's worth of DVD-quality films from Netflix.

Stith detailed in painstaking detail his own ambiguous proceedings with Comcast. Unhappy with the nebulous information provided to him on the call, he asked to speak with a supervisor. The representative refused and also denied Stith's request for a street address where he could send a formal complaint. So Stith called, on two occasions, the local customer service center and relayed the conversation. He was assured the original call most definitely did not come from Comcast and was most likely a prank.

Still uneasy, Stith mailed a letter to Comcast relating his experience. He received a call from a representative in Comcast's corporate office, who confirmed the original call did come from Comcast and invited him to take up the matter with Comcast's security center. A person in that department also refused to specify how much bandwidth Stith's $60-per-month subscription entitled him to, but warned him his account would be terminated without notice if he crossed this invisible line again.

Another subscriber complaining of Comcast's secret usage cap is Cameron Smith, who said he was a Comcast subscriber in Tennessee until January. Shortly after receiving a warning similar to Stith's, he found his connection canceled. To add insult to injury, he was then billed for the the following month's service and was told that the charges wouldn't stop until he returned his modem.

Bait and Switch

Besides criticizing the unpleasantness of having his account canceled for violating an unspecified policy, Smith accuses Comcast of pulling a bait and switch. He says phone representatives in Comcast's sale department assured him the company permitted "unlimited downloads". Indeed when we spoke to a sales representative named David in Comcast's San Jose, Calif., branch he told us "there's no cap".

A Comcast spokeswoman said in a statement that only 0.01 percent of company's subscribers fail to use the service as intended and that the usage policy is in place to ensure the remaining 99.99 percent get adequate service. Customers who are contacted about excessive usage "typically" consume exponentially higher amounts of data than average users "which would include" the equivalent of 13 million emails every month.

She refused to say what the bandwidth cap was or explain why Comcast insists on keeping that detail secret. She also declined to say why the sales people say there are no caps.

All of which brings to mind the howls of protest that would ring out if, say, a cell phone carrier refused to specify the number of minutes available in a subscriber's plan, or promised unlimited long distance and then disconnected users if they actually exercised that option. It makes us wonder if Joseph K hasn't been resurrected as the embodiment of disgruntled Comcast users everywhere. Or why DSL marketers don't pounce on this sad state of affairs at Comcast. ®

Charming. I had the misfortune of having Comcast for a few months, and I fully believe this is possible.

[Praxis]

Um, I read this exact thing happening in 2004. Nothing new.

[Uraniun235]

It makes us wonder if Joseph K hasn't been resurrected as the embodiment of disgruntled Comcast users everywhere. Or why DSL marketers don't pounce on this sad state of affairs at Comcast.

On the one hand, they have marketing dynamite on their hands; they could smear Comcast for months with this.

On the other hand, they may see a disproportionate number of heavy users among the people motivated by the advertising to subscribe to their service.

[Netko]

With those kind of companies, I guess I'm lucky that my DSLs unlimited is really unlimited (if downloading 200GB monthly over a 2MBit pipe is not sufficient to trigger any limits, nothing is). That, or maybe our consumer protection or telecom laws are actually worth something.

Although, I wonder how this would not be deceptive marketing in any country with even rudimentary truth in advertising laws. Unlimited has a pretty clear meaning, limited unlimited is an oxymoron. Then again, obviously not, since as Praxis already noted, this has been going on for a while now.

I wonder if all their ads have a little asterisk in the corner when they say unlimited and lines of lawyer language vomit in unreadable little font?

[Hotfoot]

Suddenly, Verizon FiOS seems very, very appealing...

[phongn]

Suddenly, Verizon FiOS seems very, very appealing...

You know you want it (disclaimer: I work for VZ).

With those kind of companies, I guess I'm lucky that my DSLs unlimited is really unlimited (if downloading 200GB monthly over a 2MBit pipe is not sufficient to trigger any limits, nothing is). That, or maybe our consumer protection or telecom laws are actually worth something.

Comcast probably could get sued over this if someone wanted to under the consumer protection laws and they didn't have "cover your ass" wording in your actual terms of use agreement. Telecom laws won't apply to them as they aren't a phone company (and those usually only apply to plain-old-telephone service)

I wonder if all their ads have a little asterisk in the corner when they say unlimited and lines of lawyer language vomit in unreadable little font?

Quite possibly.

[InnocentBystander]

Suddenly, Verizon FiOS seems very, very appealing...

You know you want it (disclaimer: I work for VZ).

Oh god I want fios. I tried it out at my dad's place, its amazing. Not to mention that after the first year the cable company rates zoom up.

[Turin]

As much as I detest Comcast in general for their local cable monopoly, this seems more like a case of bureaucracy gone bad than some kind of Evil Conspiracy. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if all the ISPs have caps in order to target spammers. The last thing they would want is to publish this cap, as spammers could then just adjust their output to just below the cap to avoid it. In cases like the one presented, Comcast could save themselves a lot of grief by making unpublished exceptions (after verification of the person's disability, for example).

[Arrow]

If FIOS ever makes it down to Southern Maryland, I sign up in a heart beat. Right now Comcast is the only game in town for me for high speed internet (DSL isn't in my area).

[Stormbringer]

As much as I detest Comcast in general for their local cable monopoly, this seems more like a case of bureaucracy gone bad than some kind of Evil Conspiracy. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if all the ISPs have caps in order to target spammers.

There's also the issue of illegal file sharing, distribution of illegal materials, and what not to consider as well. I've heard from a friend that's worked at these places that they get nervous about high volume users because of the potential for that.

[UCBooties]

I can understand some of the rationale for an unpublished cap, but combined with Comcast's other shit, it's just more reason to hate them.

A personal example:

last year we were looking into cable internet with them. We checked their website for pricing and they had none listed. Frustrated, we called for an estimate of installation costs and what a typical service contract for highspeed internet would entail. The phone representative refused to tell us the price. This should have been the end of it.

Two weeks later they showed up in the middle of the day, dug up our yard to lay a cable, installed part of the box and then tried to charge us for the installation and a premium service package (which wasn't even running). When we refused, they threatened to sue us.

[Tolya]

I can understand some of the rationale for an unpublished cap, but combined with Comcast's other shit, it's just more reason to hate them.

And what is the rationale behind this, according to you? Besides the usual corporate-whores-cheating-for-$$$?

I actually pity you guys. Would that happen in Europe, public customer protection agencies would be all over a company like that like shit on Velcro.

It looks to me like in America the customer is not entitled to any type of public defence from unfair service providers.

[Turin]

I can understand some of the rationale for an unpublished cap, but combined with Comcast's other shit, it's just more reason to hate them.

And what is the rationale behind this, according to you? Besides the usual corporate-whores-cheating-for-$$$?

I don't use Comcast for internet, just for cable, but I can still speak to some of this. In my area, Comcast was the only cable TV provider until recently. Naturally, this caused cable TV prices to skyrocket (I pay almost $70 for the bare-bones)... this is especially bad in the city because the there is no TV broadcast reception with rabbit ears despite a bunch of hundreds-of-feet-tall antennas on a big hill outside the city. You want TV -- you pay through the nose to Comcast for it.

Add to it, of course, intense lobbying by Comcast to the state of Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to attempt to prevent DSL providers like Verizon from providing TV service through their lines (inc. the new fiber lines). Of course this was accompanied by hours upon hours of political advertising (on Comcast's cable TV broadcasts) telling the public outright lies to get the public to put pressure on their reps to block Verizon. Fortunately the phone companies won (never thought I'd say that!), and now we're getting more options in Philadelphia, but it's left a bad taste in my mouth for Comcast.

[phongn]

It looks to me like in America the customer is not entitled to any type of public defence from unfair service providers.

Oh, they are, but most people don't know the rules and requirements. regarding them.

[Enigma]

That is one company I won't consider for cablr TV or internet once I am settled in Ohio.

[UCBooties]

And what is the rationale behind this, according to you? Besides the usual corporate-whores-cheating-for-$$$?

I was referring to the above mentioned concerns about illegal file-sharing and spammers, as well as the need for a service provider to try to impose some sort of equity in service (ie. not allow one person's usage to crowd out another customer's bandwidth). Of course they shouldn't advertise that their service is unlimited if that is not the case.

[FedRebel]

Promoters of Comcast Internet are fond of boasting their superiority over DSL and other types of connectivity,

All those ads do is give me the craving for turtle soup

pointing to the cable service's "mindblowing speed" and "unlimited" usage plans. Here's what they won't tell you: Comcast has a secret cap on the amount of data users can download, and those going over the limit can find their accounts terminated with little notice.

Good news for AT&T and other internet providers

Just ask John Stith, a Comcast subscriber in Colorado, who downloads audio and other types of files to assist his legally blind stepson. Stith recently received a call from a company representative who said Stith was using too much bandwidth and would be terminated in a moment's notice if he continued to do so. He asked if it would make any difference if he restricted heavy usage to early-morning hours when bandwidth was more plentiful, or barring that, what the limit was so he could comply with the policy. The answers: no and we won't tell you.

Brilliant customer service, Confast competitors are definitely smiling

"This whole policy seems a bit two-faced when they promote activities like watching webisodes and listening to Internet radio," says Stith, who by no means is the only Comcast customer to report this type of treatment. In addition to another person we spoke with, we found plenty of complaints online, including this blog dedicated to one person's dispute. (The Boston Globe also has a story here.)

bait and switch + crappy customer service = bye bye Comcast

It also demonstrates internet cable's Achilles' heel. Yes, it may be faster than DSL (although with EarthLink and others offering speeds of 10 Mbps, that isn't universally true anymore). But, unlike cable, when you use DSL you can rest assured your next door neighbor's bandwidth won't come to a screeching halt as soon as you download a weekend's worth of DVD-quality films from Netflix.

something the delicious shelled reptiles don't tell you

Stith detailed in painstaking detail his own ambiguous proceedings with Comcast. Unhappy with the nebulous information provided to him on the call, he asked to speak with a supervisor. The representative refused and also denied Stith's request for a street address where he could send a formal complaint.

Bad move on Comcasts part

So Stith called, on two occasions, the local customer service center and relayed the conversation. He was assured the original call most definitely did not come from Comcast and was most likely a prank.

A prank? If true unauthorized personnel have their customer records which is a big security breach, not to mention a customer relations disaster

seems like Sith...sorry...Stith needs to terminate his Comcast account and check for any ID theft.

Still uneasy, Stith mailed a letter to Comcast relating his experience. He received a call from a representative in Comcast's corporate office, who confirmed the original call did come from Comcast and invited him to take up the matter with Comcast's security center.

So Comcast has piss poor internal communication...brilliant!

A person in that department also refused to specify how much bandwidth Stith's $60-per-month subscription entitled him to, but warned him his account would be terminated without notice if he crossed this invisible line again.

ISP's are a dime a dozen, Comcast is moronic

Cablenet with Comcast which is subject to frequent increases in billing, piss poor customer service and hidden bandwidth caps

...but wait I can bundle broadband phone service and digital cable with the cablenet for $33 each a month!

I'm paying $60 a month (originally $20) for expanded basic with Confast, how long until those triple?

Ma Bell is more than sufficient for my internet needs

Another subscriber complaining of Comcast's secret usage cap is Cameron Smith, who said he was a Comcast subscriber in Tennessee until January. Shortly after receiving a warning similar to Stith's, he found his connection canceled. To add insult to injury, he was then billed for the the following month's service and was told that the charges wouldn't stop until he returned his modem.

I can't blame them for being so possessive, the modem is "their" property even though with what they charge Smith probably bought the thing five times over

I do blame Comcast for being such a dick about it though, it certainly helps the competition

Besides criticizing the unpleasantness of having his account canceled for violating an unspecified policy, Smith accuses Comcast of pulling a bait and switch. He says phone representatives in Comcast's sale department assured him the company permitted "unlimited downloads". Indeed when we spoke to a sales representative named David in Comcast's San Jose, Calif., branch he told us "there's no cap".

Cue antitrust

A Comcast spokeswoman said in a statement that only 0.01 percent of company's subscribers fail to use the service as intended and that the usage policy is in place to ensure the remaining 99.99 percent get adequate service. Customers who are contacted about excessive usage "typically" consume exponentially higher amounts of data than average users "which would include" the equivalent of 13 million emails every month.

"excessive usage", you bastards advertise that your service is to be used. You claim that people can surf faster, download faster, get 'power boosts', and unlimited bandwidth.

When people utilize the full capabilities of this system, you can't handle it?

Obviously you've exceeded your capabilities, Cablenet can't seem to cope with the bandwidth nor the 'power boosts'

She refused to say what the bandwidth cap was or explain why Comcast insists on keeping that detail secret. She also declined to say why the sales people say there are no caps.

Will you be divesting the cable infrastructure you acquired from AT&T? Or do you prefer the old fashioned way?

Or why DSL marketers don't pounce on this sad state of affairs at Comcast. ®

probably because it'll just look like a smear campaign, they'll just sit back and relax as the word spreads

[Tolya]

I was referring to the above mentioned concerns about illegal file-sharing and spammers, as well as the need for a service provider to try to impose some sort of equity in service (ie. not allow one person's usage to crowd out another customer's bandwidth). Of course they shouldn't advertise that their service is unlimited if that is not the case.

Yes, only this is not the way to combat illegal software, since not all people who use their bandwidth excessively are downloading movies and games fresh of torrent or emule.

As for blocking the bandwidth, it is up to them to provide good solid infrastructure so that when 200 people buy a 2mbit DSL each and one of them gets their 2mbit every time they goddamn please.

They know they got limitations but they refuse to acknowledge the general public, since that would lead to a sales loss.

[RThurmont]

Imposing bandwidth caps or limiting the legal use of torrents could have devastating effects on the open source and free software community, where developers and users depend on the ability to send and receive large files containing operating systems, applications and source code.

[phongn]

Yes, only this is not the way to combat illegal software, since not all people who use their bandwidth excessively are downloading movies and games fresh of torrent or emule.

No, but there is a Quality-of-Service issue for those who are "excessively" using bandwidth and its effect on the neighborhood. The typical cable internet architecture is particularly susceptible to this effect since each neighborhood shares a single fibre endpoint and single users can badly degrade service. DOCSIS-QoS might be able to resolve some of these issues, but I don't know if anyone actually implements it.

I still think Comcast's policy is rather stupid, but there are some arguments in favor of caps - but said caps should be published.

As for blocking the bandwidth, it is up to them to provide good solid infrastructure so that when 200 people buy a 2mbit DSL each and one of them gets their 2mbit every time they goddamn please.

ROFL. No consumer ISP will ever do that - I don't think they could afford to do so even if they wanted without spending a fortune. In addition, it's rather wasteful not to oversubscribe consumer access. Network traffic is typically bursty in nature, after all.

But, if you want, say, three megabits guaranteed with an SLA, you can probably get it. Just don't expect to pay $35/mo for it.

They know they got limitations but they refuse to acknowledge the general public, since that would lead to a sales loss.

Verizon*, at least, notes in the fine print that actual upload and download speeds might not match your physical link-layer speed.

* Usual disclaimer how what I say is not corporate policy and represents my opinion only!

Imposing bandwidth caps or limiting the legal use of torrents could have devastating effects on the open source and free software community, where developers and users depend on the ability to send and receive large files containing operating systems, applications and source code.

BS. The F/OSS community flourished before BitTorrent and within the era of bandwidth caps (something the cable companies have been doing for many years).

[Luke Starkiller]

As for blocking the bandwidth, it is up to them to provide good solid infrastructure so that when 200 people buy a 2mbit DSL each and one of them gets their 2mbit every time they goddamn please.

ROFL. No consumer ISP will ever do that - I don't think they could afford to do so even if they wanted without spending a fortune. In addition, it's rather wasteful not to oversubscribe consumer access. Network traffic is typically bursty in nature, after all.

But, if you want, say, three megabits guaranteed with an SLA, you can probably get it. Just don't expect to pay $35/mo for it.

They know they got limitations but they refuse to acknowledge the general public, since that would lead to a sales loss.

Verizon*, at least, notes in the fine print that actual upload and download speeds might not match your physical link-layer speed.

* Usual disclaimer how what I say is not corporate policy and represents my opinion only!

It's the same deal on Time Warner's side. *

We are very clear with customers that they will get up to their listed speed and anything above ~80% is good enough for residential customers. Business class customers can get better service, but as phongn said they're paying for it. Aside from that 9 times out of 10 when people complain of slow connections it's an issue on their end, their network setup is garbage or they have malware of some kind.



*Same disclaimer

[General Zod]

Strange. During the brief time I had Comcast I downloaded several hundred gigs worth of stuff, and never heard a peep. Though it is bullshit that they make claims of unlimited bandwidth then suddenly cap you if you've gone over an unpublished amount. If they're going to have a cap, then advertise it or don't make false claims.