Price is noted four times, not two. Noted. Still, my point was that the report doesn't really highlight massive broader market dysfunction or examine what could be done about it. That deserves several chapters, not four lines.
Yeah, I've seen pricing vary by street based on demographic and income data, which is another reason they don't want anybody analyzing this data. Though you're right, even if you do manage to get a quote, it's not going to be a reliable indication of much of anything in a broader sense.
I think the OPs point though is that their argument that they can't release pricing data is bunk, which is correct, because big ISPs can hire data miners to actually get a much closer approximation of rates.
Consumers are the odd man out when it comes to that data.
It sounds like you're complaining about the prices themselves. I see nothing wrong with them charging whatever they feel like charging; that's just basic capitalism. Buyer and seller agree on a price, and everyone's happy.
I'm not sure you read the piece. It's not necessarily the price I complain about (though the lack of competition does drive prices up, obviously), it's the fact they're engaged in false advertising by advertising a price, then covertly jacking it up with buried, confusing, and misleading fees. I mean you say:
"The real problem, IMO, is when they advertise one price and then charge another."
And you say:
IMO if the monthly bill comes out to $60 and the ad said $40/month, that's a problem.
"Every Comcast employee (yes EVERY) gets these cards to give out."
If you read the article, it points that out -- twice. In fact, I noted it's particularly funny that politicians think they're getting special treatment when these cards exist everywhere.
"Phrases like "cheap and lazy", "grown tired", "admitting that they're not invested enough" suggest that not having comments is in and of itself some egregious transgression."
I think it's blocking conversation, then claiming you're revolutionizing conversation is the part I make clear is silly and disingenuous. I'm not arguing that blocking comments is on par with thwarting cancer cures.
Good question. Though as a blogger of 15 years I have found that when you show up in the comment section and try to engage in civil conversation, the tone of many trolls immediately changes. Whether I'm always good at being civil myself when I'm being called every name in the book is something else entirely, of course.
Yes, in fact I was just reading this report, which suggests it didn't take very much work to civilize a conversation:
"One surprisingly easy thing they found that brought civil, relevant comments: the presence of a recognized reporter wading into the comments.
Seventy different political posts were randomly either left to their own wild devices, engaged by an unidentified staffer from the station, or engaged by a prominent political reporter. When the reporter showed up, “incivility decreased by 17 percent and people were 15 percent more likely to use evidence in their comments on the subject matter,” according to the study."
Plan on talking about that a bit in a follow up story next week.
If I did use Comcast's equipment, though, it wouldn't bother me that Comcast is doing this for two reasons: first, the publicly available AP is not actually your subscriber AP. It's using the same hardware, but routed as a separate thing, so introduces no security problems. Second, the bandwidth people use doesn't count against me. I see this as no different than if Comcast put APs on top of the telephone poles on my street.
I don't disagree. I think the only big deal at the moment is the fact that the opt-out doesn't seem to work. I've seen a lot of users complain about this.
Re: This Is Not The Best Of All Possible Worlds, Daniel Berninger To The Contrary.
Extra points for the Reverse Morris Trust country joke. :) Yeah, West Virginia is really the perfect example of where U.S. broadband sits at the moment. Neglected DSL lines, regulatory capture, subsidies nobody can bother to track, and lots and lots of lip service.
I think Free Press might just deserve credit for not ignoring the fact that some taxes and fees might go up. That's in contrast to PPI, which appears to have intentionally bloated their numbers massively just for maximum political impact.
I've read his rebuttal, and it basically just talks over, under and around the fact he's fear-mongering by pointing to the very worst possible (and very unlikely) scenario imaginable on both the state and federal level, in some cases using situations that have absolutely nothing to do with Title II. It's like saying highways are dangerous because EVERYBODY IS GOING TO CRASH ALL AT ONCE OH MY GOD.
Also, taking a broadband study from a think tank paid by AT&T to manipulate data as gospel -- but complaining that we're being "unfair and unbalanced" is just silly.
"This post (again) commits the same cherry picking and reframing of stats toward a pre-determined conclusion as it accuses the PPI study."
Where does this happen, precisely? By clearly pointing out where PPI over-states the impact of Title II on state and federal taxes (by at least $12 billion)? By clearly pointing out it's the broadband industry itself (and it's use of sneaky, below-the-line fees) that's the biggest culprit when it comes to soaring broadband bills?
You state twice that my story claims there will be no impact of Title II. That's not what I wrote. What I wrote is that the PPI is using worst-case scenarios and conflating some unrelated issues (the Congressional tax exemption expiration specifically) to vastly over-state potential taxation numbers and scare people, while the industry itself is being disingenuous.
Are you disagreeing with either of those statements?
Whoops, error on my part, thanks. Though I was recently in Paris and found the value of their bundles are comparable. I think the point still stands that claiming France is "low on results" is bunk. Their speed average is dragged down by the same thing ours is in the States -- rural DSL lines nobody wants to upgrade. They just have more of those DSL lines than we do, since cable never really took off in the same fashion.
Let's get beyond name calling and just ask the direct question - how do we improve broadband outcomes?
One, I think insisting that all I've done is "name calling" is disingenuous and intentionally dismissive of what you just read. Two, you act as if I've never talked about this when I've repeatedly pointed out where we start. Stop letting AT&T, Verizon and Comcast write state telecom law, and stop doling out billions in subsidies to giant companies we then let ignore their obligations. The solution isn't recombinant gene technology or rocket science. It doesn't even require a full paragraph.
"Of ALL the things you could be against in this merger, you wrote an article about this potential one guy?
Which one guy? Sena Fitzmaurice? Their female top PR representative? Also reread the last paragraph. I agree the overlapping competition with Time Warner Cable is the very least of this merger's problems.
On the post: New York City Backs Off School Cell Phone Ban, Though Some Officials Still See Cellular Tech As The Worst Sort Of Foul Devilry
Re:
On the post: Commerce Department Study Reveals There's Almost No Competition If You Want Real Broadband
Re:
On the post: Commerce Department Study Reveals There's Almost No Competition If You Want Real Broadband
Re: price(s)?
On the post: Commerce Department Study Reveals There's Almost No Competition If You Want Real Broadband
Re: Getting prices
I think the OPs point though is that their argument that they can't release pricing data is bunk, which is correct, because big ISPs can hire data miners to actually get a much closer approximation of rates.
Consumers are the odd man out when it comes to that data.
On the post: As Time Warner Cable Defends Merger Plans, It Keeps Gouging Customers With Obnoxious New Sneaky Fees
Re:
On the post: As Time Warner Cable Defends Merger Plans, It Keeps Gouging Customers With Obnoxious New Sneaky Fees
Re:
On the post: Comcast Says Its Sudden Love Of The Poor Is Just Altruistic 'Serendipity,' In No Way Tied To Wanting Merger Approval
Re: Broken Link
On the post: Comcast Lobbyists Give Lawmakers Golden Tickets: Secret Phone Numbers To Reach Good Customer Service
Re: Tell the real story
On the post: St. Louis Post Dispatch Declares That Banning Editorial Comments Will 'Elevate The Ferguson Conversation'
Re: Right to comment
On the post: St. Louis Post Dispatch Declares That Banning Editorial Comments Will 'Elevate The Ferguson Conversation'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: St. Louis Post Dispatch Declares That Banning Editorial Comments Will 'Elevate The Ferguson Conversation'
Re:
On the post: Comcast Sued Over Router Update That Makes Your Wi-Fi Hotspot Public, Ignores Your Opt-Out Preferences
Re: This doesn't bother me
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: This Is Not The Best Of All Possible Worlds, Daniel Berninger To The Contrary.
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Hal Singer rebuttal of Free Press
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Hal Singer rebuttal of Free Press
Also, taking a broadband study from a think tank paid by AT&T to manipulate data as gospel -- but complaining that we're being "unfair and unbalanced" is just silly.
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Fair and balanced...
You state twice that my story claims there will be no impact of Title II. That's not what I wrote. What I wrote is that the PPI is using worst-case scenarios and conflating some unrelated issues (the Congressional tax exemption expiration specifically) to vastly over-state potential taxation numbers and scare people, while the industry itself is being disingenuous.
Are you disagreeing with either of those statements?
On the post: Yet Another Study Proclaims U.S. Broadband Awesome If You Intentionally Ignore All The Warts
Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another Study Proclaims U.S. Broadband Awesome If You Intentionally Ignore All The Warts
Re:
On the post: Yet Another Study Proclaims U.S. Broadband Awesome If You Intentionally Ignore All The Warts
On the post: Comcast Accidentally Admits It's Unsure Of The Competitive Impact Of Its Own Merger
Re: As much as I am against the merger...
Next >>