Filed under: Business, Internet, Features, News, Podcasting, Web services, DLS Interviews
Comcast shuts down Winer
Thanks to the recent BitTorrent debacle, Comcast has been far from Comcastic for many of its customers. Throttling customers for using technologies they deem too data intensive is pretty nasty, and the company has had to acquiesce and change its practices, but what happens when they disconnect your service (and threaten to keep you shut-down for 12-months) for "excessive usage" -- yet refuse to issue that threat in writing or tell you what "excessive usage" really means? Well, that is exactly the situation Dave Winer, tech analyst, pioneer and RSS God, has found himself in. Comcast has restored his service, but still says they will shut him down for up to 12 months if he doesn't alter his usage patterns. The kicker? They won't tell him what level he needs to adjust his usage patterns to in order to stay compliant.
Can they do this? Especially without issuing the warning in writing? And what exactly defines, "excessive" in Comcast's terms? Many of us here at Download Squad use Comcast and we DO love to download, so this issue bothers us both on principle and for practicality. Although Comcast has been more receptive via their @Comcastcares Twitter account than they were via phone, this whole situation makes us very, very uncomfortable.
We spoke to Dave earlier today (the podcast of our conversation is here) and this is what he had to say:
"I thought it was an outage and they said I had to call a special number and that I had been disconnected as a matter of policy."
That policy, was apparently an ambiguous clause in the contract that allows Comcast to shut-down customers for what they deem excessive usage.
So what is excessive in this case? Comcast told Dave his usage was in the 450 GB a month range. That's pretty hefty, no doubt, but is it hefty enough to cut off a customer's service without doing more than calling the number on file (which in Dave's case, was an old cell phone that was no longer in service)? We don't think so. This seems like the sort of information that should be communicated in writing.
Additionally, Dave described the treatment and attitude from Comcast as extremely hostile. "It was like I was back in high school and in the principal's office," Dave said, "and he was telling me I might not be able to graduate but without saying what GPA I needed to get off probation."
Instead of working with Dave and trying to find a solution to meet his needs (though again, to be fair, Frank from @comcastcares has been much, much more helpful and understanding), they are essentially bullying him. At the very least Comcast should let customers know what the limits of acceptable usage are. Especially if they are going to tout their advantages in speed and service over DSL in their advertisements. Customers should know going in that there are caveats to that kind of speed.
Frankly, we don't think it is the customer's problem if Comcast can't scale bandwidth at advertised rates to all of their subscribers. Communicating acceptable usage limits with customers directly and offering a solution (even if that means moving to a commercial account -- something Dave would have been more than happy to entertain) rather than cutting off service and refusing to back threats of pro-longed cancellation in writing makes much more sense.
On a legal level (and we are not writing this with any legal background or conjecture), Comcast may be technically clear, but basic consumer protection policies would seemingly make many of these threats baseless. We'd love to hear from actual lawyers on how a company can and cannot issue service changes or potential denials of service.
Look, we don't think that Comcast should have to offer unlimited bandwidth at unlimited speeds to every customer. They are a business and they do need to maintain balance on their network. However, we find the current way that they are handling the situation to be unacceptable. We think it is important that consumers and customers appeal to ISPs (in this case Comcast) and the FCC in ensuring that better transparency is achieved in situations like this in the future. Less ambiguous contract terms and a clear-cut communication with customers would result in better relationships and better service for everyone.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
TheTaylorEffect said 4:50PM on 4-16-2008
Lets have a Twittervention.
Reply
Aron Trimble said 4:45PM on 4-16-2008
Another example of businesses being treated better than consumers... Truly unfortunate.
Reply
rasbill said 4:55PM on 4-16-2008
i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, i hate comcast, fuck them the end
Reply
aceface said 5:16PM on 4-16-2008
Verizon FiOs needs to get in COMCAST territory...once that monopoly is threaten...they'll stop threatining customers!!!
Reply
Victor Agreda, Jr. said 5:21PM on 4-16-2008
aceface, that's really the problem. seems like we've been talking about cable monopolies FOREVER, but, except in some rare cases, it hasn't gotten much better.
I'm lucky enough to live in a town where Knology competes with Comcast (guess who I chose?)
But I think the really horrid part about this is that they just shut him down without a proper contact, and refused to put anything in writing. That doesn't seem kosher at all.
Reply
James said 5:32PM on 4-16-2008
Yeah, as soon as I saw FiOS hit my area I dropped Comcast like a dead cat. I don't exactly have a lot of love for Verizon, but the service has been really good and I've been lucky enough not to need to talk to them about anything. That's the trick -- if I can limit my interaction to paying them for a service, and the service *just works*, I'm happy.
Reply
Rocketboy said 6:09PM on 4-16-2008
"That's pretty hefty, no doubt, but is it hefty enough to cut off a customer's service without doing more than calling the number on file (which in Dave's case, was an old cell phone that was no longer in service)?"
Looks like it's Dave's fault for not making sure his information was up to date. What did you expect them to do, send a candygram?
Reply
Peter said 6:17PM on 4-16-2008
Rocketboy - They could have sent a letter to the same place they mail the bills.
Philip said 6:24PM on 4-16-2008
well i have bright house...
and well im certnly naughty with my connection...
but nuthing close to being a bandwith hog...
but evian when i do use alot of bandwith...
my connection ussange barely gits to 7% in the taskmanager network activaty...
but i havent had any issues with bright house...if you live in an aria..where you can git ether bright house or comcast..go with bright house..
or if bright house isent avialable..then go to satalite...speak with the wallit...
just my 2 cents
Reply
Peter said 8:44PM on 4-16-2008
Philip - "my connection ussange barely gits to 7% in the taskmanager network activaty..."
What you are seeing there is 7% usage of your 100 Mbit NIC's capacity, NOT 7% of the bandwidth your ISP is providing. 7% of 100 Mbits is 7.0 Mbits, so you are probably using a large percentage of your available connection, but that says nothing about how much data you are moving in total.
Peter said 6:17PM on 4-16-2008
I'd suspect some bean counter has figured this out, but it's hard to imagine someone downloading so much that they are effectively losing money on you.
It would seem to make more sense to let you keep paying and limit your downloads than to cut you off completely and lose a year's worth of income from you.
Why not do something like the first few hundred GB a month at 100% of your rated speed, the next batch at 75% and continuing down from there.
Reply
aanidaani said 7:19PM on 4-16-2008
Comcast is a company offering a service, and they can refuse to continue service with a customer that they deem to be misusing their network. That's not to say that I particularly approve of Comcast or their practices, but just that they have a right to do business with whom they choose.
Reply
rodan32 said 7:25PM on 4-16-2008
My response there is that over-regulation has left us with no competition. I was lucky enough to have DSL available when Comcast started throttling torrents, but I can't say I'm pleased with that option. And is there a third way? Nope, aside from dial-up or overpriced (and latent) satellite, I'm stuck between Comcast and Qwest. Sweet!
Jeebus said 9:02PM on 4-16-2008
"Can they do this?"
What is wrong with you people? Ever heard of private property? Comcast can do anything they please, and so should they. That doesn't mean I don't hate them, and cannot wait for real competition. Government intervention has created a market with no competition, so please don't ask for more government intervention to solve a problem they themselves created, that allow shitty companies like Comcast (any cable company really) to treat customers like crap.
Reply
Mysterius said 10:02PM on 4-16-2008
Wait, government shouldn't admit they've made a mistake?
Jeebus said 10:07PM on 4-16-2008
Of course they should. All those crappy exclusionary deals that cable companies have should be abolished immediately. But Christina Warren was whining about "can Comcast do that?" Yes they can so long as it's their damn network.
Victor Agreda, Jr. said 11:41PM on 4-16-2008
Isn't that sort of like saying car companies can quit installing seat belts because "it is their property?" Every company has an obligation to do right by the customer. When you don't tell a customer about a bandwidth cap, or, once you've threatened them, offer to put the threat in writing, you aren't playing fair.
The only thing that allows them to do this is the monopoly they've been given. So yes, that needs to go away, but it doesn't dissolve their responsibility.
For more info on consumer rights watch "Robocop"
Jeebus said 12:03AM on 4-17-2008
> Isn't that sort of like saying car companies can
> quit installing seat belts because "it is their
> property?"
Yes, exactly.
> Every company has an obligation to do right by
> the customer.
They have certain legal obligations, which mostly are counterproductive, but they have no moral obligation, although they'd be stupid not to, in a competitive market that is.
> When you don't tell a customer about a
> bandwidth cap, or, once you've threatened
> them, offer to put the threat in writing, you
> aren't playing fair.
Life isn't fair. Cope.
> The only thing that allows them to do this
> is the monopoly they've been given.
Exactly.
> So yes, that needs to go away, but it doesn't
> dissolve their responsibility.
There is no legal responsibility for cable companies to tell they customers about their bandwidth caps, nor should there be, however much we disagree with that policy. The monopoly needs to go away and with it Comcast hopefully.
Bryan Price said 10:22PM on 4-16-2008
I'm not sure if Dave had Comcast or Roadrunner (Time Warner) when he lived in Florida. I've got Comcast, but I don't know how close he lived to St. Augustine which is Roadrunner territory, although it sounds like (from the old cell number) that he did have Comcast before. And I doubt that Dave's habits have increased his usage that much.
I keep wondering when I'm going to be hit. Although I've been moderating my downloading a bit, the wife (when she's home) does online video streaming constantly. And the son does downloading and WOW and Ventrillo.
Reply
Greg Skluzacek said 10:28PM on 4-16-2008
Christina,
Great article! Of course ISP need to balance the needs of their customers with their need to make money. But they do need to have some kind of defined process to alert the customer that they exceeding 'fair use' in writing preferable and have well defined terms of what the threshold is that exceeds fair use.
By the way, do they know who Dave Winer is... This could get them a lot of bad publicity if Dave decided to really push the issue.
Again great post.
-- Greg Skluzacek
Reply