Comcast *******os

[lcummins]

Way to go Josh......um I mean Lonnie.

yeah that was a lot of quoting.

Nah... I just copied and pasted and deleted out each time leaving the appropriate part of the quote I was dealing with...

 

[ProgMatinee]

Sorry, but your "customer is always right" philosophy misses the fact that companies are allowed to refuse service to people for many reasons. Disabled people, races, etc are protected..."people that download music and play games" aren't a protected class.

While it may be contradictory to the advertisement that first drew people in, Comcast has no obligations to continue a business model that isn't in their best interest.

Otherwise, Sideshow owes me $49.99 figures for the rest of my life.

"The average user" is definately who these companies cater for and thus its them that they should satisfy. If someone is using $2000 a month worth of bandwith, I think they should be charged for it rather than raise 2000 consumers prices by $1. If that one consumer doesn't like it, they need to drop the service, not expect the "average users" to pay for his nonaverage use.

 

[lcummins]

Sorry, but your "customer is always right" philosophy misses the fact that companies are allowed to refuse service to people for many reasons. Disabled people, races, etc are protected..."people that download music and play games" aren't a protected class.

While it may be contradictory to the advertisement that first drew people in, Comcast has no obligations to continue a business model that loses money.

Otherwise, Sideshow owes me $49.99 figures for the rest of my life.

I never said they had an obligation to continue the business model, only that until they do, they do owe people the service they paid for. If they choose to change it (just like TWC is thinking about), then it will be up to consumers to decide if they want to continue to pay for it... which was what my last point was, that if people decide not to and go someplace else, the cable companies would probably back down. Now if the cable operators, phone companies and dish providers all decide to model their business this way, then we are going to be out of luck, unless the government steps in or enough cancel their service to make an impact (which won't happen unfortunately)...

 

[ProgMatinee]

Its conceivable that if Comcast cut the riffraff out, that they could actually offer the typical consumer a REBATE. Which would not only not drive customers away but bring in more average to lower level users. I'm a firm believer in pay for what you use and if Comcast promised me they'd charge me less for not being an abuser, I'd sign up.

I've received rebate checks from utilities companies before when my usage was below average.

If the bandwidth grows too fast for its britches and becomes too expensive, then its users are going to have to learn that not everything needs streaming broadcast or high definition feeds.

If the government feels like it needs to subsidize people's internet entertainment then I will just cry from the ridiculousness. It would be like internet wellfare.

Just like there is no "right" to cheap toys, there's no "right" to affordable broadband internet.

 

[Sick Boy 82]

Yeah, I could never boycott Comcast, even though the piss me off sometimes. I love my HDTV way to much!!!! Hell, I never even watch SDTV unless its Comdey Central or Spike TV. And the Travel Channel, I love "No Reservations"!!!! AB is the shizz!!

All my other channels are taken care of by HD. It's very sad though, I'm such an HD snob. When I got to my friend Mike's house and he has an 27" tv in his front room with regular Cable, I'm always trying to push him into getting an big ass Plasma like me and get the HDTV service too.

 

[lcummins]

There is no "right" to affordable bandwidth, but until they can eliminate stuff like spam email, pop up ads, etc. that I neither want or requested, why should I have to pay for that bandwidth usage? It really isn't quite the same as electric service or water service; imagine if along with your electricity delivered to your house that you used, there was also some being used for neon sign advertisements which you couldn't stop or turn off, but were required to pay for... how many people would put up with that? There are enough differences that you can't really say they are the same.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Yeah. The pop ups, I understand, though luckily they're easy to shut off and ultimately you have a choice to not visit sites that utilize pop ups at all. Any site that would unwillingly have pop ups are victims of a computer crime and then its a whole seperate issue altogether, like if your neighbor used your water to wash his car without asking.

But the current state of popups are basically like I visit "Freaks" on my own free will, if they use popups its on me to decide not to visit them again if I don't like the amount of bandwidth they consume.

 

[KitFisto]

Don't visit sites that use pop ups? so you're saying avoid the internet then? I have had pop ups on just about every site I have ever been to including places like ESPN. I have a pop up blocker on my computer these days, but most sites have pop up's.