Is Comcast Heading the Way of the Dinosaur?

CasualRepartee writes "Comcast has been one of the most successful cable companies in the world; in many parts of the U.S., Comcast sits pretty on huge user bases that don't have many viable high-speed internet alternatives. However, poor customer service, slow speeds and generally poor business practices could make the once-great internet giant another extinct dinosaur, no ice age required. The fact of the matter is this: Comcast is no longer the biggest and the best. Cable is taking a distant back seat to Verizon's FiOS (fiber optic service), which delivers speeds up to 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload speeds. Unlike Comcast, FiOS delivers the full range of bandwidth to each user, whereas Comcast users are forced to share bandwidth with other users on the same coaxial cable, causing speeds to fluctuate dramatically with usage."

I hate Comcast

[The Breeze]

Dealing with their bureaucracy is a nightmare - especially if you are trying to get a clarification on whether their commercial TOS allows paid WiFI hotspot access. Inconsistent policies, customer service from hell, a pricing structure more suited to the "we're the phone company - we don't care - we don't have to" days...I can only hope that Comcast is indeed due for a long permament swim in a nice tar pit.

Talk about choosing between two evils.

[COMICAGOGO]

I have at various times been both a Verizon and a Comcast customer. I must say that having to choose between the two for fast internet service is like being give the choice of having you right arm and leg cut off or your left arm and leg (not talking price per say.) You are pretty screwed no matter what you pick.

Any body else have the dubious honor of having been with both of these companies?

Choice of evils

[charlesbakerharris]

As if Verizon's customer service somehow *isn't* atrocious. Ugh. There's no good option here.

Mistakes in reasoning

[Kohath]

This story assumes two things:

1. That FIOS is available for people. The actual availability is limited.
2. That, since you are really interested in the latest Comcast news about P2P, a majority or even a large minority must also be interested. They aren't.

That second one is a hard lesson for people to learn. Just because you care about something doesn't mean anyone else will care or should care. Don't mistake your wishes for reality.

Slashvertisement

[TheSpoom]

Oh, well, I'd better go get Verizon right now!

*sigh*

They don't even really try to hide it any more, do they? This "article" reads exactly like a DSL ad.

Anyway, no, Comcast isn't going anywhere. They have a monopoly in several markets like a lot of other cable companies and so they wouldn't be going anywhere regardless of their level of suck.

Well, it's all about accessability...

[garcia]

The fact of the matter is this: Comcast is no longer the biggest and the best. Cable is taking a distance back seat to Verizon's FiOS (fiber optic service), which delivers speeds up to 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload speeds.

The fact of the matter is that I *can* get cable (well, not Comcast is this area but Charter instead) but I cannot get FiOS. I still find it hysterical that McLeod fiber runs less than 100 feet from my backdoor (nothing in between me and it) and I cannot get any Internet benefit from that cable.

DISTANT backseat...

[Samurai Cat!]

...not "distance". :P

Here we go again.

[TrailerTrash]

One of the most annoying aspects of internet culture is the constant following of this formula:

1) Determine who is the market leader, or at least very large and strong
2) Declare them DEAD. EXTINCT. HISTORY.
3) ???
4) Profit!

How exactly is ComCast supposed to die? Everyone gets rabid about their service, and goes... where? FIOS is only in a tiny percentage of Verizon's US installed base. If you're not in a major metro area, you may never get it.

Cable has solved the last mile problem. DSL is pretty much everywhere, too, because POTS laid the last mile as well. Alternatives? Municipal wireless? Seems to be dying rapidly. Satellite? Very slow.

OK, that's enough. Back to the blind, knee-jerk, ill-fated shrieking of doom already in progress... ("Microsoft? DEAD. MPAA? EXTINCT. RIAA? DINOSAUR. Proprietary software? HISTORY.")

Re:Why censorship?

[TomHandy]

Where do people get the idea that censorship is the sole domain of government? A business/school/church/organization/publication/etc. are all capable of censorship. I've never understood this idea where people come and say "it isn't the government doing it, so it can't be censorship".

Re:Why censorship?

[stonecypher]

Where do people get the idea that censorship is the sole domain of government? A business/school/church/organization/publication/etc. are all capable of censorship.

No, they aren't. Censorship doesn't mean "we choose not to run your piece." Censorship means "you may not run your piece anywhere." No business, church, school, organization or publication can prevent me from publishing my work; all they can do is decline their own involvement. The word comes from the latin "censura" meaning judgement, and became attached to the judgement of morals and ethics in 1592. The role of censura in Roman government was to evaluate whether or not a piece may be distributed: a publisher would go to the censura, and ask whether they may disseminate the author's work, after they'd decided that they wanted to. This was one of the mechanisms of suppressing anti-governmental or anti-praetorian text, and was frequently the means by which revolutions were crushed.

Of course, given that you're insisting that something you believe is true, ignorant of reference work, I'm willing to bet you're a descriptivist, and that you have no idea what descriptivism is. Giant shock: the language doesn't change just because you're no good at it. You can, in fact, be wrong; just because a group of people misuses a word doesn't mean its meaning has changed.

If what you said about censorship was true, then American censorship law would make no sense whatsoever. How could the government say that censorship would never, ever happen in this country, if any random company could censor?

Where do people get the idea that censorship is the sole domain of government?

From having a familiarity with a word borne of literature, legal context, or just knowing what they're talking about. Where do you get the idea otherwise? Your buddy Stan?

Re:Comcast CEO sees 160Mbps internet in 2008

[The Analog Kid]

The speeds great and all, but if they cap you for actually using it, what good is it?

Why I can't stand Comcast.

[Gothic_Walrus]

Right now, I'm stuck with Comcast - I live in a college-run apartment building, and that's the only option they offer. Unless I find somewhere else to live next year, I'm stuck with Comcast for at least another year and a half.

But after that, I'm jumping ship as soon as I can, and never returning as long as I've got the choice.

I'm sick of having my internet go down without warning, with no indication as to how long it'll be before I can get back online to finish my homework.

I'm sick of Comcast taking channels for no reason - CSPAN2 and one of the leased access channels vanished a week ago, and the four city-run info channels are about to become digital-only at the end of the year I can't say I ever watched those channels for more than thirty seconds at a time, in passing, but they do have their uses and I know that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Comcast is replacing them with new content - over the past year or so, I don't think we've gotten a single new channel, but others keep vanishing, one or two at a time.

I'm sick of the fact that, in a Big Ten college town with one of the nation's most successful and popular football teams, Comcast is not only refusing to carry the Big Ten Network (the only cable or satellite company here that doesn't - but is running a smear ad campaign against them. I'm sorry, but it's hard to sympathize with your cost argument doesn't hold much water when you make over five hundred million dollars in profit [msn.com]. And no, carrying ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2 doesn't count as a response for showing football games - it counts as a basic cable package.

I'm even sick of their advertising. Nine times out of ten, the Comcast ads are so painfully bad that I'll actually stop what I'll doing so I don't have to sit through them. Whether it's the smiling, emotionless Botoxed spokeslady, the "Just Ask Zak" ads where a kid breaks into people's homes to tell them how much better Comcast could make their lives, the previously mentioned Big Ten network attack ads, or the new musical style ads about their phone service (which are so awful that I haven't been able to sit through one of them once), the ads are almost reason enough to jump ship in and of themselves.

We haven't gotten to a point yet where buying shows on demand from iTunes or where watching things online legally is quite a viable option - iTunes is still missing a lot of content I'd like to see and is too expensive to allow for following multiple programs, and the network-run streaming sites have some quality issues. Since other alternatives arenn't available, I'll just have to live with Comcast for now - I need high-speed internet for my engineering classes. But between the service issues and the fact that they seem to go out of their way to make me dislike them even more than I do now, I can't wait until the day when I can finally make sure that Comcast never sees a dime of my money again.

One HUGE Difference

[acvh]

is that cable internet access, if available in a community, is available to everyone. Verizon is cherrypicking neighborhoods to maximize penetration.

I would love to subscribe to FIOS. I was the first on my block to get cable internet from comcast 11 years ago. I was the first to switch to DSL with verizon when it became available (mostly for service issues. while my DSL connection has never gone down, cable routinely failed). Yet from the way things look my little neighborhood isn't going to see FIOS for a long time.

cable won't die. there is an advantage for them in that to win the franchises way back when they had to provide availability to everyone. verizon is building a demographically tiered system, for good or ill.

Verizon:Comcast::Eurasia:Eastasia

[internic]

I wouldn't be so eager to welcome your new corporate overlords. Verizon's business model is based on overselling bandwidth just like Comcast (look at the price vs. bandwidth and that's obvious), and in the end that means they're still not willing to really let you use as much as they say they're selling you. If you look in the TOS [verizon.net] for that residential FIOS connection you might be eying you'll find that you're not allowed to operate a "server", or use too much bandwidth, which is, of course, never defined. To wit:

The Service may be referred to as, "Verizon Fios Internet Service", "DSL Service", "Verizon Online DSL, "Verizon DSL"...

3.7.5 You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server whether personal or commercial in nature...

ATTACHMENT A

ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

...

3. You may NOT use the Service as follows: ... (n) to generate excessive amounts (as determined by Verizon in its sole discretion) of Internet traffic, or to disrupt net user groups or email use by others; ...

[emphasis mine]

Further, consider that P2P software could be considered a server, which would include the bittorrent client you use to download the latest Linux distro or the Skype software you use to make VIOP calls (something Verizon has reason not to like too much).

My point is simply that if you dislike Comcast because of its unstated caps, traffic shaping, QoS stuff etc. I don't see any reason to think Verizon will be any better in the long term. As for customer service, I've had Verizon as a phone provider and found the customer service poor. Perhaps their better as an ISP, but stories I've heard from others suggest that's not the case.

I've personally been using Speakeasy [speakeasy.net] for years. They seem to be much more honest in their dealings, allow you to run a server, and don't (apparently) block or degrade certain protocols, although their TOS still contain some "excessive usage" weasel words IIRC. The only problem is that it's DSL (and not even cheap DSL), so the bandwidth to price ratio isn't nearly what you'd get from Cable or FIOS. On the other hand, I can't stomach the idea of rewarding those other companies' practices.

Re:Where is FIOS?

[Seumas]

The slashdot submission suggests that Comcast and possibly other cable services are going to become sloth-like old giants that nobody uses anymore, because of supposedly poor customer service, slow speeds, mucking with applications and protocols and iffy-secret-limitations.

The point is -- NONE OF THAT MATTERS. For the same reason people are going to pay five, six or ten dollars a gallon for gas (because they need gas and there's only one source of it), people will continue using Comcast and other cable providers, no matter how terrible the service might be. Why? Because they have no other choice. Unless you're in Tampa or a couple other select areas around the country, you have precisely two options for broadband: Fast-ish comcast (if it's available -- it's not always available in all parts of a zip code) or slower DSL (if it's available - and chances are unless you live just down the street from the CO, it isn't).

The entire problem with monopolies is that there is no competition, so performance and custome service are moot points.

Re:I hate Comcast

[$pace6host]

We had Comcast for years, and they took advantage of their monopoly in this area, raised rates to ridiculous levels, offered poor signal quality, and were slow in improving the infrastructure. My favorite Comcastic tactic is charging your existing customers twice what you charge your new customers -- unless the existing customers threaten to leave. Then they can find it in their hearts to offer an existing customer that price, too. Guess most of their customers don't notice there are two prices. We ended up on DSL instead of cable modem because it took them so long to offer broadband in the area. Now, I won't say Verizon is saintly, at all, but the customer service has been at least equivalent, the picture quality is incredible, we have tons more channels, and we're paying about the same as we used to pay before (for DSL from Vz + analog cable from Comcast). Comcast needs to wake up and smell the competition. We need them to stay around to serve the same purpose to Verizon when Verizon turns around and screws us in a few years. Oh, don't worry, they will. Let's hope the Comcastasaurus can adapt.

Re:Unlikely

[Seumas]

Or, at least, bandwidth will be competition-based . . . . as soon as tax-payer supported monopoly grants are done away with so there can be some competition . . . on which to have a company and sector be . . . uh . . . competition-based. :)

Verizon FUD Much?

[Crispin Cowan]

This reads like spam from Verizon attacking a competitor with FUD. Guess what; I've had horrible customer service from Verizon:

1. I sign up for a broadband account.
2. They screw up the billing address, so the bills go to /dev/null instead of me.
3. When they don't get paid, they phone me and tell me that they need payment.
4. I pay them.
5. After I have paid them, they cut off my connection.
6. Then they charge me a reconnection fee.

So they screwed me twice for their mistake. I even took it to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, and they still demanded that I pay their reconnection fee :-(

I am still on Verizon at that location because there is no alternative. As soon as there is an alternative, I am switching away from Verizon as fast as I can, to anyone, at any price, for any level of service. I will never use Verizon again for anything.

Meanwhile, at another location, I am using Comcast for broadband connectivity, and have had no issues with their customer service. I have even had some technical issues with them, and they have actually been kind-of helpful. The only thing I don't like about their service is blocking inbound port 25 because I like to run my own mail server, but I understand them wanting to reduce rampant spam relays.

So I think this whole story is just a bunch of Verizon-sponsored astro-turfing, trying to FUD against Comcast.

Article Contains a Faulty Premise

[SquierStrat]

This article's conclusion of FiOS dominance over Comcast's product is based on the theory that FiOS is available to most
Comcast customers. It isn't. While FiOS may be a superior product (for now) it doesn't matter much when few people have access to the product. In fact, much of the current Verizon user base is made up of people who don't have access to DSL or cable modems at all. Where they do compete with cable modems, they may compete with Time Warner, Comcast or insert-company-name-here cable company. Further more they are also in the DSL business. They'll even provide dry DSL to me here in Atlanta (more than once name the most wired city/metro-area in the U.S.) yet I can't get FiOS. The quality I've gotten from Comcast has been topnotch. The only problem I have with them, I can say of every utility company I've ever worked with: they are a pain in the ass to get out here on the very rare occasion that I need them. And I've only needed them once for repairs and really it amounted to an oversight where the previous owner of the house had their account at the house disconnected issueing a disconnect order where as we had already set up our account on the house.

Sorry, until I can actually use Verizon's product, I won't call Comcast or any other company a dinosaur. It just doesn't make sense.

Why all the Comcast hate?

[fzammett]

I have Comcast, have had them for some time. As a matter of fact, I've had ONLY cable internet and basic cable for a couple of years, I'm not one of the people that gets everything through them, so I would assume I don't rate as highly as others do to them.

I've got *plenty* of speed. I've had a *total* of maybe four hours of down time over the last year or more. I've had to deal with customer service four or five times in that timeframe and each time I received good service. To summarize: I'm quite happy.

Now, it's not perfect: I've never been able to run a web server (can't access it from anywhere but my house), and the Bittorent thing lately bugs me (although I'm an infrequent BT user, usually just to grab The IT Crowd episodes or the odd Linux distro), so that doesn't affect me a whole lot. The price could be a little better, but it's not awful. And while the speed is good, it could always be better (to be fair though, I've seen significant increases in speed over the past two years at no extra cost to me, both up and down speeds). And those hidden caps, while I've never been affected (and I have often downloaded what anyone would consider a lot some months) bug me that they even exist (that's probably my only big complaint with Comcast: just tell me what the magic number is, even though "unlimited" should mean *unlimited*, at least if you make the number public I can live with it, assuming it's high enough).

I don't know, I'm certainly what most would consider a power user, and I have no major complaints. By contrast, Verizon are a bunch of bitches AFAIC... they're selling something that is borderline bogus anyway (so what if I have fiber to my house... what difference does that make when I'm hitting bottlenecks after I get past their gateway anyway?), they make a mess of neighborhoods (have you actually seen the aftermath of a Verizon fiber run? *NOT* pretty) I just don't know what all the Comcast hate is all about. They may not be Mother Teresa, maybe not be perfection incarnate, but what's the big problem exactly, and where's the *clearly* better alternative?

Re:Talk about choosing between two evils.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is typical /. flame bait. Comcast is dead like MS is dead. Comcast could lose literally a million customers and still keep going for the foreseeable future. Fiber based service has a long way to go before it offers real competition to cable based services and that can determined simply by looking at the reaction Comcast is making. When they start to feel the pinch enough to lower their prices, then talk to me about their vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile, people 2 miles down the road from me have had FiOS for over a year and the size of the service area hasn't expanded one jot. They had one push when this first group came online where they basically hooked up the neighborhods that are right next to the county's central fiber trunk and then nada. So Verizon has a lot of work to do yet.

Re:You'll share a pipe somewhere

[BosstonesOwn]

Fios users are seeing 20/20 speeds now , you might not have noticed it in the past couple weeks but they are becoming a symmetrical provider.

Fios is looking at the future , and gig connections may well become the norm once places like youtube start serving hd content. Verizon has this nailed , they are planning on rolling out a service that will need minimal upgrades for the next 50 years , Comcast isn't.

I have comcast and they are plagued by they just dont care and take customers for granted , i have 0 options besides them because of trees and distance from the co. once Fios is here im gone.

Unlikely and other confusions

[Daveberstein]

Dave Burstein here, not anonymous coward.

Lots wrong with Comcast, but their Internet service will generally be as fast as any of the telcos except Verizon. Most of the U.S. has a slow future.

Comcast's DOCSIS 3.0 in 2008 probably will offer 20-50 megabits downstream and no improvement on the upstream. It's a 120 or 160 megabit shared downstream. This is already deploying heavily in Japan, J:COM, some in Canada (Videotron), UK, France, and Holland. The only chips shipping (TI) are limited to 120 or 160 shared downstream and do nothing for the upstream. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts announced they will offer it to 4 or 5M of their 22M homes. The assumption is Comcast will use it defensively against FIOS and take a long time (years) to bring it to the rest of the country. Other U.S. cablecos seem even further behind.

        The full 3.0 is not available for a while (more likely 2009 than 2008 for any volume). Full 3.0 is a minimum of 160 (shared) downstream and 120 (shared) upstream. Given typical usage patterns, most customers will get 20-50 megabits most of the time. The specification goes up to a shared gigabit, but I don't believe anyone is close to offering that as a product.

        FIOS (or DSL) does not share the local loop, so there's no bottleneck between your home and the ONU (DSLAM) control box. Behind the ONU is shared fiber to the local office and from there to the Internet peering point. It is absolutely possible for that shared connection to become congested, and it was a common problem in poorly designed DSL networks. FIOS backhaul has been built pretty robustly, so as far as I can tell they have close to zero congestion problems, and customers almost always get their promised speed if the other side of the Internet connection can keep up.

        Unfortunately, FIOS is currently only available to about 8 million homes, and Verizon has indicated they will top out at 20M or so in 5 years. The remaining 85M U.S. homes will have a second rate Internet unless and until the high end of DOCSIS 3.0 rolls out widely. (?2012-2015). AT&T and Qwest are planning for 1 meg up and 20 or so down, with most of the downstream used for their IPTV. They call it "Fiber to the node" but it's really DSL with a press release.

        Conclusion: 60-80% of the U.S, will have a second rate Internet for years. I'd love for an uprising that tells Kevin Martin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Randall Stephenson and the pthers powers that be the U.S. Internet should match world standards. Houston and San Diego should not have slower connections than Paris, Berlin, Geneva, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Boston and New York.

Dave Burstein Editor DSL Prime.