posted by
janrinok
on Thursday November 06 2014, @09:29PM
from the just-because-you-ve-paid-doesn't-mean-you-can-have-it dept.
from the just-because-you-ve-paid-doesn't-mean-you-can-have-it dept.
Ars Technica brings us - One man’s failed quest to buy wired Internet from TWC or Verizon. TWC got $10M in state broadband grants but won't extend service just anywhere.
Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) lines are a third of a mile from Walser’s house, and the company has received more than $10 million in state funding to bring broadband to underserved portions of New York over the past two years. But the company (which will be purchased by Comcast if the government approves the merger) told Walser they won’t do the construction unless he pays more than $20,000. That’s just to reimburse TWC for its troubles—the monthly access bill would be on top of that.
I guess I have a simple solution: Stop feeding the abusive providers.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
One Man’s Failed Quest to Buy Wired Internet from TWC or Verizon
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday November 06 2014, @09:41PM
Well, if customers stop giving them money, they will simply take it from us via taxes and subsidies.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Thursday November 06 2014, @09:46PM
Sometimes I think the name Internet Service Provider is an oxymoron. You move a mile or so out of town and *Poof* you are magically cut off from any way to get wired internet. Unless you think Dial-Up is "Internet". At least you can still get Satellite, which is only effected by rain, clouds, air pollution, sun spots, and whether or not you remember to hold your tongue to the left. Oh, my bad that's the 3G/4G internet that I am getting... 20GB for only $99.99.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday November 07 2014, @12:18AM
Mostly true but I got so lucky when I moved a little out of town and out from under the thumb of comcast. My new cable internet provider (I don't get cable itself) is a regional provider to rural areas in several states. My internet is faster in general, netflix is way faster, and the price is about 2/3 of what I paid comcast. This isn't the norm though I know, just my excellent luck.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday November 07 2014, @05:28PM
Yeah, I think I just have extraordinarily bad luck. The previous place I lived couldn't get wired internet and I was there for years. Then magically, pretty much a month or so after I left, they get DSL. Not the best by any stretch of the imagination, but insanely better than what I am stuck with, again.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @10:39PM
I'm surprised they haven't made a decision to either approve or deny the merger yet. Are they waiting for a more convenient time when no one is looking to approve it or when their approval ratings are hopefully better after receiving some good PR for temporarily providing customers with better services and prices or what (given all the missteps and resulting continued flow of bad press they're receiving a good time doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. Here you have TWC trying to monopolize the Dodgers and overcharge for and restrict access, lowering public opinion of them, all the while trying to wait for a merger. Doesn't seem like they're trying very hard to convince the public that this merger is a good thing)? Or perhaps they have been waiting until sometime after the elections when popular opinion won't matter as much and government can freely make more undemocratic decisions without worrying about what the public thinks? Typical of government, to hold decisions off until after elections so they can go back to making bad decisions without worrying about a change in votes.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 06 2014, @10:59PM
If the dems listened to their base, they would reject it.
Therefore, they are waiting for the Republicans to offer some substantial legislative win to the administration, in exchange for the approval.
Something that huge doesn't happen in a vacuum.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday November 06 2014, @10:57PM
How about we also stop the providers from feeding our representatives?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @01:21AM
Nah, I mean we should stop allowing the fat cats to purchase food.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 06 2014, @11:02PM
For half of the $20k, I'll run a fiber to his neighbor's dougehouse's mailbox which happens to be in the coverage area. I'll even throw in a waterproof cover and a UPS.
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Friday November 07 2014, @02:00AM
Yup, trenching in your own fiber is the way to go. Hell you can string it on fencelines. You will still need a mile of armored fiber, and transceivers for both ends, and power at both ends.
The other thing is Broadband over Power Lines, but then you have to play with another franchise.
This is not an uncommon occurrence for Cable, Phones, Power, Water systems, and it is not actually abusive.
Being a mile beyond their plant is a huge expense for them. (If it were cheap the home owner would do it himself). Then there is the risk and maintenance for that extension forever.
If you have to pay for it make sure you get a late comer agreement from them. (You can usually force them into this by law in most states). That way anyone connecting to the plant they put in for you will be charged a service connection fee that goes directly back into your pocket.
His own fiber might be the best route.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 07 2014, @02:06AM
*doghouse (how on earth did that typo happen?)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Wrong Turn Ahead on Thursday November 06 2014, @11:23PM
Frontier wanted just over $22k to extend FIOS an additional two (2!) telephone poles to connect our retail space. They already provided voice and DSL services to the other tenants but had not yet brought in FIOS (again, two poles up the street, nothing underground). After the negotiations fell through, we learned that the Frontier sales rep had pre-sold some of the other tenants FIOS at normal rates and without any last-mile charges. They were just gouging us because they could.
All the ISPs are greedy thieves and the system is corrupt. Failing to block the Comcast/TW merger would be a serious wrong turn for everyone...
(Score: 1) by black_trout on Friday November 07 2014, @12:17AM
This man chose to move into an area with no high speed internet options and failed to determine what it would cost to upgrade. While the consensus seems to be TWC is "stealing" money from the taxpayers, it appears they followed through on the contracts given to them by the state of New York:
The New York state government awarded Time Warner Cable $5.3 million in December 2012 to bring broadband to 4,114 housing units in underserved areas, and another $5.3 million in February 2014 to serve seven regions of the state. But Walser’s street isn’t covered by that program.
In addition, the cost estimate provided to Mr. Walser was for the construction of an entire node, not for a single coax line to his house.
Instead of complaining to legislators and the FCC, the proper course of action would be to gauge interest in such a service with other residents of Pompey and split the cost. Who knows, with a large enough consensus, they might even convince the city to fund the project with tax dollars...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Leebert on Friday November 07 2014, @03:31AM
What is your opinion of the New Deal's Rural Electrification Project?
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday November 07 2014, @04:03AM
I think it probably cost more than $10m when adjusted for inflation.
I like infrastructure, but infrastructure has to be funded, either by putting down public money or already having sufficient private customers lined up.
Going off on a tangent a bit: does fiber have a comparable expected lifetime to other public infrastructure investments (roads, water, etc.), both in terms of mean time between failures and expected time before obsolescence of transmission technologies?
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by hopp on Friday November 07 2014, @08:35AM
Yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @06:10PM
I would say fiber is far cheaper to install than things like plumbing and water supplies (where you have the sanitation issues and the danger of pipes breaking and flooding streets and so very high safety standards must be met with water and things like sewage. Water must go through a very expensive treatment process to be potable). Yet water (though water maybe subsidized by some communities, especially due to droughts), gas (another potential hazard that must require high safety standards), plumbing (well, plumbing is not directly paid for by usage), and electricity combined are cheaper than broadband or cable access (depending on where you live).
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 07 2014, @09:39AM
Public investment in infrastructure has to be considered as an investment in the economy. Running electricity and broadband out to rural areas is done so that they can participate more actively in a modern economy (both as producers and consumers). In theory, the government should get more back from increased tax revenue due to the increased GDP than they spend in the infrastructure (although this may take quite a few years).
The real problem is often how the money is invested. For broadband, the best way of doing it would be to require all new constructions to have a conduit containing fibre that new fibre can be pulled through and for the government to subsidise old properties installing fibre to an exchange. ISPs could then lease the fibre to provide connectivity. The current approach is akin to doing the interstate highway system by subsidising private companies to build toll roads and requiring that they run the roads right up to people's houses.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @06:04PM
"This man chose to move into an area with no high speed internet options and failed to determine what it would cost to upgrade."
The shills often try to argue that one of the reasons it's OK for the government to grant things like mailbox delivery monopolies and for local governments to restrict broadband competition is because, in return, the access providers are required to provide access to under-served areas within a community that the competition may not wish to provide access to. This would seem to undermine such claims. It seems like the agreements to restrict competition in return for 'wider access' only require access to areas that broadband providers would have provided access to already due to profitability.
"But Walser’s street isn’t covered by that program."
Exactly, since politicians are bought and paid for the only streets covered by these programs are streets that are already profitable to broadband providers. IOW, the agreements are meaningless, they only require what the broadband providers would do anyways and taxpayers pay for it. No one is arguing that this is 'stealing' because they broke their end of the deal, if anyone is arguing that it's stealing it's because the deal itself is one sided in favor of broadband providers and both broadband providers and bought politicians are stealing from the public by having the public give broadband providers all this money in exchange for poor service and very limited access.
"Instead of complaining to legislators and the FCC, the proper course of action would be to gauge interest in such a service with other residents of Pompey and split the cost."
Or they could start their own community broadband service. Oh wait, if they did that incumbent providers will do their best to lobby against such efforts and stop them as they have done in the past.
A lack of competition due to corruption is why the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to broadband access. We pay more than many other countries for much worse broadband. and instead of hiring shills to go on blogs and try and defend them broadband providers should be working on providing a better service for a more reasonable price.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday November 07 2014, @09:15AM
Many years ago he contacted TWC about getting cable TV. They wanted thousands of dollars to extend their line a half-mile up the road, so he passed. Fast forward to 2010, by now several new houses have gone up on what used to be hay fields, but still no cable. So my uncle thinks maybe he can talk to his neighbors and they can work something out together to get cable on their road. TWC wouldn't return his phonecalls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @07:35PM
Waste their time while they figure out no... i can't actually get cable because the cable stops 1 mile away.
eventually they installed cable to make me go away.
final joke was on me tho. i got comcast.