Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday June 05, @01:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the business-as-usual dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/charter-charges-more-money-for-slower-internet-on-streets-with-no-competition/

It's no surprise that cable companies charge lower prices for broadband when they face competition from fiber-to-the-home services. But an article yesterday by Stop the Cap provides a good example of how dramatically promotional prices for Charter's Spectrum Internet service can vary from one street to the next.

In this example, Charter charges $20 more per month for slower speeds on the street where it faces no serious competition. When customers in two areas purchase the same speeds, the customer on the street without competition could have to pay $40 more per month and would have their promotional rates expire after only one year instead of two.

Stop the Cap said it examined promotional offers to new customers in the metro Rochester, New York, market, "where Spectrum faces token competition from Frontier's slow speed DSL service" and more robust competition in limited areas from Greenlight Networks' fiber service. Greenlight fiber is available in 23 percent of Rochester, while Charter cable is available to homes throughout the city, according to BroadbandNow. Greenlight prices start at $50 per month for 500Mbps.

"Charter's offers are address-sensitive," Stop the Cap founder Phillip Dampier wrote. "The cable company knows its competition and almost exactly where those competitors offer service. That is why the company asks for your service address before it quotes you pricing."

Am I the only one that's appalled at the Upload speeds? From the linked BroadbandNow page for Spectrum: Speeds up to:1,000 Mbps Download, 35 Mbps Upload

Previously:
Charter Must Pay $19 Million for Tricking Customers Into Switching ISPs


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @02:05PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @02:05PM (#1142038)

    Even with AT&T fibre 1Gb Symmetric in the area (though cannot actual use it - sub station is only 1Gb Symmetric - neighborhood all share). My cable is 100Mb and 10Mb for the same price.

    When I ordered cable modem, I asked for the fastest UPLOAD speed with the slowest download speed. That froze the sales person in their tracks.
    Them: What you do not want 1GB. speed?
    Me: Not unless the upload speed is faster the 10Mb. I need back haul performance for backups. The other is just a waste.
    Them: you know with 6 devices that uses a lot of bandwidth...
    Me: No it does not. My 56 devices only use 5Mb download speed with spike usage up to 25Mb. Why do I need 40x over providing? I have over 2 years of usage data that shows that. What I need is feed BackBlaze with backup data.
    Them: Let me fine the find print of the all the plans to see the upload speeds.
    Me: Thank you.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 05, @02:26PM (5 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 05, @02:26PM (#1142040) Homepage Journal

    I think there is a vested interest in ensuring that you do not run a server from your home. Back in the days of dial up, my provider stipulated that I must not run a server accessible from the internet. The first DSL contract had a similar stipulation. The DSL provider gives me a home page, on their servers, from which I might serve up some smalltime blogging or whatnot. You get so much bandwidth per month for free, then you have to sign a contract for additional bandwidth. (I really don't remember what that bandwidth is/was.) Symmetrical 100/100 bandwidth would put a stop to that sort of agreement. Why pay for them to host a site, if you can host it on your own hardware?

    Of course, "The Cloud" has probably destroyed whatever income they were getting out of that.

    --
    Let's go Brandon!
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @03:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @03:48PM (#1142061)

      now i don't know what OS you where running at the time but for most, this:
      "Back in the days of dial up, my provider stipulated that I must not run a server accessible from the internet" was "a good thing", considering that m$ stab at a webserver crashed (or worse) when encountering a URL that was longer then 256 characters ... ofc many many other such "bugs" followed, even into the ISDN and ADSL times.
      so maybe this wasn't about any nefarious plot but more to protect the customer, since they (isp) probably knew that being pawnd was only one click away.
      tho it's funny we don't see any such "concerns" with all them IOT devices coming on-line nowadays; which are kindda a step-up (in a bad sense) from IIS ...

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @07:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @07:44PM (#1142131)

      1) Define a "server"
      2) Define a "client"

      There is no damn difference. No matter how hard you try.

      Now T-Mobile has cute wireless plan at $60/mo "unlimited". Except they claim that "automated connections" can not be used and will throttle you if you do.

      All connections are automated! Are you reaching in and tight the pipe to google or bing or ... What about all the stealing in "telemetry" information? More automated connections. What about automated connections to tracking sites / ad sites. You actually asked for that?

      Yeah, but the BackBlaze backup that is automated and theat is what they want to kill.

      Marketing... just a bunch of liars... Just like the Robotcalls.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday June 05, @09:54PM (2 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 05, @09:54PM (#1142160) Journal

      I used to run a web server on my home internet, but that was mysteriously blocked at some point several years back. Time Warner/Specturm played dumb, said they hadn't done anything, hadn't made any changes.

      However, shutting down the web server port, or whatever they did to mess it up, probably worked out best for me, as I was also collecting piracy accusations. Wouldn't do for the MAFIAA to point a web browser at the IP address on which they believe piracy occurred, and find my web server blabbing my real name to all visitors. If the MAFIAA tried to shake me down, under threat of a lawsuit, and I refused to blink and the matter actually went to court, I feel very unsure that I'd win regardless of any evidence or actual guilt. For me to win, the judges would have to legislate from the bench. And so, the court system is not, I think, the best place to have that fight. The legislature is better, but also not a good place to engage in that battle. Too corrupt and too backwards. Lawmaking has a long history of trailing way behind change. De facto usually comes before de jure.

      But back to the subject of the article. Yes, yes, more evidence that monopolies gouge. Maybe, enough such carefully documented studies and evidence will finally do undo monopolists and their bs arguments what video recording has done to cops with their denials of racism and other abuses of power.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, @12:44AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, @12:44AM (#1142202)

        You put your really-for-real-name on your computer? I am far from the most paranoid person on the intarwebz, but my computer doesn't know my name, my address, my age.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday June 06, @01:46AM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 06, @01:46AM (#1142219) Journal

          Real name? Yes, used to, but no longer. Haven't used my real name for my user name in 20 years. Any place where my real name is, I keep fairly bland. Facebook, for instance. Don't want some fanatic nut job unhappy with my political or religious views finding out where I live and showing up on my doorstep with a shotgun in hand. Though if that is a problem, it must be exceedingly rare.