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This discussion has been archived.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, @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 ...

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

    Total Score:   2