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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 05, @05:23PM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 05, @05:23PM (#1142080) Homepage Journal

    So - you're saying that we should have the queer community make our laws instead?

    --
    alles in Ordnung
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @06:26PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @06:26PM (#1142104)
    Your reading comprehension is terrible.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 05, @06:36PM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 05, @06:36PM (#1142112) Homepage Journal

      I asked a legitimate question. GP pointed out that gender benders wouldn't like laws based on the Old Testament. And, I'm wondering why we care what they like. Billionaires don't like laws that restrict their ability to exploit the lower classes, and we don't spend a lot of time worrying about them. Need I point out other groups who don't like the laws that restrict their ways of life?

      --
      alles in Ordnung
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @06:58PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @06:58PM (#1142120)

        It was not a legitimate question, and for a freedom loving type of person it should be obvious why religious wackos should not be making laws that govern others. Your comparison to billionaires really highlights your ignorance. Run away hillbilly, this conversation is above your pay grade.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, @03:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, @03:00AM (#1142608)

          It's not obvious to me, as a freedom-loving person, why anyone should be governing anyone else rather than minding their own damn business.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @07:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, @07:37PM (#1142127)

        (FYI, I'm the GP poster to whom you directed your question.)

        So - you're saying that we should have the queer community make our laws instead?

        As another poster pointed out, your reading comprehension is terrible.

        I was just pointing out that some (many? most?) people would not want our society run (solely) in accordance with the Bible (as an earlier post suggested, probably sarcastically). Most of our laws and rules are based on the Bible (murder is wrong, etc.), but we ignore much of it (adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned).

        The only reason homosexuality is being discussed in this story's comments is because you decided, without any evidence at all, that this was probably being done for homophobic reasons. Just like you decided, without any evidence at all, that it was being done for racist reasons. And, just like you decided that, when someone told you it probably wasn't illegal, that it should be illegal, just because you want it to be.

        You're a lunatic.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, @05:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, @05:34AM (#1142267)

        It's a sad state of affairs when a man is so lost he needs the very basics explained to him. You're like the woman who was kept in a basement as some retard's sex gimp for the first 20 years of her life. But even she finally realized it was shit and escaped.