WA State: Comcast was “even more deceptive” than we thought - Polidicks

[quote=Ars Technica] The lawsuit, which was initially submitted in August 2016, alleged that hundreds of thousands of Washington residents were "deceived" into paying "at least $73 million in subscription fees over the last five years for a near-worthless ‘protection plan.’" According to the amended complaint, which was filed in King County Superior Court on Thursday, newly obtained recorded calls between Comcast and its Washington customers who subscribed to its "Service Protection Plan" show "that Comcast may have signed up more than half of all SPP subscribers without their consent. Comcast deceived consumers even when mentioning the SPP, telling them the SPP plan was ‘free’ when they signed up, when in fact, Comcast would automatically charge them every month after the first month." In a statement, Attorney General Bob Ferguson called this new evidence "even more egregious than we first realized." "The extent of their deception is shocking, and I will hold them accountable for their treatment of Washington consumers," he continued. [/quote] [URL="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/washington-state-comcast-was-even-more-deceptive-than-we-thought/"]Source[/URL] Huh, would you look at that.

Send the executives to prison. Period. This is outright thievery. There's no cute little caveat to this, they are literally lying to their customers' faces and stealing their money. Make an example out of them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Isn't this just straight up fraud? How would they even go around for charging people for this?

[QUOTE=tigerman4111;53007886]Isn't this just straight up fraud? How would they even go around for charging people for this?[/QUOTE] It's "not fraud" because Ajit Pai and the people who control his dildos will scream about it until their corruption seeps in deep enough to make it legal. By 2022 maybe Comcast will just occasionally siphon your whole bank account. It's your turn to help pay the corporate tithe, be greatfull peasant.

[QUOTE=mcharest;53007884]Send the executives to prison. Period. This is outright thievery. There's no cute little caveat to this, they are literally lying to their customers' faces and stealing their money. Make an example out of them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.[/QUOTE] Hah, you think Executives are ever meaningfully punished in the US.

[QUOTE=mcharest;53007884]Send the executives to prison. Period. This is outright thievery. There's no cute little caveat to this, they are literally lying to their customers' faces and stealing their money. Make an example out of them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.[/QUOTE] And to think there are advocates that trust corporations to do the right thing when it comes to their customers/employees. Also, where's the link to the source?

Is there a source link? I can't see it here or on Ars' website. Or is it an older story? I remember not too long ago WA was upset with some shit they were pulling.

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;53007982]Is there a source link? I can't see it here or on Ars' website. Or is it an older story? I remember not too long ago WA was upset with some shit they were pulling.[/QUOTE] Best I could find from five days ago [URL="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/washington-state-comcast-was-even-more-deceptive-than-we-thought/"]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/washington-state-comcast-was-even-more-deceptive-than-we-thought/[/URL]

Don't forget that tax we were paying for Fiber Optic or whatever, something like that but we never got anything. [url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html[/url]

what's going to happen is that comcast is going to offer up a few dozen of their minimum wage salespeople as sacrifices to the legal system and they'll take all the fall instead of any of their precious executives/shareholders.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53007906]It's "not fraud" because Ajit Pai and the people who control his dildos will scream about it until their corruption seeps in deep enough to make it legal. By 2022 maybe Comcast will just occasionally siphon your whole bank account. It's your turn to help pay the corporate tithe, be greatfull peasant.[/QUOTE] [quote=literally the OP]August 2016[/quote] [quote=also literally the OP]Comcast[/quote] I get that Pai is a jackass, but can you direct your anger in the correct direction? The lawsuit was filed while Obama and Wheeler were still in control, and the injustice in question started... [quote=literally in the OP holy shit[/quote]over the last five years[/quote] ISPs are in general pretty shitty, no matter who is in control.

Now see this is exactly why we had things like the FCC and the CFPB but because some republicans believe that the world would be a better place if this behavior was legal we no longer have those two functioning as a bulwark against this shit [editline]27th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cock Boner;53008066]I get that Pai is a jackass, but can you direct your anger in the correct direction? The lawsuit was filed while Obama and Wheeler were still in control, and the injustice in question started... over the last five years ISPs are in general pretty shitty, no matter who is in control [/quote] Lawsuits take time, wheeler was working against these deceptive things and even was trying to regulate cable boxes to allow people to buy their own to prevent this monopoly and outright extortion for service, but pai tore those regs up day one and has gone down a different road

and yet morons will still say net neutrality is unimportant just because there werent rules for it before 2015. im aware that this isnt really related to that and would have happened either way, but this just goes to show that for every step forward we take to regulate these companies, they will just find new methods of sucking more money out of customers

If the ISPs lied to customers about the price, then they ought to pay a strong penalty. [editline]26th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;53008095]and yet morons will still say net neutrality is unimportant just because there werent rules for it before 2015.[/QUOTE] Can you clarify how this has anything to do with net neutrality?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53008097]If they ISPs lied to customers about the price, then they ought to pay a strong penalty. [editline]26th December 2017[/editline] Can you clarify how this has anything to do with net neutrality?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] im aware that this isnt really related to that and would have happened either way, but this just goes to show that for every step forward we take to regulate these companies, they will just find new methods of sucking more money out of customers [/QUOTE] i was editing my post while you were replying

Ah fuck. I forgot the source link before I went to bed. [editline]27th December 2017[/editline] Fixed it! Apologize!

These kinda things are astounding to me. In Denmark, even a rumour such as this would see people fired and quitting in an attempt to avoid the inevitable backlash, fines being thrown left and right, and possible prison sentences. But honestly, when it comes to America, I have little faith this will go anywhere.

We are a hot bed of systematic and embedded corruption so I don't foresee any criminal charges being brought up on this

ISPs are shitty because they can get away with it. If there were more than 1 option in 75% of the US and they had to compete against each other, you bet your ass we'd all be on Gigabit connections right now and paying about the same or less They all need to be split the fuck up, or their non compete agreements need to be legally nulled in some way since they're being used for very anti-consumer practices The problem is, businesses rely on providing the best service to customers in order to survive, whereas ISP's do not. When you don't have to worry about the happiness of your customers, you can fuck them up the ass deeper and deeper and deeper and it doesn't matter. And with something as important as the internet is today, something has to be done about this

[QUOTE=TheTalon;53008475]ISPs are shitty because they can get away with it. If there were more than 1 option in 75% of the US and they had to compete against each other, you bet your ass we'd all be on Gigabit connections right now and paying about the same or less They all need to be split the fuck up, or their non compete agreements need to be legally nulled in some way since they're being used for very anti-consumer practices The problem is, businesses rely on providing the best service to customers in order to survive, whereas ISP's do not. When you don't have to worry about the happiness of your customers, you can fuck them up the ass deeper and deeper and deeper and it doesn't matter. And with something as important as the internet is today, something has to be done about this[/QUOTE] What needs to be done comes down to how property is allocated. It's ridiculous that contracts have to be negotiated with the city just to law down a fucking wire. Just look at the mess Google went through trying to set up their ISP in a number of cities. It also doesn't help that there are enough laws surrounding it that the ISPs just sue new competitors out of existence. Removing net neutrality was a dumb idea, but I think deregulating other aspects of ISPs would significantly help with this. Otherwise they just keep getting more and more in bed with local governments.

[QUOTE=halofreak472;53009930]What needs to be done comes down to how property is allocated. It's ridiculous that contracts have to be negotiated with the city just to law down a fucking wire. Just look at the mess Google went through trying to set up their ISP in a number of cities. It also doesn't help that there are enough laws surrounding it that the ISPs just sue new competitors out of existence. Removing net neutrality was a dumb idea, but I think deregulating other aspects of ISPs would significantly help with this. Otherwise they just keep getting more and more in bed with local governments.[/QUOTE] its not "just laying down a fucking wire", though. It can require fairly extensive quantities of work, which can disrupt traffic, cause excess noise, or inconvenience residents of an area. Also, are you sure its [I]really[/I] that much of a burden? In the span of ~2weeks CenturyLink ran fiber through my neighborhood and I got (in a day or two) fiber run to my house pretty easily too. While personal anecdotes do not an argument make, I can't find anything truly heinous in state laws or regulations here that suggest things are markedly difficult. Only real legislation I've found for WA is [URL="http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2003-04/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6598.SL.pdf?cite=2004%20c%20158%20%C2%A7%201;"]this[/URL]. Saying that further deregulation is going to help them not get in bed with local governments is like saying you solved your mouse problem by removing your house. They lobby/"get in bed with" local governments to fight back against the regulations being put in front of them, yes, but at least there's [I]some[/I] barrier for entry and exploitation. Without some kind of standards or regulation, there's nothing stopping them from doing what they did here in Seattle - or at least, there's probably not as many routes to take them to court for it. Further, the main negotiations with a city are over right-of-way access and the renting of poles from a public utilities company. These fees and costs are too high right now, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to exist to some extent - at least, their should be some burden on the ISP to provide proof that their infrastructure work won't jeopardize existing public assets. I feel like your argument here is really thin and lacks any explicit points or references to issues experienced by ISPs.

[QUOTE=paindoc;53010050]its not "just laying down a fucking wire", though. It can require fairly extensive quantities of work, which can disrupt traffic, cause excess noise, or inconvenience residents of an area. Also, are you sure its [I]really[/I] that much of a burden? In the span of ~2weeks CenturyLink ran fiber through my neighborhood and I got (in a day or two) fiber run to my house pretty easily too. While personal anecdotes do not an argument make, I can't find anything truly heinous in state laws or regulations here that suggest things are markedly difficult. Only real legislation I've found for WA is [URL="http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2003-04/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6598.SL.pdf?cite=2004%20c%20158%20%C2%A7%201;"]this[/URL]. Saying that further deregulation is going to help them not get in bed with local governments is like saying you solved your mouse problem by removing your house. They lobby/"get in bed with" local governments to fight back against the regulations being put in front of them, yes, but at least there's [I]some[/I] barrier for entry and exploitation. Without some kind of standards or regulation, there's nothing stopping them from doing what they did here in Seattle - or at least, there's probably not as many routes to take them to court for it. Further, the main negotiations with a city are over right-of-way access and the renting of poles from a public utilities company. These fees and costs are too high right now, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to exist to some extent - at least, their should be some burden on the ISP to provide proof that their infrastructure work won't jeopardize existing public assets. I feel like your argument here is really thin and lacks any explicit points or references to issues experienced by ISPs.[/QUOTE] There's obviously a cost associated with laying down the wires and that's part of any barrier to entry. The issue that usually comes up is unnecessary burdens in negotiating the work in the first place: [url]https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021712146.pdf#page=3[/url] [url]https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021693668.pdf#page=25[/url] [url]https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021693332.pdf#page=1[/url] are what I could find, a lot of the complaints were about lengthy delays in processing of requests and terms added to the contracts that were irrelevant to the viability of setting up infrastructure. I recall reading something a while back in WA regarding allocation of land to Comcast, but I'm having trouble digging it back up. Some of the more attractive cities for Google Fiber were the ones that had less hoops to jump through, and even then, they've had problems with the existing ISPs [url]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/[/url] Dealing with the utility poles is its own regulatory nightmare and I'd support any kind of legislation that addresses that issue. Otherwise, I think regulations would be unnecessary once that standard is set up and there's actual ISP competition. Should Comcast be taken to court over this particular issue? Of course, they committed fraud. The issue with setting up utilities wasn't as much of a problem in the past - one of the more competitive eras of the telecommunications industry was right after the Bell patents expired: [url]https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3246&amp=&context=lcp&amp=&sei-redir=1[/url] One of the observations at the time was that the competition was just setting up redundant infrastructure from the refusals of other companies to interconnect. I'm not sure what changed (although the paper alludes to increased regulation around 1920) but that doesn't seem to be happening anymore, and as far as I'm aware, the fundamentals of setting up wires aren't particularly different. The competition in that time period had the effect of significantly reducing costs for the businesses involved, which of course lowers the barrier to entry for new companies. Bell did end up monopolizing around the mid 20th century, but the FCC also had a long history of messing with the company so it's difficult to trace exactly what happened.

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53009979] It's because some corporations can be trusted and that is what those advocates have experience with probably... No need to generalize behavior of some corporations to all of them (which is the vibe I get from your post). I do agree though that we need net neutrality laws as to prevent these "some" to actually be able to do damage to consumers' wallets, no matter how many good corporations wouldn't abuse it.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the people who claim that there doesn't need to be any regulations on businesses because businesses can be trusted to always do the right things for their customers/employees.