3 ms·

ISPs should be punished for this. It should be a legally binding document that the ISP can hand the consumer saying "Yes, we can supply service at this address"

ISPs should be punished for this. It should be a legally binding document that the ISP can hand the consumer saying "Yes, we can supply service at this address" - under penalty of no-cost installation if it turns out they don't. Can a water or electric company do the same thing without repercussions? I guess it depends on the state/country. They probably shouldn't be able to if they can. People making six/seven figure purchasing decisions and not having the ability to verify they have _any_ service is morally repugnant to me - even without the added barb of the $210k quote for running internet. Good luck getting anything in writing from an ISP - and good luck taking them to court if you get that document in writing, they have more money than you and would likely easily win.

silisili 4y ago
The article says Comcast's public service checker correctly said 'no.' He called and claims he was told 'yes.' I have no reason to think that's untrue, but more on a checked out or unscrupulous salesperson than the company itself, whose official checker worked fine.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  I found the online checker result surprising and figured I should call to get more information. On the phone I was told that all of Summit Wood Road was able to get service, including my future address. That particular home had just never actually signed up at any point since the neighborhood was wired. No problem, a tech can get it online in a jiffy. You'll note I didn't go after Comcast in any way after that. But I didn't pay them the huge sum they belatedly demanded either. Paying 6x the going rate for 5x more linear distance of trenching than I needed was not enticing. Also their oversubscription ratio in my neighborhood turned out to be excessive and they got crushed by network throughput demand starting during the lockdowns and continuing with prolonged WFH. Comcast served me perfectly well at my previous address in Sunnyvale.
  - silisili 4y ago
    Oh cool, you're on HN. I didn't mean to give any negative vibes, just responding to the 'illegal' comment. In any event, I wholeheartedly agree and respect the hell out of what you've done. I wish my area would do the same... Comcast is now charging over 100 dollars for internet, 130ish to get rid of the super low data cap. And thats 35mb up! Now that should be illegal.
    - zbrozek 4y ago
      Our solution wasn't exactly cheap, however. It was the only good option for homes on a couple of private streets adjacent to mine, so we did it anyway. I pay $155/mo for now, getting a public static ipv4 address and symmetric 10 gbps without a cap. I'm satisfied with the result, but I absolutely wouldn't have spent so long organizing my neighborhood if I could've just signed up for cable like most people in most suburbs. And if I'm to be blunt, I regret choosing to live in the town at all. The home turned out to be far more broken than the disclosures let on and doing the remodeling work is a nightmare exercise in dealing with a local government that behaves like an HOA. But I'm trying to make the most of my bad decisions.

silisili 4y ago

The article says Comcast's public service checker correctly said 'no.' He called and claims he was told 'yes.' I have no reason to think that's untrue, but more on a checked out or unscrupulous salesperson than the company itself, whose official checker worked fine.

zbrozek 4y ago
I found the online checker result surprising and figured I should call to get more information. On the phone I was told that all of Summit Wood Road was able to get service, including my future address. That particular home had just never actually signed up at any point since the neighborhood was wired. No problem, a tech can get it online in a jiffy. You'll note I didn't go after Comcast in any way after that. But I didn't pay them the huge sum they belatedly demanded either. Paying 6x the going rate for 5x more linear distance of trenching than I needed was not enticing. Also their oversubscription ratio in my neighborhood turned out to be excessive and they got crushed by network throughput demand starting during the lockdowns and continuing with prolonged WFH. Comcast served me perfectly well at my previous address in Sunnyvale.
- silisili 4y ago
  Oh cool, you're on HN. I didn't mean to give any negative vibes, just responding to the 'illegal' comment. In any event, I wholeheartedly agree and respect the hell out of what you've done. I wish my area would do the same... Comcast is now charging over 100 dollars for internet, 130ish to get rid of the super low data cap. And thats 35mb up! Now that should be illegal.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    Our solution wasn't exactly cheap, however. It was the only good option for homes on a couple of private streets adjacent to mine, so we did it anyway. I pay $155/mo for now, getting a public static ipv4 address and symmetric 10 gbps without a cap. I'm satisfied with the result, but I absolutely wouldn't have spent so long organizing my neighborhood if I could've just signed up for cable like most people in most suburbs. And if I'm to be blunt, I regret choosing to live in the town at all. The home turned out to be far more broken than the disclosures let on and doing the remodeling work is a nightmare exercise in dealing with a local government that behaves like an HOA. But I'm trying to make the most of my bad decisions.