13 ms·

Comcast gave false map data to FCC

416 points by carride 4y ago

ProAm 4y ago
What do you think the fine will be for lying to the FCC about this one? Im guessing 250k and a strongly worded apology letter.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  And several man-years in updating and maintaining the maps going forward.
  - throwanem 4y ago
    One hopes.
- alyandon 4y ago
  Suspension from participating in public grant programs (no free taxpayer cash for you - sorry) and a fine on the order of 5% of yearly gross revenue per instance would help ensure that corporations are not incentivized to lie. Of course, that'll never happen.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Have the Board draw straws and execute the person who draws short. Anything short of this admittedly harsh measure will be written off as the cost of doing business and probably overturned by lobbying, bribery, legal arguments in court, etc. There is value in a punishment that cannot be undone.
    - GauntletWizard 4y ago
      Have the board draw straws and then execute everything currently working for Comcast. The whole company is a crime against humanity and anyone who can go along with it deserves a share.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  13 “invalid” addresses Let's not overstate the problem here...
  - dymk 4y ago
    Let's not understate it either - 13 invalid addresses in Fort Collins that Ars was able to find. I wouldn't expect this is isolated to Fort Collins. And indeed - "30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop" which were falsely listed as served were found too. Also, this is data used to participate in federal grant programs, so it's not like an "oopsie!" kind of thing.
    - pavel_lishin 4y ago
      Over 30, just in that neighborhood. And that was after a brief search. > We tested Comcast's coverage claims in Hillier's area by clicking nearby addresses on the FCC map and then entering the addresses on Comcast's ordering website at xfinity.com. Our search wasn't exhaustive, but we found over 30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop and several abutting streets that had the same problem—Comcast claims to serve those houses on the FCC map, but each address is listed as "invalid" on the Comcast website.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Both Comcast and Verizon have mistakes in their databases. They both list me as living on N. Main St. even though it's been Main St. (with N. Main just being a short stub) for some number of decades now. I actually have Comcast service and it hasn't been a problem but the point is that they have some incorrect/outdated data.
    - georgel 4y ago
      Luckily most of FoCo doesn't need to rely on Comcast. They have their own muni ISP which is $60/mo and no taxes/fees. I've been using them for a few years without any issue. https://fcconnexion.com/residential/residential-internet-service/ https://fcconnexion.com/residential/residential-internet-ser...
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
- usefulcat 4y ago
  Maybe an opportunity for crowdsourcing? Instead of paying the fine to the FCC, pay the fine to whomever files a successful challenge. Maybe make the fine per-address. Maybe require a nominal deposit from challengers to discourage false challenges (deposit(s) returned upon successful challenge(s)). Probably adds too much complexity to be worth it (especially the part about deposits), but still interesting to think about.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I'm okay with a $250K fine. Per address.
- bialpio 4y ago
  I'd say being forced to provide the service at an address that you said is eligible would be adequate. And no tricks with $10k installation service & inflated monthly bill.
bastard_op 4y ago
If someone really wanted to make a change, setup some bot farm to fuzz comcast's own address search for literally _everyone_ in a given region, and report real numbers for who can and cannot get service there. Then like the nice folks that made the online method to fight your tickets and such, mass submit them in batches to the fcc, or all individually as disputed complaints. Comcast "could" do this themselves, but reality would be horrifyingly destroying to their fake metrics, thus they'd never get any more grants, and we can't have that.
- batch12 4y ago
  Bonus points if the endpoint you're querying suffers a service interruption for some reason and you blamed for a DDOS attack?
- londons_explore 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure their own address search tool will be wrong too. I bet there are lots of installs where they take your money, and then later call to apologize that they can't in fact offer service and give a refund. Part of 'lying' as a company is to make sure that your internal data sources tell the same story, but just never invest in correcting any inaccuracies that aren't in favor of the story you want to tell.
  - dymk 4y ago
    It doesn't really matter if their service tool is wrong (as in "We technically have lines to this address"). It matters that their service tool disagrees with what they're reporting to the federal government, which they use to participate in federal grant programs.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      And if it doesn’t? I think the point that poster was making is that it’s likely their tool matches what they’re reporting. It’s their actually service that is different
- dymk 4y ago
jcpham2 4y ago
I've had to file an informal complaint against my local cable ISP because they told me over the telephone multiple times they couldn't find my home on the FCC's broadband map. 2 weeks after filing that complaint I had 360 feet of shiny new coaxial internet service. So yeah, I can see all sorts of sketchiness going on with the FCC and their map and how they gave out money to sketchy LLC's for rural internet service.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  how did you file this complaint?
  - aerotwelve 4y ago
    https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complai... PDF version of the information is here: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/filing_an_informal_complaint.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/filing_an_informal_c...
rozap 4y ago
This is so frustrating. We bought a house out in the sticks once it became WFH forever, thinking there was service because of the FCC's map which said there was Comcast and CenturyLink broadband. When we moved in and I called them, Comcast said they didn't have service in the area and CenturyLink offered me 1.5mbps (!!!) DSL. We limped along on a spotty LTE connection until we got starlink after waiting a year, which has been great.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Starlink is a game changer for rural areas. For the house my family owns up in Maine, the best we could get was about a 1Mbps down DSL and the house was the last one on the road that could get "broadband" at all. Only other choices were traditional satellite or marginal Verizon hot spots. Could never have worked from up there.
  - teachrdan 4y ago
    Meh. I know a number of folks who moved to rural areas, and not a single one was able to use Starlink due to tree coverage and the extremely narrow band of sky their receiver had to be pointed at. I'm glad it worked for you! But the rural places where my friends live have lots of trees, tall ones, and they made Starlink totally unusable.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      The house does have a pretty good view of the sky. I'm not sure what the answer is in general. It's probably not realistic to expect universal wired broadband in very rural areas. Conventional satellite is by all accounts pretty bad. And cellular isn't really an option absent a good 5G signal. But, other than a vacation cottage, lack of usable Internet isn't really an option either if you're going to be working from somewhere.
      - thomas_ma 4y ago
        But, why is universal wired broadband in very rural areas of the US an unreasonable expectation? We did the same thing 100 years ago with universal service requirements for telephone. As I understand it, the build out was subsidized by the government along with a universal service fee for all phone lines. Is the infrastructure for low-broadband in low density areas inherently more expensive than POTS infrastructure was 75-100 years ago?
nartz 4y ago
The lobby is strong with Comcast.
alexfromapex 4y ago
This is another company where the legal veil needs to be pierced and have the executive board members get personally sued for their wrongdoings.
jt2190 4y ago
> We tested Comcast's coverage claims in Hillier's area by clicking nearby addresses on the FCC map and then entering the addresses on Comcast's ordering website at xfinity.com. Our search wasn't exhaustive, but we found over 30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop and several abutting streets that had the same problem—Comcast claims to serve those houses on the FCC map, but each address is listed as "invalid" on the Comcast website. This seems like something that could be automated quite easily with a browser-based tool, that could then be used by individuals to quickly add themselves to the “I’m not covered” list. If there was ever a grass-roots effort that techies could spearhead, this has got to be it.
mannyv 4y ago
The only way to stop companies from doing this is to fine them for the submission of incorrect data. If the cost > benefit, they will adhere to the rules. $5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower. That's how all this government data submission should work. At that point pretty much everyone with any skills will be going through every address in America and checking the database, hoping to get some of that pot of money.
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  How about we make them liable for damages if someone buys a house in an area they claim to support? That might actually get these cheating ISPs to change.
- joshuaissac 4y ago
  >`$5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower. Or make ISP's connectivity report binding. If the ISP claims that they provide connectivity and they do not, make them liable for the user's costs to get equivalent service from an alternative provider (e.g. Starlink), until the ISP can provide connectivity to the subscriber or the subscriber is out of the minimum contract period with the alternative provider, whichever is later. An ongoing rather than one-off cost would give the ISP an incentive to build the necessary infrastructure that they have misreported already exists.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Binding offer (of minimum UL, DL, and maximum latency) AND service must be available within 5 business days at the listed price with no surprise fees. Failure to fulfill the offer should have a maximum penalty of compulsory purchase of the claimed property at 2x the greater of current market or last purchase price if offered. A penalty structure for late service (E.G. 1 month wait) should also be an option. Maybe 1/100th the value of the instant buy requirement per month (rounded up) of non-service.
encryptluks2 4y ago
I get scam calls based on being a previous Xfinity customer and Xfinity got their database hacked and never disclosed the breach. I even had one of those email alias services with a unique Xfinity email address to prove it and Xfinity just ignored the reports.
jonathanmayer 4y ago
Context: I teach at Princeton and used to work at the FCC. Several comments suggest systematically comparing FCC data to what ISP websites say about availability. My research group did this! Here's the paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3419394.3423652 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3419394.3423652 And here's a followup project by investigative journalists at The Markup: https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me...
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > And here's a followup project by investigative journalists at The Markup: > https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me... That article is pretty bad. It doesn't once mention DSL or that technology's inherent technical limitations that can result in widely variable speeds (IIRC, your bandwidth is determined by the length of the wire between your house and the central telephone office). Then it spends a lot of time talking about race, which is likely creating a misleading impression that lends itself to outrage.
  - tguvot 4y ago
    DSL bandwidth is determined by the length of the wire between DSL modem and DSLAM which can be in the cabinet on the curb (and I believe it usually is). Also it depends on what version of DSL standard we are talking. I personally started with adsl2 which was 12/3, upgraded eventually to VDSL2 which did 150/10 and latest standard is G.Fast which can give 1 Gbit/s aggregate uplink and downlink at 100m
olliej 4y ago
"Comcast committed perjury in federal documents and was not subjected to any fines or legal penalties"
humaniania 4y ago
Comcast should be broken up and their current leadership should be dissolved.
- sneak 4y ago
  There aren't that many common solvents in which every human body part is soluble. I understand a very strong NaOH solution may be workable, however.
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
If there ever was a relationship between a large corporation and a Federal agency that epitomizes how corruption is institutionalized in the USA, it's the romance between Comcast and the FCC. (Or at least the only one that involves a company that's a household name: I suspect a lot of defense contractors mastered this ages ago.)
buildbot 4y ago
If corporate personhood is really a thing, then the entire company just lied to the federal government. This is a crime.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  Companies are not people because we can't put companies in prison for crimes. What a great "best of both worlds" legal trick.
  - tarotuser 4y ago
    The C-levels are in fact people, and can be thrown in jail. The board of directors are also people, and can be thrown in jail. *SOMEONE OR SOMEONES* at the top signed off on that document. If it's multiple people in on this, that makes a conspiracy to commit mass fraud at a country-scale.
    - sneak 4y ago
      Fun fact: Fraud is de facto legal in America once you get rich and powerful enough. see also: "full" self-driving
  - f-securus 4y ago
    This loophole needs to be closed. Companies have the power to do harm on a large scale with bo repercussions. Fines become a cost of doing business. How is reporting incorrect data to the federal government which is used for grants not flat out fraud?
andrewmunsell 4y ago
Looks like Comcast also falsely claims to offer (a) residential service (though, this is likely just an address mis-detection mistake since it's a multi-use building despite me entering several apartment numbers) and (b) the speeds listed on the FCC site for my address. I imagine that this is the case in many places, but I submitted a challenge. ISPs have gotten away with abusing government subsidies (and many times, abusing their customers with fees and silly price increases) for too long...
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
It's a bit surprising that sites like Zillow and Redfin don't yet include internet availability in listings. They probably could get a bit of revenue from doing so, as it's essentially an ad for the ISP. But I would caution that even ISP sometimes don't know what addresses they can service. It's not a large percentage but there are addresses in most ISP's availability databases that shouldn't be there.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  They do, at least in some regions. It's listed under "Utilities" on both sites.
philjohn 4y ago
If government funding is based on coverage, would this fall under fraud?
LoganDark 4y ago
Comcast is terrible, they charge over $100 per month for 25Mbps and work hard to be the monopoly where I live. No other choice.
HybridCurve 4y ago
This not surprising. Telecoms have been accepting govt. subsidies for years while failing to expand in rural areas. Additionally they have been lobbying to interfere with municipal broadband projects and push anti-competitive legislation in local governments as well. https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... IIRC many parts of Eastern Europe have managed to provide broadband by building mesh networks with wireless backhaul. (MikroTik builds some of these products, Ubiquiti also has others). This should be a reasonable way expand broadband easily in the short term without having to lay fiber across the countryside.
quantified 4y ago
> I expect more from a government body like the FCC We need people who expect things to be better than they are. I'm not sure anyone who's been following the FCC for the last 10 years or so would really expect better. As pointed out elsewhere, Comcast won't get in any trouble for lying through their teeth.

416 points by carride 4y ago

What do you think the fine will be for lying to the FCC about this one? Im guessing 250k and a strongly worded apology letter.

madsbuch 4y ago
And several man-years in updating and maintaining the maps going forward.
- throwanem 4y ago
  One hopes.
alyandon 4y ago
Suspension from participating in public grant programs (no free taxpayer cash for you - sorry) and a fine on the order of 5% of yearly gross revenue per instance would help ensure that corporations are not incentivized to lie. Of course, that'll never happen.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Have the Board draw straws and execute the person who draws short. Anything short of this admittedly harsh measure will be written off as the cost of doing business and probably overturned by lobbying, bribery, legal arguments in court, etc. There is value in a punishment that cannot be undone.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    Have the board draw straws and then execute everything currently working for Comcast. The whole company is a crime against humanity and anyone who can go along with it deserves a share.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
13 “invalid” addresses Let's not overstate the problem here...
- dymk 4y ago
  Let's not understate it either - 13 invalid addresses in Fort Collins that Ars was able to find. I wouldn't expect this is isolated to Fort Collins. And indeed - "30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop" which were falsely listed as served were found too. Also, this is data used to participate in federal grant programs, so it's not like an "oopsie!" kind of thing.
  - pavel_lishin 4y ago
    Over 30, just in that neighborhood. And that was after a brief search. > We tested Comcast's coverage claims in Hillier's area by clicking nearby addresses on the FCC map and then entering the addresses on Comcast's ordering website at xfinity.com. Our search wasn't exhaustive, but we found over 30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop and several abutting streets that had the same problem—Comcast claims to serve those houses on the FCC map, but each address is listed as "invalid" on the Comcast website.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Both Comcast and Verizon have mistakes in their databases. They both list me as living on N. Main St. even though it's been Main St. (with N. Main just being a short stub) for some number of decades now. I actually have Comcast service and it hasn't been a problem but the point is that they have some incorrect/outdated data.
  - georgel 4y ago
    Luckily most of FoCo doesn't need to rely on Comcast. They have their own muni ISP which is $60/mo and no taxes/fees. I've been using them for a few years without any issue. https://fcconnexion.com/residential/residential-internet-service/ https://fcconnexion.com/residential/residential-internet-ser...
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
usefulcat 4y ago
Maybe an opportunity for crowdsourcing? Instead of paying the fine to the FCC, pay the fine to whomever files a successful challenge. Maybe make the fine per-address. Maybe require a nominal deposit from challengers to discourage false challenges (deposit(s) returned upon successful challenge(s)). Probably adds too much complexity to be worth it (especially the part about deposits), but still interesting to think about.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I'm okay with a $250K fine. Per address.
bialpio 4y ago
I'd say being forced to provide the service at an address that you said is eligible would be adequate. And no tricks with $10k installation service & inflated monthly bill.

bastard_op 4y ago

If someone really wanted to make a change, setup some bot farm to fuzz comcast's own address search for literally _everyone_ in a given region, and report real numbers for who can and cannot get service there. Then like the nice folks that made the online method to fight your tickets and such, mass submit them in batches to the fcc, or all individually as disputed complaints. Comcast "could" do this themselves, but reality would be horrifyingly destroying to their fake metrics, thus they'd never get any more grants, and we can't have that.

batch12 4y ago
Bonus points if the endpoint you're querying suffers a service interruption for some reason and you blamed for a DDOS attack?
londons_explore 4y ago
I'm pretty sure their own address search tool will be wrong too. I bet there are lots of installs where they take your money, and then later call to apologize that they can't in fact offer service and give a refund. Part of 'lying' as a company is to make sure that your internal data sources tell the same story, but just never invest in correcting any inaccuracies that aren't in favor of the story you want to tell.
- dymk 4y ago
  It doesn't really matter if their service tool is wrong (as in "We technically have lines to this address"). It matters that their service tool disagrees with what they're reporting to the federal government, which they use to participate in federal grant programs.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    And if it doesn’t? I think the point that poster was making is that it’s likely their tool matches what they’re reporting. It’s their actually service that is different
dymk 4y ago

jcpham2 4y ago

I've had to file an informal complaint against my local cable ISP because they told me over the telephone multiple times they couldn't find my home on the FCC's broadband map. 2 weeks after filing that complaint I had 360 feet of shiny new coaxial internet service. So yeah, I can see all sorts of sketchiness going on with the FCC and their map and how they gave out money to sketchy LLC's for rural internet service.

sidewndr46 4y ago
how did you file this complaint?
- aerotwelve 4y ago
  https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complai... PDF version of the information is here: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/filing_an_informal_complaint.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/filing_an_informal_c...

rozap 4y ago

This is so frustrating. We bought a house out in the sticks once it became WFH forever, thinking there was service because of the FCC's map which said there was Comcast and CenturyLink broadband. When we moved in and I called them, Comcast said they didn't have service in the area and CenturyLink offered me 1.5mbps (!!!) DSL. We limped along on a spotty LTE connection until we got starlink after waiting a year, which has been great.

ghaff 4y ago
Starlink is a game changer for rural areas. For the house my family owns up in Maine, the best we could get was about a 1Mbps down DSL and the house was the last one on the road that could get "broadband" at all. Only other choices were traditional satellite or marginal Verizon hot spots. Could never have worked from up there.
- teachrdan 4y ago
  Meh. I know a number of folks who moved to rural areas, and not a single one was able to use Starlink due to tree coverage and the extremely narrow band of sky their receiver had to be pointed at. I'm glad it worked for you! But the rural places where my friends live have lots of trees, tall ones, and they made Starlink totally unusable.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    The house does have a pretty good view of the sky. I'm not sure what the answer is in general. It's probably not realistic to expect universal wired broadband in very rural areas. Conventional satellite is by all accounts pretty bad. And cellular isn't really an option absent a good 5G signal. But, other than a vacation cottage, lack of usable Internet isn't really an option either if you're going to be working from somewhere.
    - thomas_ma 4y ago
      But, why is universal wired broadband in very rural areas of the US an unreasonable expectation? We did the same thing 100 years ago with universal service requirements for telephone. As I understand it, the build out was subsidized by the government along with a universal service fee for all phone lines. Is the infrastructure for low-broadband in low density areas inherently more expensive than POTS infrastructure was 75-100 years ago?

nartz 4y ago

The lobby is strong with Comcast.

alexfromapex 4y ago

This is another company where the legal veil needs to be pierced and have the executive board members get personally sued for their wrongdoings.

jt2190 4y ago

> We tested Comcast's coverage claims in Hillier's area by clicking nearby addresses on the FCC map and then entering the addresses on Comcast's ordering website at xfinity.com. Our search wasn't exhaustive, but we found over 30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop and several abutting streets that had the same problem—Comcast claims to serve those houses on the FCC map, but each address is listed as "invalid" on the Comcast website. This seems like something that could be automated quite easily with a browser-based tool, that could then be used by individuals to quickly add themselves to the “I’m not covered” list. If there was ever a grass-roots effort that techies could spearhead, this has got to be it.

mannyv 4y ago

The only way to stop companies from doing this is to fine them for the submission of incorrect data. If the cost > benefit, they will adhere to the rules. $5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower. That's how all this government data submission should work. At that point pretty much everyone with any skills will be going through every address in America and checking the database, hoping to get some of that pot of money.

wintermutestwin 4y ago
How about we make them liable for damages if someone buys a house in an area they claim to support? That might actually get these cheating ISPs to change.
joshuaissac 4y ago
>`$5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower. Or make ISP's connectivity report binding. If the ISP claims that they provide connectivity and they do not, make them liable for the user's costs to get equivalent service from an alternative provider (e.g. Starlink), until the ISP can provide connectivity to the subscriber or the subscriber is out of the minimum contract period with the alternative provider, whichever is later. An ongoing rather than one-off cost would give the ISP an incentive to build the necessary infrastructure that they have misreported already exists.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Binding offer (of minimum UL, DL, and maximum latency) AND service must be available within 5 business days at the listed price with no surprise fees. Failure to fulfill the offer should have a maximum penalty of compulsory purchase of the claimed property at 2x the greater of current market or last purchase price if offered. A penalty structure for late service (E.G. 1 month wait) should also be an option. Maybe 1/100th the value of the instant buy requirement per month (rounded up) of non-service.

encryptluks2 4y ago

I get scam calls based on being a previous Xfinity customer and Xfinity got their database hacked and never disclosed the breach. I even had one of those email alias services with a unique Xfinity email address to prove it and Xfinity just ignored the reports.

jonathanmayer 4y ago

Context: I teach at Princeton and used to work at the FCC. Several comments suggest systematically comparing FCC data to what ISP websites say about availability. My research group did this! Here's the paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3419394.3423652 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3419394.3423652 And here's a followup project by investigative journalists at The Markup: https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me...

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tablespoon 4y ago
> And here's a followup project by investigative journalists at The Markup: > https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me... That article is pretty bad. It doesn't once mention DSL or that technology's inherent technical limitations that can result in widely variable speeds (IIRC, your bandwidth is determined by the length of the wire between your house and the central telephone office). Then it spends a lot of time talking about race, which is likely creating a misleading impression that lends itself to outrage.
- tguvot 4y ago
  DSL bandwidth is determined by the length of the wire between DSL modem and DSLAM which can be in the cabinet on the curb (and I believe it usually is). Also it depends on what version of DSL standard we are talking. I personally started with adsl2 which was 12/3, upgraded eventually to VDSL2 which did 150/10 and latest standard is G.Fast which can give 1 Gbit/s aggregate uplink and downlink at 100m

olliej 4y ago

"Comcast committed perjury in federal documents and was not subjected to any fines or legal penalties"

humaniania 4y ago

Comcast should be broken up and their current leadership should be dissolved.

sneak 4y ago
There aren't that many common solvents in which every human body part is soluble. I understand a very strong NaOH solution may be workable, however.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

If there ever was a relationship between a large corporation and a Federal agency that epitomizes how corruption is institutionalized in the USA, it's the romance between Comcast and the FCC. (Or at least the only one that involves a company that's a household name: I suspect a lot of defense contractors mastered this ages ago.)

buildbot 4y ago

If corporate personhood is really a thing, then the entire company just lied to the federal government. This is a crime.

seanp2k2 4y ago
Companies are not people because we can't put companies in prison for crimes. What a great "best of both worlds" legal trick.
- tarotuser 4y ago
  The C-levels are in fact people, and can be thrown in jail. The board of directors are also people, and can be thrown in jail. *SOMEONE OR SOMEONES* at the top signed off on that document. If it's multiple people in on this, that makes a conspiracy to commit mass fraud at a country-scale.
  - sneak 4y ago
    Fun fact: Fraud is de facto legal in America once you get rich and powerful enough. see also: "full" self-driving
- f-securus 4y ago
  This loophole needs to be closed. Companies have the power to do harm on a large scale with bo repercussions. Fines become a cost of doing business. How is reporting incorrect data to the federal government which is used for grants not flat out fraud?

andrewmunsell 4y ago

Looks like Comcast also falsely claims to offer (a) residential service (though, this is likely just an address mis-detection mistake since it's a multi-use building despite me entering several apartment numbers) and (b) the speeds listed on the FCC site for my address. I imagine that this is the case in many places, but I submitted a challenge. ISPs have gotten away with abusing government subsidies (and many times, abusing their customers with fees and silly price increases) for too long...

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

It's a bit surprising that sites like Zillow and Redfin don't yet include internet availability in listings. They probably could get a bit of revenue from doing so, as it's essentially an ad for the ISP. But I would caution that even ISP sometimes don't know what addresses they can service. It's not a large percentage but there are addresses in most ISP's availability databases that shouldn't be there.

duskwuff 4y ago
They do, at least in some regions. It's listed under "Utilities" on both sites.

philjohn 4y ago

If government funding is based on coverage, would this fall under fraud?

LoganDark 4y ago

Comcast is terrible, they charge over $100 per month for 25Mbps and work hard to be the monopoly where I live. No other choice.

HybridCurve 4y ago

This not surprising. Telecoms have been accepting govt. subsidies for years while failing to expand in rural areas. Additionally they have been lobbying to interfere with municipal broadband projects and push anti-competitive legislation in local governments as well. https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... IIRC many parts of Eastern Europe have managed to provide broadband by building mesh networks with wireless backhaul. (MikroTik builds some of these products, Ubiquiti also has others). This should be a reasonable way expand broadband easily in the short term without having to lay fiber across the countryside.

quantified 4y ago

> I expect more from a government body like the FCC We need people who expect things to be better than they are. I'm not sure anyone who's been following the FCC for the last 10 years or so would really expect better. As pointed out elsewhere, Comcast won't get in any trouble for lying through their teeth.