Comcast’s sweeping disclaimers of responsibility for failures or confusion over its home security system made it next to impossible for a Washington state judge to find the cable company or its contractor liable for an alleged system failure that allowed two men to break into a Kirkland home undetected and torture the family’s teenage son.

Washington Superior Court Judge William Downing sympathized with the Rawat family over the intuitiveness of XFINITY’s Home Security system that required the family to arm it by selecting “away” mode before going to sleep, in turn activating motion detectors that would have alerted the family to the break-in.

“In the world of made-up words like XFINITY and meaningless slogans like ‘The Future of Awesome,’ this is not startling,” the judge said. “It is Microsoft that has trained us to shut down our computers by going to the ‘Start’ menu. More to the point, it is equally counterintuitive to believe that an indoor motion detector would be armed when a system was being set for a family and pets intending to stay inside the house.”

Comcast’s security contract lets the company walk away from responsibility for virtually everything.

Despite that, the Rawat family attorney had a high hurdle to overcome – Comcast’s contract with its customers that disavowed responsibility for almost any and all failures of the system and goes as far as to require victims to protect Comcast if a matter reaches the courts.

“Comcast complied with the terms of its written contract and did not breach any of its contractual duties,” the judge said. “No claims can lie for breaches of any expressed or implied warranties that were effectively disclaimed in the written contract.”

The judge added the plaintiffs may have exposed imperfections in Comcast’s installer training, the information conveyed on its lighted home security system control panels, and the nomenclature used to designate different system modes. But none of those acts overcame Comcast’s contractual disclaimers and failed to reach the legal definition of negligence.

Comcast’s attorneys argued the undetected break-in was the fault of the Rawat family because they failed to use the XFINITY Home Security system properly. To activate protection, the family had to arm the system in “away” mode before going to sleep, despite the fact the system’s motion detectors could trigger a false alarm if anyone moved inside of the home.

Downing

Ultimately, the judge found Comcast’s argument compelling.

“The malicious attack by the two criminals was motivated by pure evil and warrants every last second of punishment that they receive,” the Comcast attorney said. “However, what happened to Deep Rawat is not the result of anything that Comcast or Pioneer [the contractor] did or did not do.”

In short, the family should hold Blessing Gainey and Vincent Sisounong, who pled guilty to the attack last year, responsible, not Comcast or its contractor.

While acknowledging the severity of the plaintiffs’ son’s injuries and the emotional impact of the crime, the judge could not find Comcast responsible under the terms of the contract the family willingly signed.

But the case may offer some insight for other Comcast customers who either have or are evaluating an XFINITY Home Security system. A careful review of the contract Comcast makes customers sign may prove important as a customer considers their options for home security and personal protection.

It’s an acute case of broadband envy.

Residents of Fort Collins, Colo., that have an excuse to take an hour’s drive south on U.S. Route 87 to visit Longmont and experience the Internet over the community’s public broadband service can’t believe their eyes. It’s so fast… and cheap. Back home it is a choice between Comcast and CenturyLink, and neither will win any popularity contests. While large parts of Colorado have gotten some upgrades out of Comcast, Fort Collins is one of the communities that typically gets the cable company’s attention last.

The city of Longmont took control of its digital destiny after years of anemic and expensive service from Comcast and CenturyLink. Longmont Power & Communications’ NextLight Internet service delivers gigabit fiber to the home service to the community of 90,000. The service was funded with a $40.3 million bond the city issued in 2014, to be paid back by NextLight customers, not taxpayers, over time. It remains a work in progress, but is expected to start construction to reach the last parts of Longmont by next spring.

NextLight delivers a mortal blow to competitors by charging a fair price for fast service. Instead of spending to upgrade their networks to compete, the incumbents demagogued the public project and Comcast spent $300,000 of its subscribers’ money in a campaign to kill the service before it even got started. Perhaps they had a right to be worried considering NextLight customers pay $49.95 a month for unlimited 1,000/1,000Mbps service. NextLight offers 20 times the download speed and 100 times the upload speed of Comcast’s Blast! package for nearly $30 less a month.

After NextLight was rated America’s fastest performing Internet service by Ookla in May, residents in Fort Collins began to wonder why they were still putting up with poor service from Comcast and lousy DSL from CenturyLink.

Fort Collins is about a one hour, fifteen minute drive north of Denver.

At the same time, city officials were doing their best to leverage some modest improvements from Comcast in return for a renewed franchise agreement. All they got was a vague commitment permitting the city to monitor Comcast’s notorious customer service and two HD channels set aside for Public, Educational, and Government use, along with a $20,000 grant to help the public access channel with online streaming.

The Coloradoan urged Fort Collins officials to think big and establish public fiber optic broadband in the city.

To manage this, they will have to overcome a 2005 state law backed by Comcast and Qwest (now CenturyLink) that bans municipal telecommunications services. A local vote or federal waiver can sidestep a law that was always designed to restrict competition and make life easier for the two telecom giants.

The newspaper opines that Fort Collins is in no way ready for the digital economy of the 21st century relying on Comcast and CenturyLink.

The cable company’s attention is focused on bigger cities in the state and CenturyLink remains hobbled by its copper legacy infrastructure. While some upgrades have been forthcoming, both Comcast and CenturyLink are also testing usage caps or usage-based billing — just another way to raise the price of the service. And speaking of service, neither Comcast or CenturyLink are answerable to the communities they serve – a community owned broadband alternative would be.

As the Coloradoan writes:

We’ve got to lay the groundwork now. Society took huge steps forward when automobiles replaced the horse and carriage. And no, installing municipal broadband isn’t adopting a new mode of transportation, but it is symbolic of laying an entirely new road.

Look at it another way. The city provides needed services such as water and electricity. Internet access is a needed service.

One thing Fort Collins doesn’t absolutely need Comcast or CenturyLink. But nobody is asking them to leave. They have a choice to use their massive buying power and resources to upgrade their networks to compete. But Fort Collins residents should not have to wait for that day to come when there is a better alternative in their grasp today: public broadband.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless are ditching subsidies for the popular (and expensive) Apple iPhone in favor of straight installment payment plans.

9to5Mac reports Apple has sent a memo to employees outlining major changes in how iPhones will be sold to AT&T and Verizon Wireless customers.

Apple iPhones sold via AT&T and both Apple’s retail and online stores will shift exclusively to AT&T’s Next financing plans this month and end device subsidies. AT&T Next allows customers to buy a device at retail price and pay it off in 20, 24, or 30 installments on their AT&T bill. The primary benefit of the Next plan is it permits customers upgrade to a newer device after 12, 18, or 24 installment payments. For now, customers transitioning away from their existing plan to Next will be able to keep their unlimited AT&T data plan.

Verizon Wireless is also planning to drop its two-year subsidy programs, perhaps entirely across all devices, as early as the end of this summer. That will force Verizon Wireless customers onto the Edge installment payment program unless they are willing to pay for a device upfront.

But Verizon will tighten the screws even more on iPhone users by blocking the Edge Up feature for Apple phones. Instead of being eligible for an early upgrade after 18 months, Verizon will commit its iPhone customers to a full two-year waiting period or until the phone is completely paid off. Magnanimously, Verizon will let the customer keep the phone after they pay it off completely. It is unclear if Verizon will allow their legacy unlimited data customers to participate in the Edge program without forfeiting their unlimited data plan.

For many customers, this will represent a distinction without much difference. Phone subsidies have always been effectively paid back to the wireless carrier through artificially high service plan rates charged over the length of a two-year contract. The installment payment plan brings the cost of the phone subsidy out into the light where a customer will see (and pay) a separate installment payment for their device instead of having the subsidy’s recovery buried in the price of service. But Verizon has clearly sought constraints on its iPhone customers who aggressively pursue upgrades at the appearance of any new iPhone model. Going forward, they will have to pay off any remaining installments owed on their old phone before upgrading to a new one.

While consumer groups were busy fighting the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, AT&T’s $49 billion purchase of DirecTV has largely flown under the radar, with no comparable organized consumer opposition to the deal. But that does not mean the FCC will approve it as-is.

Negotiations with federal regulators and an exchange of regulatory filings and comments between AT&T, the FCC, and deal critics have apparently forced AT&T to agree to several concessions to make regulators amenable to approving the transaction.

The Washington Post reports that chief among those concessions is AT&T’s willingness to voluntarily abide by certain Net Neutrality rules regardless of any court challenges, including banning the slowing or blocking of websites and agreeing not to accept payments from website operators to speed up their content. AT&T has not said how long it intends to keep that commitment.

Deal opponents are also seeking other concessions from AT&T:

No paid interconnection deals: AT&T must route incoming content to customers without any fees charged to the companies originating the traffic. This became a hot button issue when Netflix felt it was forced to pay Comcast a fee to assure its streamed video content would reach Comcast customers without buffering or other errors. AT&T is expected to fiercely oppose this condition and says it should have the right to make private deals with content delivery firms.

AT&T must offer standalone broadband: With AT&T’s acquisition of DirecTV, more than ever it will have an incentive to sell customers a television bundle with Internet service. Regulators want AT&T to assure broadband-only service remains readily available. AT&T has offered 6Mbps DSL for $34.95 a month as its standalone option. Content delivery firms like Cogent want AT&T to offer 25Mbps service in all of AT&T’s markets for $29.95 a month for at least seven years. The FCC recently defined 25Mbps the minimum speed to qualify as broadband.

No end runs around Net Neutrality with data caps and exemptions: AT&T wants the right to exempt its preferred partners from its usage caps and claims that is beneficial to consumers. But cap opponents claim that is simply another way to collect money from content companies for preferential treatment — an end run around Net Neutrality rules. Opponents of these cap exemptions, known as “zero-rating” claim all content should be treated the same. AT&T could resolve this by removing data caps from its DSL and U-verse services altogether.

A system audit by Comcast has created a firestorm across Florida’s Panhandle after customers lost dozens of channels while Comcast used it as an opportunity to sell customers more expensive television packages.

The cable company has been installing new technology that will help it verify customers are not getting channels or services they are not entitled to receive. After auditing subscribers in the Tallahassee area, many long-time Comcast customers found their TV lineup dramatically reduced, often with no warning.

“We found customers had access to channels not included with their service level,” Comcast spokeswoman Mindy Kramer told the Tallahassee Democrat. “Meaning, they were getting some channels that they had not subscribed to in their specific package.”

Comcast used the audit to upsell customers to a pricier package to get those missing channels back, annoying customers.

“During a recent system audit, it was discovered that you may be receiving channels that are not part of the video service to which you currently subscribe,” a Comcast letter said. It then gave an example of a channel the person had been receiving in error and suggested the customer upgrade if they wanted to continue receiving the same service.

“We apologize for any inconvenience this change may cause,” the letter said. “We appreciate your business and thank you for being a loyal Comcast customer.”

Numerous Tallahassee customers contacted the newspaper and local media outlets to complain they lost dozens of channels without notice, many they had received for years. More recent subscribers also discovered their packages were suddenly much smaller.

Among seniors, the loss of Turner Classic Movies brought the most complaints. Customers who had received the network erroneously as part of a Digital Starter TV package ($43.45-68.95/mo) were told they must upgrade to Digital Premiere service to get that single channel back. That represents a rate increase of $22.94-47.54 a month, depending on the area. Digital Premiere costs $90.99-$131.99/mo., according to Comcast’s website.

Ron Crolla ended up paying a promotional rate increase of about $20 a month to restore his 85-year-old father’s Comcast service in a Tallahassee assisted living facility. Crolla said Comcast dropped about half of his father’s TV channels and did the same for many others in the same facility.

“The TV is his primary form of entertainment; he can’t drive, he can’t walk much,” Crolla told the newspaper. “It just seems all underhanded,” he said. “It just seemed like a crappy thing to do.”

Others thought about the same, judging from the newspaper’s Facebook page, overwhelmed with so many complaints about Comcast, a reporter covered the angry responses in another story:

Man, do people hate Comcast.

I can say that because that’s what many people told me this week, after a story ran in this newspaper about Comcast stripping cable customers of channels they weren’t paying for.

Dozens of emails and hundreds of Facebook and online comments came in hot. Most people shared their stories in gritty detail, breaking down their channel line-ups, what they paid and when. Some even passed on the name of the customer service representative they were dealing with, others just spun into a tirade.

People freely tossed out words like “furious,” “worst,” “sucks,” “hate” and others not fit for print. Something was triggered. People were pouring their hearts out in emails. It was personal. They were feeding off each other, finding solace in having a common enemy.

For many, it wasn’t about justifying the fairness of getting the extra channels for free, it was about Comcast’s method of ferreting out customers and dropping the channels with what many claim was no warning.

“If they wrote me a letter and told me I was getting extra channels for free, I probably wouldn’t even realize it because Comcast’s packages and lineups are so confusing,” said Tallahassee resident and Stop the Cap! reader Neil. “The classy way to handle it would be Comcast admitting it was entirely at fault and offering a special deal to keep the channels on at their wholesale cost for 6-12 months. I don’t want them to have to pay for something I am getting for free, but they decided to profit from their mistake at the customer’s expense. That is why Comcast is so despised around here. It is always an angle with them to get more money. If I make a mistake, I own up to it. If they make a mistake, they want to bill me for it.”