A Washington state man who just moved into his new home is now being forced to consider selling it to somebody else because Comcast repeatedly misled him about its ability to provide service.

Seth told his extensive story to The Consumerist, which detailed his repeated attempts to get Comcast broadband service after multiple missed or unfinished service appointments. More importantly, Seth is representative of many Americans who have been told broadband is a fiercely competitive industry, yet they cannot sign up for service at a reasonable price from any provider.

For Seth, having reliable broadband service is not just a convenience — it is essential if he wants to stay employed. Before even considering making an offer on his new home in Kitsap County, Seth did his homework verifying Comcast provided service in the neighborhood. Comcast repeatedly assured him it did, and one sales rep confirmed a former resident at the same address had Comcast service. Seth was satisfied, bought the home and called to get Comcast service installed. But when a Comcast crew arrived Jan. 31, they quickly discovered there was no cable line strung to Seth’s property. That isn’t typically a deal-breaker and the techs completed a “drop bury request” that would normally result in the arrival of a Comcast cable burial crew to bring service from a nearby utility pole. Not this time.

Comcast determined the same home that its own sales rep promised used to have Comcast service was now suddenly too far away from Comcast’s infrastructure. If it decided to offer Seth service, the company quoted an installation fee approaching $60,000.

Seth consulted the FCC’s Broadband Map which depicted Kitsap County a veritable paradise of competition, with at least 10 providers fighting for his business. But Seth quickly realized the FCC’s map was misleading and inaccurate.

Four of his options were wireless carriers that don’t provide a strong signal to his home or charge obscenely high prices for usage capped Internet access. ViaSat was on the list promising up to 25Mbps, but ViaSat satellite customers can testify the actual speeds received are much slower, and do not reliably support the VPN access Seth required.

Neither Comcast or CenturyLink offer broadband service to Seth, despite the fact both told the FCC they did for the purpose of its map. StarTouch uses microwave signals to reach its customers, but not in Seth’s part of Kitsap County. It seems someone put up a large building in between StarTouch’s transmission facilities and Seth’s home, blocking the service for a significant part of the county.

XO Communications does provide reliable T1 service to businesses at speeds from 1.544Mbps – 6Mbps. The biggest downside is its cost — $600 a month. Finally, Seth’s only other alternative is a gigabit fiber network run by the Kitsap Public Utility District. But cable companies like Comcast effectively lobbied to guarantee those types of networks would never be a competitor by pushing for laws that forbid retail service to individual homes or businesses. In Washington, the law only allows the utility district to sell wholesale access to its network to companies like… Comcast.

In the end, Comcast decided it wasn’t interested in serving Seth even if he found the $60,000 to cover the installation fee. CenturyLink shrugged its shoulders over why it isn’t offering DSL in Seth’s neighborhood. Seth is preparing to put his home back on the market. It’s a perfect choice for Luddites everywhere.

The moral of the story?

• Comcast is not always forthcoming and honest when signing up customers and led Seth through two months of missed appointments and misinformation;
• The accuracy of the FCC’s broadband availability map is questionable.

Californians get a reprieve from the menacing Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger with an announcement from the California Public Utilities Commission it is putting further consideration of the merger deal on hold until later this spring.

Consumer groups loudly protested the PUC for holding its single public hearing on the merger in San Francisco, which has been served almost exclusively by Comcast for years. Most of the impact of the merger will be felt in Los Angeles, where Time Warner Cable provides service to around 1.8 million customers. The deal also involves Charter Communications customers in the region, who will also end up as Comcast customers if the deal is approved.

The PUC eventually agreed to hold a meeting in Los Angeles, but then scheduled it for Good Friday. Now it has changed the date for the four-hour public input session to April 14, one day before tax returns are due. No specific information about the time of the meeting could be located on the CPUC website, but we do know it will be held in the auditorium of the Public Utilities Commission’s building at 320 West 4th St. in downtown Los Angeles.

That the CPUC seems to be heading towards approving the deal does not come as much of a surprise. The CPUC has been surprisingly friendly to the communications companies it regulates, in the past approving questionable statewide video franchise reforms on behalf of AT&T and generally permitting most of the merger and consolidation transactions that arrive at the commission for review.

An advising administrative law judge attached a long list of recommended temporary conditions that should be included in any approval, covering everything from lobbying about municipal broadband to discount Internet service for the poor. Although Comcast claims it is willing to accept many of the short-term conditions, it also signaled objections to some of the most significant requirements, a potential sign Comcast might exercise its legal options in the future to be rid of the deal’s most onerous conditions.

Independent consumer groups not financially aligned with the cable industry are almost universally opposed to the merger as are many Californians.

After a year-end customer audit, some Comcast customers report they are now being notified by the cable company they were not charged modem rental fees in error even though they previously purchased their own equipment.

“Late last year, I received a form letter from them notifying me that they had noticed that I wasn’t being billed for the modem they claimed they were renting to me,” wrote a Reddit contributor. “An hour-long phone call with four representatives later, the $8 charge was removed. However, it seems that since they increased the modem rental fee to $10 per month, they’ve brought my modem back into their flock.”

He isn’t alone.

Another customer found Comcast still billing him for a modem he returned to Comcast three months earlier.

“I’m now on my third month where I had to call, get a refund, and get a promise it won’t happen again,” wrote another Comcast customer.

The customer service representative argued the charges were valid, despite the fact the customer went to extraordinary lengths to document the return of the equipment to avoid being charged for it. Instead of claiming the customer never returned the modem, Comcast registered the customer’s newly-purchased modem as Comcast property.

“It shows that modem is with the customer,” said the confused Comcast representative.

“They are that s****y of a company, I saw this coming from a mile away,” said the customer, who recorded the return of Comcast’s modem in a video he made at the local XFINITY store. Despite that effort, he was unprepared for the possibility Comcast would unilaterally adopt his new equipment and claim it as their own.

Watching your Comcast bill like a hawk for unauthorized charges can also get confusing when Comcast keeps changing the name of the fee.

Customers with their own modems should find no charge for modems, gateways, or routers on their bill.

“I had to make three calls, each one more and more frustrating,” another customer complained. “The first was to remove the equipment fee, the equipment fee then morphed into a modem fee [… and the] final call was when the modem fee evolved into a router fee.”

One Comcast customer complained on the company’s own support forum he was charged modem fees for over a year for a modem he purchased himself.

“I have gone through customer service both on the phone and through chat,” complained the customer. “The charge will come off for a month and then get put back on my bill. I even went through Comcast Corporate Escalation and it was removed in October 2014. I went back through my bills and noticed that the charge went back on the very next bill and I have been charged ever since.”

To add insult to injury, Comcast now also bills a “change of service fee” to remove the erroneous charge, only to have it return the following month.

Because Comcast billing errors are so common, still another customer shared some tips on how to prove Comcast customer-owned equipment does not belong to the cable company.

“My advice if you are thinking about buying your own modem is to make sure you file all receipts,” said the customer. “I went through this same runaround with Comcast last year and luckily I still had both the sales receipt from Amazon as well as the Comcast document stating I had turned in my rented modem. It still took a few phone calls and a week or so for them to straighten it out. Pretty ridiculous.”

Prices are in Singapore dollars.

One gigabit broadband is apparently too slow for Singapore consumers, so one ISP has introduced the world’s fastest home broadband plan, bundling 2000Mbps Internet access with an Android-based video streaming box and residential phone service for around $65US a month with a 2-year commitment, about the same price Comcast charges for 50Mbps broadband alone.

Singapore’s ViewQwest is the first provider outside of Japan offering residential speeds higher than 1000Mbps, despite the fact few home users have computers equipped to handle the service at its fastest speed.

“We want to offer them the fastest residential Internet connectivity available in the world,” said CEO Vignesa Moorthy. “Our current 1Gbps customers can re-contract for 2Gbps for free. This, coupled with the usual high rate of sign-ups that occurs during events such as IT Show, makes us very confident that we’ll be able to sustain this plan.”

Usage caps, speed throttles, and expensive Internet plans common in the United States and Canada are not an issue in Singapore as fierce competition has created a consumer-friendly price war among the city’s competing fiber to the home providers.

One challenge users will discover is finding a router capable of supporting 2000Mbps speeds. For now, the ISP recommends a $600 enterprise-grade network card if a customer insists on getting 2Gbps on a single machine. But ViewQwest expects most customers will aggregate their 2Gbps connection through multiple consumer-grade routers to give each family member concurrent gigabit speeds that will sustain at least 1Gbps for each user.

Customers will also discover their speeds will only be as fast as the connection to the website they want to reach. For now, that means international content traveling across undersea cables or distant servers will arrive at considerably slower speeds, but as the Internet grows faster, ViewQwest customers won’t have to wait for their ISP to catch up.

New York regulators have once again kicked the can down the road, delaying a final decision on the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger for the seventh time.

Pursuant to a request from Department of Public Service staff in the above-referenced matter, Comcast Corporation and Time Warner Cable Inc. agree to extend the time for action by the Public Service Commission on the Joint Petition, with a final order issued no later than Monday, April 20, 2015.

There is no clear sign why the Public Service Commission has further delayed its final decision, but the merger remains mired in controversy on both the state and federal level. The FCC recently stopped the clock on further consideration of the merger as legal wrangling continues over who gets to see copies of cable programming contracts with Comcast.

A draft report from California regulators recommended approval of the merger in February, but only after dozens of conditions were recommended to protect the public and competition. Final consideration of the merger request may come next week at a general meeting of the California Public Utilities Commission.