Comcast’s False Advertising

There’s some discussion about the fairness of Comcast’s invisible bandwidth limits. There’s two problems with this. One is the difficulty of complying with an unknown or unmeetable requirement:

This is where the secrecy creates problems, really. Sure, maybe an invisible something or another is better than a low explicit one, but you can’t defend yourself if they’ve got it wrong, because there’s no documentation. They don’t even always tell the subscriber how much the subscriber has downloaded, and it appears that they may even lie about that. They don’t want anyone knowing anything, basically. “Just cut back”.

This is quite literally insane. We are invited into a house for tea, then warned by the frothing host “don’t cross the line!”. When we ask “Which line?”, the host reveals nothing. But step over that line? Baseball bat to the face!

The big problem I have with their invisible limits is that this is a corporation getting away with false advertising. If you advertising “unlimited”, you had better provide unlimited. Comcast does not. And this same company tries to assure us to trust them when it comes to Net Neutrality. Why should we, both as customers and as citizens, believe a word they say?

This is bad for their brand. When it becomes clear that Comcast stands for false advertising, poor customer service, and and a psycho-authoritarian approach to bandwidth, this can’t be good for the company. Supposing more competitors step up to the plate, they will find themselves losing customers.

In the meantime we can support Net Neutrality.

%d bloggers like this: