Comcast

[AntiLeaf33 0]

Ok, so I work as internet (and former cable TV) tech support and billing for Comcast. As you can see by my profile, I live in Canada, which means I obviously cannot get the service here. Now, as customer service I usually get fucking idiots or people getting a raw deal from their service (after all, who calls in to say everything is working fine). I've always been a little curious to what the service is really like

[Ripper 0]

If you ever need customer service from them it is the shittiest customer service in the world. But the product itself is fine, but overpriced.

 

Its alot like Cingular/AT@T around here in Atlanta. they easily have the best network, but woe be unto you if you need to call them for help with something because you are fucked.

 

I seldom have outages of cable, and my internet runs pretty well without any hiccups though.

 

but their constant raising of pricing is just plain annoying.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I have no complaints about Comcast, sans that one queer working up in Washington state. Been a customer for 4+ years now.

[Youth N Asia 0]

If you ever need customer service from them it is the shittiest customer service in the world. But the product itself is fine, but overpriced.

 

that's pretty much it. Prices are always going up and they're making it almost impossible to keep basic cable by taking away more and more stations

[MrRant 0]

If you ever need customer service from them it is the shittiest customer service in the world. But the product itself is fine, but overpriced.

 

that's pretty much it. Prices are always going up and they're making it almost impossible to keep basic cable by taking away more and more stations

 

Welcome to the analog migration bitches.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I love news reports when the story is about the rising cost of cable/college tuition/etc. The real story would be if the cost was reduced.

 

Once cable gets to the point where I don't feel like it's a good deal, then I'll get it uninstalled.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I agree. I actually moved down from having their digital HD service because the lack of HD channels was pathetic, and it was just way too much money for something I don't think I use enough to justify. Like kkk, I think if they raise the price to something where I don't think it's too good a deal anymore, I'll get it removed. Even at $55+ a month, I think it's too much.. I basically just watch the sports networks, AMC, Comedy Central, and adult swim, and that's about it outside of the network channels. And that's only if there's something on to actually watch, too, I'm not the kind of guy to turn on the TV and leave it on in the background. It's pretty much just internet and reading in the way of home entertainment for me.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

I'll agree with you guys on price. It's pretty hard for me to justify why we charge so much for the services, especially when someone has a good case.

[KingPK 0]

I recently moved down from the second-tier of digital channels to the Sports and Entertainment package (which includes NFL Network). A lot of the digital channels I had I rarely watched (if I watched them at all), but I do miss having all the Encore channels and Encore on Demand.

 

I haven't had much of a problem with the internet or phone services either and them including products like Rhapsody and McAfee security programs free is really good.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'll agree with you guys on price. It's pretty hard for me to justify why we charge so much for the services...

 

Because people will pay for it at that price. If someone doesn't want to pay that amount to watch more TV channels, then don't.

 

Besides, if you have a kid and forgo cable television (let's just say it costs $50/month for the sake of easy math), then after 18 years, according to my numbers, you'll save $600 a year. After 18 years that would equal $10,800, not including interest/inflation/etc. Now that would help paying some of the bills for college, providing you don't make your little bastard pay for it on his/her own.

 

Side note regarding my Comcast package: Last year I got some three-product deal for $120 -- Basic Digital Cable/Phone/Internet, plus all the taxes and fees that come along with this stuff. Then after that deal expired they gave me this deal where I get a bunch more channels (premium/NFL/etc.) for about $50 more (not including taxes/fees/etc., which brings it up to around $180). Seeing how my "three products" would have cost about $130-140 after my promotion expired, I see no problem paying the extra money for the additional stuff I received. If next year comes along and there's no deal in my cards, I'll just reduce my cable plan. Oh, wait. High cable prices. No fair. GRAAAWR~!

[MrRant 0]

I like KKK. He keeps buying more.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Directv is horrible for their CSRs...but I cant kick the price of $70 a month for 2 HD-DVRs including the soon expanding HD package and DVR service, plus soon to be launched Video On Demand service. I dont do any premium channels but thats what my $18 a month Blockbuster Online account is for.

 

Now if I could only get my Sprint Broadband down from $60 a month for 1350 kbps..

 

sigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

Directv is horrible for their CSRs...but I cant kick the price of $70 a month for 2 HD-DVRs including the soon expanding HD package and DVR service, plus soon to be launched Video On Demand service. I dont do any premium channels but thats what my $18 a month Blockbuster Online account is for.

 

Now if I could only get my Sprint Broadband down from $60 a month for 1350 kbps..

 

sigh

 

So, what exactly does this have to do with Comcast?

 

I know you have difficulty comprehending that you're communicating with actual people on the internet, and that you're not just replying to random surveys to talk about yourself for a while when posting here, but please make an effort to at least stay relevant to the topic.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Directv is horrible for their CSRs...but I cant kick the price of $70 a month for 2 HD-DVRs including the soon expanding HD package and DVR service, plus soon to be launched Video On Demand service. I dont do any premium channels but thats what my $18 a month Blockbuster Online account is for.

 

Now if I could only get my Sprint Broadband down from $60 a month for 1350 kbps..

 

sigh

 

So, what exactly does this have to do with Comcast?

 

I know you have difficulty comprehending that you're communicating with actual people on the internet, and that you're not just replying to random surveys to talk about yourself for a while when posting here, but please make an effort to at least stay relevant to the topic.

 

Directv offers tv just like Comcast..and Im just giving the info as to how other companies compare in price and all..

 

duh

 

You don't think Comcast has the TV market monopoly do you?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yes, but the thread was started with the intention of asking what Comcast's service was like, it isn't a "Hey, tell us about your cable/satellite service! (and while you're at it, your internet service, too!)" thread. I don't care why you're with DirecTV- have you considered that a lot of people can't get satellite service because a. they live in shitty weather-prone areas, b. they live on rented property, c. live in urban areas and would have obstructions blocking the southern view of the sky no matter where they place their satellite, or d. a combination of any of the above? (for me, that would be all of them).

 

And between Comcast and Time Warner, they pretty much have the monopoly on the cable television market, yes. If I had a choice, I would definitely have switched from Comcast to another cable television service by now. But I can't, so I'm stuck with them if I want to receive more than 12 channels.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Yes, but the thread was started with the intention of asking what Comcast's service was like, it isn't a "Hey, tell us about your cable/satellite service! (and while you're at it, your internet service, too!)" thread. I don't care why you're with DirecTV- have you considered that a lot of people can't get satellite service because a. they live in shitty weather-prone areas, b. they live on rented property, c. live in urban areas and would have obstructions blocking the southern view of the sky no matter where they place their satellite, or d. a combination of any of the above? (for me, that would be all of them).

 

And between Comcast and Time Warner, they pretty much have the monopoly on the cable television market, yes. If I had a choice, I would definitely have switched from Comcast to another cable television service by now. But I can't, so I'm stuck with them if I want to receive more than 12 channels.

 

A) Lots of people have dishes in weather prone areas, as long as the dish is installed right, you shouldnt have problems.

B) FCC law mandates that renters allow people to install a satellite dish, but most people dont know this (antenna = satellite dish in the following)

A: Yes. Effective January 22, 1999, renters may install antennas within their leasehold, which means inside the dwelling or on outdoor areas that are part of the tenant's leased space and which are under the exclusive use or control of the tenant. Typically, for apartments, these areas include balconies, balcony railings, and terraces. For rented single family homes or manufactured homes which sit on rented property, these areas include the home itself and patios, yards, gardens or other similar areas.

C) There are just as many people subbing to directv in urban areas as rural now. I doubt you could get a good signal in Downtown areas like NYC but how many people actually live in those areas?

 

but anyway..

[Guest Vitamin X]

I don't mean to derail this thread any further than Marvin has, but seriously..

 

I doubt you could get a good signal in Downtown areas like NYC but how many people actually live in those areas?

 

You are officially the biggest fucking idiot on the board. Congratulations. Wow.

 

Plus, my renter's agreement states I can't install it without permission from the landlord. I'm not going to fight something in court over something as stupid as HDTV, although I could imagine why you would, you fat, bald, lazy, worthless shit.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

I doubt you could get a good signal in Downtown areas like NYC but how many people actually live in those areas?

Nobody eats at that restaurant. It's too crowded.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I don't mean to derail this thread any further than Marvin has, but seriously..

 

I doubt you could get a good signal in Downtown areas like NYC but how many people actually live in those areas?

 

You are officially the biggest fucking idiot on the board. Congratulations. Wow.

 

Plus, my renter's agreement states I can't install it without permission from the landlord. I'm not going to fight something in court over something as stupid as HDTV, although I could imagine why you would, you fat, bald, lazy, worthless shit.

 

FCC Law supercedes whatever your landlord has set up in regards to having a satellite dish, and it would never make it to court because someone would mention that they wouldnt have a case. There are tons of threads on the sat forums of people "threatened" if they put up a dish that never go to court because its illegal to prevent someone from putting up a dish.

 

As far as my downtown areas comment, I was associating the skyscrapers and other tall building with being predominantly business/commercial, not residential but yes I know people do live in them. You wouldnt be able to get a good signal anyway, just like you cant get one with OTA reliably do to the signals bouncing off and scattering all over the place.

[Ripper 0]

FCC can't make apartments allow renovations, which is what you drilling into their property to put up a dish is. You are allowed to put up a dish if it is attached to something that is not owned by the apartment complex.

 

Really think about what you are saying here. You are saying that the law is saying you can do what you want to someone elses property. No they can't. You can HAVE a satillite, with the landlord permission if you want to install it utilizing their property, but you cannot drill, hammer or screw the satillite in property that is not yours.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

FCC can't make apartments allow renovations, which is what you drilling into their property to put up a dish is. You are allowed to put up a dish if it is attached to something that is not owned by the apartment complex.

 

Really think about what you are saying here. You are saying that the law is saying you can do what you want to someone elses property. No they can't. You can HAVE a satillite, with the landlord permission if you want to install it utilizing their property, but you cannot drill, hammer or screw the satillite in property that is not yours.

 

WRONG

 

(From the same FCC page)

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?

 

A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

 

The apartment complex cannot stop you from drilling holes in an area that you have exclusive use of to put up a dish.

 

: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me? A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.

 

Of course, you all probably know more than I do about satellite dish laws even though I think Ive read about 100 threads that start "HELP, My landlord is threatening to evict me if I dont take my dish down!" which end the same way..the person keeps the dish and doesn't get evicted. Most of them put their dish up on a balcony either attached to the railing or a post (which is allowed), or in a low tech way - mounted on a pole in a bucket full of cement if there is no pole or railing or they have a patio but not a balcony. None of these methods are asthetically pleasing to the landlord which is why a lot of them will challenge it (especially if they have an exclusive deal with a cable company).

 

Most people aren't aware of the rules and would soon take their dish down as to be evicted over it, but those who do fight it win probably 99% of the time. The landlord has NO LEGAL ground to stop someone from putting a dish up as long as it complies with the rules.

 

I will cease posting in here as it has strayed way off topic (which I am responsible for)..

[Ripper 0]

You do realise that you don't have ownership or a leasehold interest in an apartment rental right? An apartment lease is not the same thing.

 

I don't give a shit what those threads say, they are wrong and they are going to get alot of people a whole lot of charges for destroying the property of apartment OWNERS. The only way they are going to get around it is that the complex doesn't notice the holes when they move out. If they do, you are going to be resposible for the cost to replace the entire banister.

 

You can put up non property damaging dishes all day, because it doesn't damage the property...that you don't own and don't hold a leasehold intrest in. And you are right, according to the rule, the landlord has no right to tell you that you can't. But as owner of a property they damn sure can tell you that you can't destroy their property to put up a dish. See, the apartment complex owner DOES have ownership or a leasehold interest in the property. Not you.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

It appears as though I have opened Pandora's box by starting this thread.

 

On a related note, I have officially gone from a CSR to dealing with techs all day. After finding this out I gave my last caller (a nice old woman with a bill that sucked ass) about $200 in credits for being nice.

[Guest Vitamin X]

You do realise that you don't have ownership or a leasehold interest in an apartment rental right? An apartment lease is not the same thing.

 

I don't give a shit what those threads say, they are wrong and they are going to get alot of people a whole lot of charges for destroying the property of apartment OWNERS. The only way they are going to get around it is that the complex doesn't notice the holes when they move out. If they do, you are going to be resposible for the cost to replace the entire banister.

 

You can put up non property damaging dishes all day, because it doesn't damage the property...that you don't own and don't hold a leasehold intrest in. And you are right, according to the rule, the landlord has no right to tell you that you can't. But as owner of a property they damn sure can tell you that you can't destroy their property to put up a dish. See, the apartment complex owner DOES have ownership or a leasehold interest in the property. Not you.

 

Right. In buildings such as mine where a dish would have to be put up on a roof to have even the most remote chance of having a shot at the southern sky, the property would have to be modified. I had an apartment a few years ago in California where this wasn't even an issue because we had a balcony and were able to just place it there- that's a bit of a difference.

 

`Sides, all this is WAY too much hassle for something as utterly fruitless and counterproductive as television. I don't even know if I want to keep Comcast, because I'm happy with saving my TV's LCD display for games and movies instead.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't mean to derail this thread any further than Marvin has, but seriously...

 

I don't think this thread go derailed. It evolved. I consider derailing an intentional act. Like ... this...

 

Fuck.

[Ripper 0]

I personally wasn't going to say anything, but it annoys me when people go "WRONG" when they obviously don't have the slightest idea what the fuck they are talking about.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Just to tie up loose ends, an apartment renter does have a leasehold interest if they have an agreement longer than one month. However, a typical apartment renter only controls the space from inside wall to inside wall. The building structure is still owned by the fee simple interest holder in the building. An apartment renter cannot fasten any satellite dish to the structure without the permission of the owner, and that is clearly stated in that FCC law. You can stick it on your porch or patio if you like, but as most of you know, that doesn't work in most situations.

[Ripper 0]

I am pretty sure that leasehold interest applies to the owner-occupier, not the tenant.

 

When leasehold interest applies, usually this is seen as an asset. An apartment is not a asset for a tenant.

[Slayer 0]

Join us next week, when Ripper and Marvin will discuss tax laws

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

I am pretty sure that leasehold interest applies to the owner-occupier, not the tenant.

 

When leasehold interest applies, usually this is seen as an asset. An apartment is not a asset for a tenant.

 

The owner has a leased fee interest if they rent.

 

A leasehold can be a positive or negative. If an apartment owner has a bunch of tenants at above market leases, the leasehold is a positive for the ownership position.