19 Comments

Summary:

TheFCC has settled with Comcast over charges that the cable company made it hard for consumers to find stand-alone broadband packages that don’t cost an arm and leg. As part of the settlement Comcast paid the U.S. Treasury $800,000.

iStock_000014340519XSmall

Updated: The Federal Communications Commission has settled with Comcast over charges that the cable company made it hard for consumers to find stand-alone broadband packages that don’t cost an arm and leg. As part of the settlement Comcast paid the U.S. Treasury $800,000 and the FCC extended the length of time Comcast had to provide such a service.

The cable provider was ordered by the agency to provide access to “a reasonably priced broadband option to consumers who do not receive their cable service from the company” under the Commission’s Order approving the Comcast-NBCU transaction in 2010. To further show its ire with Comcast, the FCC also said Comcast would have to provide the stand-alone reasonable broadband-only package for another year — until February 21, 2015.

As part of Comcast’s 2011 agreement to buy NBC Universal the FCC tacked on several conditions that ranged from not prioritizing Comcast or NBC traffic over other packets on the Comcast network, to requirements that Comcast allocate channels for minorities. Comcast has touted its success including a new channel from Sean “Diddy” Combs, but entities ranging from individual technologies to Michael Bloomberg have complained.

In this case the FCC investigated complaints that alleged Comcast was hiding its “Performance Starter” service from customers. From the FCC release:

Under the order the Commission required Comcast to offer standalone broadband services on terms equivalent to packages that bundle broadband and video cable service. Comcast was ordered to offer a broadband service with a download speed of at least 6 mbps at a price no greater than $49.95 for three years. The Commission also prohibited Comcast from raising prices on the required broadband service for two years. Finally, Comcast had to “visibly offer and actively market” standalone broadband Internet access service to highlight the availability of this special service and other standalone broadband services.

Comcast didn’t admit fault as part of the settlement, but it did lay out some cash and pledge to make its cheaper stand-alone service more visible. It will train its call agents, make sure the offering is visible on its web site and it committed to a major marketing campaign around the Performance Started service for 2013. Ironically this comes at a time when Verizon is pulling back on offering stand-alone DSL.

However, the actions taken by the FCC may help convince folks like Senator Al Franken who wrote the DoJ and FCC a letter claiming that the agencies were letting Comcast run roughshod over its conditions. This move is one small step toward showing that the FCC isn’t some toothless regulator beholden to the very industry it regulates.

Update: Here’s Comcast’s response:

“Comcast has incorporated the extensive commitments and conditions from the NBCUniversal transaction into the DNA of our business practices, including the commitment to offer standalone broadband Internet. We are proud of our standalone broadband offering of ‘Performance Starter’ service – we rolled this product out in just one month, the fastest Comcast has ever deployed a brand new service simultaneously throughout its footprint.

As is often the case with services associated with government orders, the FCC had questions on how the service might have been rolled out in a different or even better way. We are pleased that Comcast and the FCC were able to address such issues cooperatively and constructively in a consensual manner. We look forward to continuing to offer and market Performance Starter in additional ways and with additional outlets. We believe this product offers a choice consumers want in the marketplace.”

  1. As usual, GoogleOm promotes Google’s agenda, in which government forces ISPs to lose money so Google can profit. Readers should look elsewhere for responsible and ethical journalism.

    Share
    1. ? ? ?

      Share
    2. Michael Fortner Thursday, June 28, 2012

      Shill for the telcos much?

      Share
      1. He is a telco, but what’s wrong with that? Google is a cluster of billionaire 1%ers. Why should they always win? And why should their astroturfing shills like the EFF get to pretend like they’re public-interest groups.

        Share
    3. Only a thief thinks that he is losing money when the police prevent him from robbing as many victims as possible.

      Share
      1. Ain’t it the truth!

        Share
    4. sup TROLL! Every time I see this kind of astroturfing I up my monthly EFF donation amount. It’s hard to type in the amount with one hand because I do it with the other fist on the air (natch), but totes worth it. And yes I am 100% serious.

      Share
    5. This has nothing to do with ComCrap… try posting something relevant… here fyi: RELEVANT – a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion.
      You sir, have done neither, please see your way out.

      Share
  2. $800k for an $84B company sounds like a minor slap on the wrist. I suspect it might be more profitable to be a repeat offender. Compare that to the $899M levied on MSFT by the EU in the news today, as an example of a non-toothless penalty.

    Share
  3. Interesting. I just noticed the other day that it was basically impossible to find the cost of anything but expensive bundled TV+Internet packages on our local cable company’s website, and I was musing whether that was even legal. I challenge you to find the cheapest cable contract with the cheapest internet service: http://www.brighthouse.com/central-florida/shop
    The answer: something like $27 for ultra basic cable, and $45 for 10Mbps, but as far as I can tell, that info is not on the site. Time to fine them?

    Share
  4. Say WHAT? Standalone broadband is supposed to be available from Comcast?

    Share
  5. 6Mbps for $50/mo? That’s so absurdly expensive as to be unusable and thus a toothless punishment.

    Share
  6. ScamCast!
    \

    Share
  7. Is the $49.95 before or after miscellaneous hidden fees? I had Comcast awhile ago, and I think the advertised price was about $50, but after fees it was over $60.

    Also, why would the FCC stipulate a maximum price of $49.95, and not $50? Cutting pennies off is a marketing gimmick, it seems silly to make it a requirement.

    Share
  8. How is this a punishment at all? $800k is a slap on the wrist for a multi-billion $ company and $50 a month for 6 Mbps service is HIGHER than the current market rate for DSL in most areas.

    Share
  9. Doesn’t look like FCC settlement is making a difference. If you Google for “Comcast Performance Starter” there aren’t any sponsored or organic links to Comcast’s site. Comcast’s site doesn’t make it clear at all either. The fine is not even a slap on the wrist. #fail.

    Share
  10. I recently ordered the performance starter service from comcast. They installed the 15Meg package instead, and when I noticed the difference with a speed test and called them, they told me not to worry about it. Come bill time…they charged me for their 15 meg package. After a stroke, I called them and had them change my service. They dispatched a tech to do it (why???), who attempted to install cable TV instead. Got that straightened out, only to find that they charged me a fee on the next bill for the service change, and prorated my use of the 15 meg service that i hadn’t ordered.
    Is there any way the FCC will ever be effective vs these guys?

    Share
    1. File a complaint with the FTC. They do respond to consumer complaints about deceptive billing practices when the companyr refuses to fix their error.

      Share

Comments have been disabled for this post