Not sure if they have it set up like they do elsewhere and the way other companies do it (like Time Warner/Spectrum did here in Austin), but most of these workers will likely be contractors and the only relation to Comcast they will have is the name on the trucks.

The modus operandi was, and maybe still is, issue an apology, fire the specific contractor, and hire another. When these people go to sue Comcast, their lawyers will tell them that the people were not directly employed by Comcast and therefore are culpable separately. Then you get into the whole hassle of trying to track down the contractor, who usually disappears and reappears under a different name.

I remember getting pissed at Time Warner (pre-sellout) because one of their people trespassed on my property and left my gates open. Fortunately my dogs didn't leave, but they could have. He had right of way to cross one gate because their pole is considered part of the 'easement' to the utility company's equipment. The second gate was padlocked and he cut it off because he didn't have a proper ladder to reach the pole, I assume. I called them and they first tried to BS me that the easement covered both gates, but I told them I had the surveyors confirm it didn't when I redid the fence the year before. Then they said that they weren't the direct employer and the guy was a contractor. I asked for info and they gave me his company name only after I complained to a supervisor. His company had a web page, but none of the numbers worked and the 'business address' is basically a knife sharpening shop in central Austin. Time Warner apologized when I called back, but the most they could do was give me a couple of free months service.

It wasn't me who first pointed out Simon as a hypocritical "liberal bully."

"Here’s why I assert Simon is a bully. His own words reveal him to be a petty, nasty, mean-spirited guy. “…anything I've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were [bleeped] up, wrong, and that I was the [bleeping] center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be.""

Statist narcissism.

There's as much as you'd like on this. How about...?

"David Simon, a multi-millionaire writer for Time-Warner, one of the largest corporations in the world and a cultural leader, jetted across the globe to speak in front an audience of people with both the financial means and free time about the horrors of “unchecked” capitalism and the tragic loss of the social compact."

"It is rich that a leading light of Hollywood, that of unpaid interns, unmatched inequality of pay, tax-avoidance schemes, exploitation of public subsidies, industry scheming, etc., would criticize a “broken social compact.”"

"Meanwhile, in the real world of unchecked, no-social-compact capitalism, the WSJ is reporting that the “Burger Wars” are expanding to Africa. The heartless capitalist system is stepping in where communism, socialism and other authoritarian systems have failed, bringing with it the digging of new wells, food production systems, jobs, etc. All that awful stuff that comfortable capitalists take for granted."

EDIT: To be clear, I have no specific interest in advocating for Koch, or Simon, or whomever, or in prosecuting them or @radx or anyone else. But I do think this kind of pernicious thinking/bullying can and does spread and causes much harm, even to those engaging in the thinking/bullying, it distorts them in an undesirable way, so I point it out.

FYI, they made fun of Time Warner Cable (TWC) with that logo. See http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28708070- for the details especially http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28710072- ...

I only have cable for its Internet since that is the only broadband and cheapest available in my cities (no DSL and FIOS even in my neighborhoods).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Anyone getting on the MSNBC bandwagon needs to read this: http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/

Fuck MSNBC, GE, News Ltd , Comcast, Time-Warner.

Cut your cable folks.

I think Cenk's missed the boat on this one. He's blinded by the almighty "Racist" trump card.

As horrible as racism and homophobia and sexism are, IMO, corruption is worse. Why? Because if the corruption reduces the value of your vote, and your freedoms of speech and assembly are legislated away, then it doesn't matter what you think about bigotry because if Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Time Warner want to make it worse, they will do so with their campaign contributions.

I'd vote for an openly racist president who acknowledges his biases and shows he understands the difference between his biases and his duty to the country, if he is going to deal a serious blow to corruption.

I can already hear people saying this is a ridiculous statement, that it's impossible. So to you, consider your own biases: if you're on VS, you probably vote liberal and are anti-religion. If you were in power, and openly acknowledged these biases, would you use your power to make laws unequal for conservatives and the religious? Would you ignore problems they had?

To bring it back to Ron Paul, to my limited knowledge, he has never shown that racism or homophobia are politically motivating factors for him.

So yeah, Cenk's missing the forest for the trees.

"Time Warner has called, and they want us back on the couch, not producing, not sharing, just consuming."

Brilliant quote at the end there.

The main stream media is the liberal media that's my point. Society needs more people figuring that out. For as much as people hate them (FOX news, Glen Beck etc,) they do bring stories forth stories that the main stream does not. EX. Main stream imply that Muslims are a peaceful religion. Its not. The true desire of this religion is to convert or kill. They treat their women like dogs. How can Americans tolerate that? But yet main stream media play stories that they are a nice bunch of people. >> ^alcom:

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."
More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:
"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."
>> ^bobknight33:
This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."

More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:

"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."

>> ^bobknight33:

This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

This guy, like the left is wrong!

GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.

2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner

Who owns what in Media link

My phone+internet package is $90/month, with 16Mbit speed (although I rarely get better than 12) and unlimited traffic.

Time Warner Cable in NC.

The actual problem is the ability and willingness of the telecoms to sue to keep competition away. Owning all the pipes, while it may be perceived as a monopoly and obstruction to competition, does not satisfactorily explain the problem. I say this because in Germany all of the the pipes are owned by Deutsche Telecom, but it is government regulations that allow for competition. As a result, internet is cheaper and faster as pointed out by TheGenk. Go ahead, own the pipes, but allow for fair use of them and lease them to anyone willing to pay, and the problem will not be so acute.


>> ^dag:

I already posted this to BF's Facebook - but this is where the action is - my selected comments:
There's no chance for competition when the massive telecom corporations own all the pipes into the home and sue to prevent any further competition. (See most muni-broadband projects) http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2010/11/the-price-of-muni-broadband-eternal-war-with-time-warner-cable.ars
Read the above article and tell me again how if only the free market was left unfettered we'd have competition in broadband. What a load of bull. The major controlling corporations have no interest in competition.
How is it government's fault? The big telcos gobbled up the little Baby Bells with no regulation from the FTC, hogging all the infrastructure and lobbying / suing any organization that challenged their primacy. How do you blame the government for this?


>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^marinara:
paying $60 per month for 768 kilobits here in the USA.

Outch!
For 30€ you get 100mbit internet and telephone flatrate here in Germany, time to move

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I already posted this to BF's Facebook - but this is where the action is - my selected comments:

There's no chance for competition when the massive telecom corporations own all the pipes into the home and sue to prevent any further competition. (See most muni-broadband projects) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/the-price-of-muni-broadband-eternal-war-with-time-warner-cable.ars

Read the above article and tell me again how if only the free market was left unfettered we'd have competition in broadband. What a load of bull. The major controlling corporations have no interest in competition.

How is it government's fault? The big telcos gobbled up the little Baby Bells with no regulation from the FTC, hogging all the infrastructure and lobbying / suing any organization that challenged their primacy. How do you blame the government for this?

>> ^chilaxe:

Prosperity is a big part of human welfare, and if we take $10 from one person so another person can think it costs them $.50 to send a letter, many citizens will feel justified in reducing any further altruism on their part toward society.


But that's the thing, we're not "taking $10 from one person so another can person think it costs them $.50 to send a letter." We're telling everyone it costs 50 cents to send a letter, regardless of whether the actual cost is 1/10th of a cent or $10, and making sure we set the flat rate so it covers the actual costs.

Which is to day, people don't think they're engaged in altruism when they're sending a letter, they think they're buying a service with a flat rate. Just like when I get RoadRunner from Time Warner and pay a flat rate for bandwidth, I'm buying a service, I'm not engaging in altruism towards other people on the service who might use more GB of bandwidth per month than me...

More generally, I think that people should understand that paying taxes is paying for services they've been rendered while living & working here (most of which resemble insurance), not engaging in "altruism," especially if they're in denial about the services they're benefiting from.

>> ^chilaxe:
Sending books by mail was probably important in the time of the founding fathers, but nowadays people have access to the sum total of human knowledge from their homes, or they can drive or bike to somewhere that does have internet. I'd imagine most of the mailed media that now takes advantage of the reduced media rates isn't very impressive.


Ah, but does everyone have that access? For example, do rural communities all have easy, free access to internet?

I'm definitely in agreement that mail delivery is no longer filling the role the founding fathers had in mind when they put it into the Constitution. The question is, what's the right change to make to the USPS? Dismantle it and abandon its objectives, or reinvent it so it uses modern technology like the Internet to achieve its original mission?

I say the latter makes more sense than the former.

>> ^marbles:

[S]ince companies can gain a market advantage by piggybacking on government infrastructure and making political deals, then it leads to oligopolies where the consumers are given false choices at inflated prices in their goods and services.
I'm not sure why the words "government" or "political" are in there. Companies can gain advantage by piggybacking on some other company's infrastructure, and the infrastructure's owner can make exclusivity agreements, which then lead to oligopolies where the customers are given false choices at inflated prices.

You even provided some non-governmental examples:
>> ^marbles:
Think Verizon/AT&T, Comcast/Time Warner, Energy providers, etc.

I suppose there are public electricity generation companies, but I don't remember the US government ever having a cable TV or wireless phone company.
>> ^marbles:
The USPS is self-sufficient? The USPS has several billion dollar deficits every year. To stay in business it has to "borrow" money from the US Treasury each year.

Two things. One, it's hard to find companies who didn't have losses in the last few years, and two the USPS's finances are being artificially deflated by a policy foisted on them by Congress.

That aside, self-sufficiency in this case means that nobody's taxes go to the post office. They're getting unusually cheap debt because they can borrow money using the US government's credit rating, but that doesn't cost anyone in higher taxes.

Keep in mind, this is the USPS borrowing from the Treasury. In terms of the national debt, it's an asset, not a liability. Maybe you're right, and the USPS will run up a huge debt, and then default, but I don't think so.

As for the big rant about debt and inflation, I'm too tired to run through the economics right now, but this whole story about debt & inflation is vastly, vastly overblown. Yeah, it could be a problem, maybe in 2030, and only then if we never end the Bush tax cuts, but otherwise it's just another scare tactic to make you do something that's against your own interests.

>> ^NetRunner:

First, the Post Office has been self-sufficient since the 80's. Your paycheck has nothing to do with it, unless you buy postage from the USPS.
Second, there's a difference between "inefficiency", and mandated universal service. What you describe is the latter.
And a third point to @blankfist's gung-ho praise of private carriers, all the packages I've gotten this year from Fedex were sent by Fedex's SmartPost, where they hire the USPS to do terminal delivery for them, because they can do it more efficiently.
Ditto for DHL and UPS. It's been a while since someone other than a USPS mail carrier brought me a package.
As confrontational as all that sounds, I don't really have any particular attachment to seeing government be in the mail delivery business. I don't really see any point in the universal service requirement on snail mail anymore, either.
I'm game for upgrading to something like Finland's universal service for broadband internet, since keeping us all connected via an information network is why we had a government-subsidized post office in the first place.
If you guys sign on for that, I'm all for cutting the Post Office loose.


FedEx and UPS will fly USPS mail from point A to point B. USPS will deliver the last leg of Fedex and UPS parcels in certain areas. It works both ways. They all touch each other's junk.
But the enforced monopoly on private mail creates an oligopoly in the package delivery market. This is the greater evil of government enforced monopolies. Monopolies don't lead to ingenuity, resourcefulness, or efficiency. So markets, that are seemingly free, will emerge around the government controlled one. And since companies can gain a market advantage by piggybacking on government infrastructure and making political deals, then it leads to oligopolies where the consumers are given false choices at inflated prices in their goods and services. Think Verizon/AT&T, Comcast/Time Warner, Energy providers, etc.

The USPS is self-sufficient? The USPS has several billion dollar deficits every year. To stay in business it has to "borrow" money from the US Treasury each year. ("Borrow" because it'll get paid back right?) So... where does the Treasury get it's money from? *cough* ... Taxes?!?! Ok, so technically it isn't using tax money because really that money was spent a looong time ago with how the government has it's own deficits (in the trillions!).
Basically when the USPS brags that they don't get tax payer money, it's at best a misnomer. It's actually far worse. The USPS has to "borrow" money from the US treasury, who has to "borrow" money from the Federal Reserve. And since the Federal Reserve doesn't actually have any "reserves", it magically creates the money, which debases the currency, which causes inflation. So everyone does end up paying for the deficit, only it's with an invisible tax of lost purchasing power of their money, i.e. prices go up. Yet the "debt" holder still collects interest from the tax payers and can even demand payment in full which would probably lead to confiscation of public assets and/or selling of public assets to private companies. So the reality is the USPS does cost the tax payer. The tax payer pays the deficit. Twice. Plus interest. That's why public debt is such a dangerous matter. And also why most of the debt in the world is illegitimate.