Comcast Demands $19,000 For Broadband In Yet Another Consumer Nightmare

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For decades the U.S. newswires have been peppered with stories where somebody bought a house after being told by their ISP it had broadband access, only to realize the ISP didn’t actually serve that address. Generally, the homeowner then realizes they have to spend a stupid amount of money to pay the local telecom monopoly to extend service… or move again.

That happened again recently. A Virginia man confirmed with Comcast that they provided broadband to his new home in Washington State. Then, about four days before closing, Comcast suddenly cancelled the order. When contacted, Comcast stated they couldn’t actually provide service, and that it would cost the man $19,000 to extend service to his home:

Comcast initially told Rowny that he’d have to pay over $19,000 for a line extension. After spending a couple of months investigating his options, Rowny hired a contractor to do part of the work and paid Comcast to do the rest, for a total of about $10,000.

Even then, the work took much longer to complete than estimated, thanks in part to Comcast’s dysfunction and trademark terrible customer service. First the line couldn’t be finished because Comcast wasn’t communicating with its subcontractor. Then Comcast couldn’t finalize the billing to fire up the line because Comcast’s systems still listed service as unavailable at his address.

This flawed data, which Comcast has no incentive to fix lest it highlight market failure and monopolization, is also used to inform federal broadband mapping efforts, which also stink. It’s a big chain of dysfunction that has persisted for the better part of a generation.

Again, this same story has played out countless times. It’s part of the vast pleasures of letting U.S. telecom become highly monopolized, which results in high prices, poor customer service, and companies that aren’t incentivized to actually try very hard (because in the U.S. we have neither competent regulatory oversight nor the kind of competition needed to create genuine accountability).

This is all something well-lobbied U.S. policymakers refuse to even acknowledge, much less meaningfully address. Instead they tend to just throw billions of dollars in subsidies at monopolies and billionaires, and talk about the “digital divide” as if it were some causation-free thing that just dropped out of the sky.

Time after time, local ISPs are found to be flat out lying when they claim they can offer an essential utility (broadband), and the home buyer has little recourse thanks to the slow, steady erosion of U.S. state and federal telecom regulatory oversight.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: comcast

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Comcast Demands $19,000 For Broadband In Yet Another Consumer Nightmare”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
David says:

You are being unfair

Time after time, local ISPs are found to be flat out lying when they claim they can offer an essential utility (broadband), and the home buyer has little recourse thanks to the slow, steady erosion of U.S. state and federal telecom regulatory oversight.

They did provide the service, just for a higher price than the customer thought they were getting based on the advertisements.

But do you know a single person who’d have guessed correctly what they’d end up paying Comcast for broadband service based on their advertising?

At least this time, they told the markup in advance.

Karl Bode (profile) says:


err, no. If you read the Ars article it makes clear Comcast falsely claimed they offered broadband service to an address they didn’t actually serve (which they do constantly), then informed a guy who just bought a house he’d have to pay $19k to get a service he was previously informed wouldn’t cost him any large installation fee (which they do constantly).

Anonymous Coward says:

went thru exactly this scenario a few years ago

except that I’m in the heart of Silicon Valley and every house on every side of me was served, just not my tiny cul de sac. It even cost about the same amount as in this story.
I had satellite Internet previously, and it is in no way a substitute for fixed line connectivity. Neither is cellular for that matter, with data caps and so forth.
My other alternative was ISDN, as AT&T had chosen not to extend DSL to our neighborhood either. Yes, IDSN in this century.
At some point we need a universal service requirement for broadband similar to what exists for POTS lines.

That One Guy (profile) says:

And this is why companies like Comcast lose their gorram minds anytime the dreaded Municipal Broadband/Competition rears it’s head, if people had other options lying about availability would just encourage someone to look for those other ISP’s, especially if the alternative is paying tens of thousands to get what they said they were already offering.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...