Comcast - Villain?

Does Comcast Control You?                   [(c) RichDevine.me]

We've been having a running battle with Comcast for a while now over its faltering WiFi service.

At first, it appeared to be just another glitch [similar to the many we've routinely dealt with over the last 10 or 15 years [all the way back to the days of Thomson Cable].

And, in the past, a phone call to the Comcast techies usually resolved the problem quickly as the "techs" could skim a manual, identify the problem, and try a variety of remedies -- one of which eventually would correct the problem.

Sometimes, it would take a visit by a live tech who would eventually determine that the problem originated at the neighborhood cable distribution point.

Comcast's best techs are in Canada, their worst in Eastern Europe. 
[We've been dealing with Eastern Europe of late.]

Let's Communicate for $$ (c) Warner Bros

But, now, as the prison warden told Paul Newman's character [in Cool Hand Luke],
"What we have here is a failure to communicate!"

Hmm.  Four calls; four disconnects.

It seems that this time, our request for support zipped right through the first tech, who advised he couldn't fix the problem and immediately transferred us to an electronic message offering three options, the primary of which was to sign up for an expensive WiFi Service Support Package. 


This seemed odd since the WiFi problem derived from the diminution of Comcast's signal, rather than from our quite new and very high end equipment.  So, why should we have to pay a surcharge for a Service which Comcast seemed to be disrupting.

[Could Comcast be a subsidiary of ObamaCare?]

I am from the city of Vermont  (c) HHenly

To confirm our suspicions, we made a fifth call, reaching "Erik" a tech whom we had conversed, and then arranged a conversation with his supervisor "Jake" [#615], whom we asked specifically if it were necessary to sign up for Comcast's WiFi Support Service to get Comcast to fix their transmission problem.  He eventually admitted the disruption in service could only be solved by signing up for Comcast's new Xfinity Signature Support service.


We then forwarded a complaint to government regulators on this apparent coercion, and we received calls from Jackie Dieter and a "Marie Schuler" from Comcast's Executive Customer Care Team -- deeply concerned that we had a problem, with assurances that a Comcast Tech Rep would be in touch to resolve the problem.  Oddly, there has been no such contact, much less, resolution.

                                       (c) MaximumPC

Our conversation with government regulators regarding Comcast's seeming monopoly status was quite revealing, but not very satisfactory.

We learned that government regulators take a "hands-off" approach to Cable companies since they have no jurisdiction over the Internet or WiFi signals, leaving Comcast, et al, to misbehave and to be abusive to their customer base.  Then again, we learned that there are class action suits against Comcast
[e.g., Behrend v Comcast] which will likely be reviewed by the Supreme Court.


In fact, although they cannot interfere with Internet and/or WiFi signals [and we're very glad of that], government regulators can regulate the carriers of those signals over their equipment.  We have a very heavy duty coaxial cable leading into our office which carries the signal to the Comcast Router, which is supposed to then route Internet to our computers and project a WiFi signal to wireless locations at our location. 

But now, the signal for both is minimal -- in contrast to Comcast's recent proclamations that they had "upgraded" their Xfinity service -- perhaps the small print was that the upgrade isn't free; and, the "upgrade" might be tied to a recent "downgrade" of one's existing service.
[And, Exfinity seems to be a pseudonym for the infinitesimal wait for a usable service signal]

So, what's the story here?

$7.99/month for the best TV series

Well, following recent disruptions in our Internet service [they seem to be more routine now], we commented to the repair people [who tried to sell us an upgrade to Comcast TV] to which we no longer subscribed since it was inherently cheaper to cancel the TV service and simply "stream" via BlueRay the NetFlix array of TV program series as well as its vast array of movies.

"Netflix represents more than 20% of downstream traffic during peak times." 

We also learned that NetFlix is not alone, and that more companies have these offerings, all at monthly pricing significantly less than Comcast
[e.g., Comcast TV service is roughly $80 per month; NetFlix streaming is $8.00 per month; hmm, easy choice!].

So, are we facing a situation where Comcast is deliberately disrupting service to its clients to force them to use their TV service, or to interfere with the "streaming" capability which enables NetFlix?

It certainly seems that way.

(c) OhioCitizen.org

In the old days, we would refer to such an abuse as extortion; but, in today's environment of mega-companies which arrange for quasi-monopoly service contracts with government eye-winking and large campaign contributions, coupled with private lunches among providers in which they divide up the consumer territory, we fear that the consumers just don't have the clout to fight back. 

We learned that there is no government allocation of territories at all; it is the companies themselves which allocate territories.  So, theoretically, you could have a Cox Cable connection next door to a Comcast connection -- but when's the last time you saw THAT happen.

David Cohen EVP - Comcast Cable        [Wikipedia File Photo]

Now, we're certain that David L. Cohen, Executive VP of Comcast Cable, is an honest man.  He is, after all, a "close confidant of Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell" -- the General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School [we believe with no linkage to their sports program].

 

Pa Gov Rendell   [Wikipedia Photo]

So, we're certain David would be appalled if he were to be accused of market manipulation.

Given the advantage Comcast enjoys in this situation, we'll exercise our own political options. 

Residing in the US Capital does have its advantages since 40+ years of exposure to Hill contacts, both politicians and staffers, has some merit.  Politicians come and go; staffers stay forever.


If we combine these contacts with a few zealous Journalists looking for a great scandal in an election year, we just might be able to make a dent in the armor of the Cable industry and the stranglehold it has on consumers.

And, an unregulated Internet will allow us to disseminate this story.

Mitt's British Gaffe?

"Mitt, just don't give me any of those bloody DVDs"          AP Photo

The US Media slammed Mr Romney for insulting the Brits by asking if they thought the Olympics would be successful, and if they had enough security.  Mr Romney had some experience in this venue since he had managed the Olympics which were held in Utah a while back.  His questions bore legitimacy as Olympics success is measured in a variety of ways, from attendance, to revenue, to safety.  And, rather than being insulted by his remarks, it seems his opinion was sought by the Brits.

(c) timeout2

In this Olympic venture, Great Britain has been inundated by torrential rains and bad weather -- issues the Brits had likely not foreseen and definitely affecting attendance -- thus Romney's "success" comments.

Empty seats filled with students and soldiers  (c) Mirror

Adding to weather problems has been the "empty seats issue" as thousands of seats remain unfilled at major events -- while vendors tell fans that the seats are sold out.

There is an official investigation underway.





But, let's examine Mr Romney's security question.

Seems the Brits were somewhat uncomfortable and felt the available police and security forces were inadequate to provide the security necessary for the Games -- particularly after the security firm G4S failed to deliver the 10,000 security personnel it had promised, and then, there was that little incident which was construed as potential terrorism two weeks ago.

                                                         (c) David Horsey

So, the Government called up 18,200 military troops to provide security.

Now, according to the Guardian and the McClatchy News, the force providing security consists of 36,000 soldiers, police, and private security personnel, augmented by an undetermined number of US security officers. In addition, thousands of new security cameras have been installed along with UAV/drones aloft constantly to monitor ground activity.

HMS Ocean                    (c) Daily Mail

To ward off a potential major attack, the Brits have stationed their largest warship, the HMS Ocean, in the Thames, along with a Surface-to-Air missile deployment -- perhaps to cope with an airborne threat.  We'll assume the ship carries a large contingent of Marines and Special Operations forces as a quick reaction force to deal with potential terrorists.



And, the MSM has reported that Romney met with the British MI-6 [similar in function to our CIA].

Heaven help us!  Why would he meet with the British Spooks?

Turns out the British Prime Minister had requested the meeting so he could brief Mr Romney -- the potential next President of the US, on Syria.  This contradicts the American Press version of the event -- which accused Mr Romney of "blabbing secrets".

MI-6  Clandestine Services  [like DIA's Clan Services]

In reality, Mr Romney, at their request, met with the full range of senior British officials, including PM David Cameron, Deputy PM Nick Clegg, Labour Leader Ed Miliband, and former PM Tony Blair.


   Mr Romney's meeting with Sir John Sawers, head of MI-6, was at the request of PM Cameron; following the meeting at #10 Downing Street, Mr Cameron accompanied Mr Romney into the street where the contents of the meeting[s] were jointly disclosed to the Press.


So, the hand-wringing by the American Press establishment, our very own MSM, was all for show, once again, to accuse Mr Romney of being a lightweight in foreign affairs and in matters of national secrecy.  



We do have to admire Mr Obama's expert manipulation of the MSM to try to discredit Mr Romney.

But, what we take away from this episode of deception by the US Press Corps is that the Brits seem to have lost all confidence in Mr Obama, and have turned to Mr Romney as the presumptive President come next January.

British Poster

So, in contrast to what the US MSM has portrayed as a diplomatic blunder on the part of Mr Obama, we learn that our British Ally recognizes Mr Romney as someone they CAN trust, and have thus confided their closest secrets to him -- which they apparently have chosen NOT to do with Mr Obama.

Before we close, let's take a look at Mr Obama's history of insults with our British friends.

Shortly after his inauguration, Mr Obama made quite a show of contempt for the Brits by returning their 9/11 gift/loan of the Oval Office bust of Winston Churchill -- which act annoyed the Brits somewhat more than did Mr Romney's legitimate questions.

Mr Obama's rationale was that his Kenyan granddad had been imprisoned by the Brits during the Mau Mau rebellion -- which turned out to be untrue as his granddad sat out that conflict at a very safe distance; but it made for a great media splash for him.

Churchill Bust -- 9/11 GB-US Alliance Symbol

1) On the act of returning the bust, WH Communications Director Pfeiffer claimed the bust had never been sent back to the Brits, and to prove it, showed a photo of Obama caressing a similar bust in the WH "outside the Treaty Room".

But, those nasty Brits!

They responded that, in fact, they do have the bust that Obama tossed back to them and it has been on display in the British Ambassador's residence in DC ever since Obama returned it.

Charles Krauthammer gleefully reported that the bust that Obama was shown displaying was one given to Lyndon Johnson more than 50 years ago.


2) In exchange for several priceless gifts [an ornamental desk pen holder carved from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet] presented by the British PM  to the POTUS, Mr Obama gave him a 25 DVDs from the WH Gift Shop] -- which were unusable in GB.

3) And, ending a long tradition of friendship, Mr Obama snubbed the PM by not giving him face time, or even the traditional State Dinner.

The Brits have fought alongside us for nearly a century in WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  So, we are inclined to call them our Closest Ally.  So, when Mr Obama called France Our Closest Ally, our British friends felt insulted -- but, we didn't see that reported by the US Press Corps.

But, they're completely unbiased   (c) hyscience

We are disturbed that the US Press Corps seems to have become the close ally of Mr Obama -- to the extent that we can no longer trust any political news they report.

We also note that on nearly every digital page of The Washington Post, there is a digital Anti-Romney advertisement -- we assume posted by The Washington Post at their own expense.
[Do they list this as a campaign contribution?]



Freedom of the Press is paramount in this country -- but we are appalled when the US Press becomes a funnel of Political Propaganda from the Executive Office.

Clinton Attacked in Egypt

Protesting Hillary's visit and support for President Morsi

Click here for related story [RT]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade was attacked [in July 2012] by Egyptian mobs in Egypt, with protestors shouting "Monica, Monica!" indicating that domestic politics in the US are world news.  In an extension of Tip O'Neal's observation that "All Politics is Local", we note that indeed the internal scandals in the US have an impact on our image throughout the world.

US Media reveled in shoe assault on Bush
(c) MSNBC

We recall that when President Bush was the target of a shoe thrown by an Iraqi "journalist", Bush became the object of derision and ridicule by the US Media -- which now expresses outrage that Ms Clinton's dignity has been abused.  Now, had she been a Conservative, she'd have received the Bush derisive treatment.

The New York Times alludes to GOP evil-doers engineering these protests, blaming it specifically on Michelle Bachman's rhetoric.

I did not have sex with this woman!
[SNL spoof]

In this case, Hillary Clinton's linkage to Bill, as much as she would like to distance herself, will likely haunt her wherever she travels in the world.

Of course, she does have her own personal baggage which did not make international headlines, but we won't dwell on that, for now.

Pelted with shoes and tomatoes; they don't like her

According to on-the-scene reporting, Clinton was pelted with tomatoes and shoes to protest US interference in Egypt's internal affairs as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and its failure to condemn Israel for its continued encroachment on Palestinian territory.

Clinton with President Morsi               (c) Politico

Protestors later demonstrated outside Clinton's hotel for her meeting with Egypt's newly elected President Mohammed Morsi, who is supported by the Islamist Brotherhood.

Much of the protest seems to have been inspired by Tawfik Okasha, a former Presidential candidate [dubbed the Egyptian Glenn Beck], who fears a US conspiracy with President Morsi to replace Egyptian military commanders with Muslim Brotherhood officers.

Okasha owns an Egyptian television station whose conspiracy theories have come under a great deal of ridicule by his opponents.

Given recent events, and his growing following, perhaps there is significant segment of the educated population of Egypt which now supports his theories.

There is a lot more to the Egytian political scene than what we see reported in the US, or even generally in the Western Press.  We'll do some digging and try to increase coverage of this situation; but, we do see some similarities between the rigging of the Egyptian military leadership, and like replacements in the US military hierarchy.

UPDATE: 

Ambassador Stevens
Target of Hillary-Morsi Collusion

1) The assailants who attacked and murdered US Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi 

only a few months later (September 2012), were captured on video 

shouting (in Egyptian Arabic) to Libyan Security forces:   

"DON'T SHOOT, MORSI SENT US!"

2) This was obviously a coordination meeting between Hillary and Morsi during which Hillary likely laid out the plans for the attack on Benghazi, and the subsequent movement of military weaponry to ISIS and al Qaeda forces elsewhere in the Middle East.

3) In August 2012, one month after Hillary's meetings with Morsi, he met with Iranian Vice President Hamid Baqai.  Also on 11 September, the day of the Benghazi attack, the US Embassy in Cairo was attacked -- after the Marine Guards were ordered to secure their weapons in the arms room while angry mobs were protesting and burning the US flag outside the Embassy.  Instructions from Washington directed the Marines to surrender the US Embassy to Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood government.

4) Morsi was overthrown in a coup the following July after a year of public protests over his alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and insertion of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into key government positions.