<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.networkworld.com/community" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Comcast</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974</link>
 <description>Showing new posts in a forum view</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>NANOG46 and Cisco Live had Significant Focus on IPv6</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43728</link>
 <description>Although I wasn&#039;t able to attend in person the North American Network Operators&#039; Group (NANOG46) meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on June 14 to June 17, 2009, I did review the presentations from the conference.  I was astounded by the number of IPv6-related presentations at this NANOG meeting and the IPv6 presentations at Cisco Live.  There were some exciting announcements made at these meetings...</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43728#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1035">General discussions</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/23235">46</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/11153">Cisco Live</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/905">IPv6</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/11230">Limelight</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3758">NANOG</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/23236">NANOG46</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/922">Netflix</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Scott Hogg</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">43728 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Debugging the Interwebs</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/41705</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;We start this week with an interesting question my friend Dan O&#039;Neill (La Jolla, Calif.) raised in a list we both subscribe to. Dan remotely manages some 16,000 networked embedded Linux servers around the world (how cool is that?) as part of his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trusonic.com/&quot;&gt;business&lt;/a&gt;. Dan&#039;s problem is this:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Where can I find a live or nearly live discussion of network outage problems? The unofficial #nanog [North American Network Operators Group] IRC channel has been overrun with kiddies for years so that&#039;s not valuable anymore.
 &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/41705&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/41705#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21810">#nanog</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/19436">Collaboration / Web 2.0</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/11261">DDos</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21813">Fiddler</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/20126">Internap</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/8605">IRC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/15405">LANs &amp;amp; WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21811">North American Network Operators Group</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/4768">Quest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/15800">Remote Management</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/7763">Savvis</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/763">software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21812">Trusonic</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3020">Twitter</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1362">XO</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21815">Eric Lawrence</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mark Gibbs</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">41705 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comcast, DirecTV fined $4M for making 2 million annoying (and illegal) phone calls</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/40982</link>
 <description> The Federal Trade Commission today chalked up two more Do Not Call rule victories as it won  fines against Comcast and Directv for not only violating that rule but for re-calling consumers who specifically had told the companies not to call them again. Read more</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/40982#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1035">General discussions</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/26">VoIP / Convergence</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/45">Wireless / Mobile</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/7179">DirecTV</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/9094">do not call</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21293">robocals</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Layer 8</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">40982 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Google&#039;s new &#039;Net neutrality toolbox</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37936</link>
 <description>Google&#039;s launch of M-Lab to help end users understand and identify when ISPs are throttling back performance puts some teeth behind its &#039;Net neutrality stance. Now, instead of waiting for researchers to uncover ISPs blocking and degrading service for things like BitTorrent, users themselves can simply use the tools to confirm (or allay) their suspicions. Read more</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37936#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21">Network Management</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/26">VoIP / Convergence</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13589">&amp;#039;Net neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/71">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/504">ISP</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/19445">M-Lab</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/260">open source</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/18492">tests</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/19447">throttling</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2045">Tools</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/19446">traffic blocking</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Google Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">37936 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Just two questions</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37601</link>
 <description>1) is Verizon just as guilty?

2) How can I know if I reach the 250 GB limit?  I don&#039;t see my usage anywhere on my statement or when I view my account online.  There should be an obligation to show you where you are in relation to an imposed limit.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37601#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/525">broadband</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">37601 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Don&#039;t forget Comcast</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/34430</link>
 <description>Comcast beat both AT&amp;T and VZ on 40G backbones and was the first to use a 100G router interface.  100G optics are far less cool than 100G IP links</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/34430#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/239">AT&amp;amp;T</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">34430 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Growing? Bandwidth Restrictions</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32262</link>
 <description>Comcast recently imposed bandwidth limitations which is the first salvo in a pay-per-use ISP model. It&#039;s only a matter of time. With more bandwidth and dark fiber than they know what to do with, the ISPs are angling to put the frameworks in place to start up-selling their base. How many more people can connect? Once they&#039;ve got saturation the only revenue growth will come from adding new services or increasing the billable time, ergo bandwidth tiers.

Hopefully, there will continue to be competition for the on-ramps and keep things competitive. But, given our government lawmakers propensity to cave to special interest, I can potentially see BIG CABLE continuing to have their way with the public whenever they feel like it. 

It sort of makes me feel dirty....</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32262#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/592">ISPs</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Schratboy</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32262 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Well done.</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32235</link>
 <description>&quot;It&#039;s far more likely that the cap is in place to make sure that Comcast&#039;s network cannot be relied upon by competitors for high quality video delivery.&quot;

Spot on, I completely agree. HD content over the internet is the direction we&#039;re headed and Comcast is positioning themselves squarely in a position to control it. The cap buys them time to figure out how to prevent a transition from their carefully controlled content lineup to a free-for-all.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32235#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/525">broadband</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32235 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>comcast in yet another money grab</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32116</link>
 <description>I use far less than the 250gig / month but I chose comcast because there were no limits advertised when I signed up.  I think if 1% of the users are over the 250gig then why does a limitation need to be in place?  It&#039;s yet another money grab by a company and other companies will follow suit (watch the bandwidth cap drop as well)</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32116#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32116 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Ridiculous!</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32084</link>
 <description>Thanks to my better judgment based on my cable service with them, I just knew not to trust them with my Internet connection.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32084#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32084 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>‘Net Neutrality – Just the Facts Please</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31015</link>
 <description>The Comcast/BitTorrent saga got us thinking that the current chapter of the ‘net neutrality debate is playing out in the absence of the one thing that will lead us down a sensible path—facts. The current debate reads like a &quot;he said, she said&quot; script. Comcast argued that its actions to modify BitTorrent behavior were in response to a very real problem of access network congestion. But from what...</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31015#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1001">BitTorrent</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14237">Internet neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/530">net neutrality</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Sevcik and Wetzel</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">31015 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Instead of blocking, they just disconnect now</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30833</link>
 <description>It would appear to me that Comcast is taking a new tactic. I am a game mod developer and one of the ways I release updates to my games is through bittorrent since the files are usually small and are not illegal for someone to download. 

Lately I have noticed when I turn on my bittorrent software within minutes I lose my internet connection through Comcast. I turn off the software, reset my router and everything works fine. I then turn the software back on and once again I lose the connection.

I can go hours with no problems, but the second I try to release the torrent I am booted. I find it difficult to believe this is coincidence.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30833#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1001">BitTorrent</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/4447">p2p</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30833 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Bandwidth Hogs</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30642</link>
 <description>What protects the little guy from the &quot;Bandwidth Hogs&quot;?

Ever have your internet slow way down? If Comcast can not manage their network....won&#039;t this even be a bigger problem in the future?</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30642#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/29">Data Center</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/525">broadband</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30642 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Google may launch venture capital arm</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30556</link>
 <description>According to the Wall St. Journal, Google is currently planning to start its own venture capital group. If true, the move would enable Google to not only seed some interesting start-ups, but also get an early foot in the door when it comes time to purchase them or reap the rewards of a later IPO. Read more</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30556#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/670">Amazon</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14282">David Drummond</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/4208">Disney</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14281">funding</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/71">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/579">Intel</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/578">Motorola</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14280">start-up</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/261">venture capital</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14283">William Maris</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Google Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30556 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Future of the Internet: We’re All in This Together</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30491</link>
 <description>‘Net neutrality is back in the news with an expected FCC ruling against Comcast&#039;s secret manipulation of BitTorrent traffic. We note that application performance is at the heart of the ‘net neutrality debate—it&#039;s about who can use what applications and how well they will perform. The debate is fraught with emotion and vitriol—but will approaching ‘net neutrality with a &quot;good guy/bad guy&quot;,...</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30491#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1001">BitTorrent</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/145">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14237">Internet neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/530">net neutrality</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Sevcik and Wetzel</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30491 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>FCC chairman wants Comcast punished</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29812</link>
 <description>Comcast&#039;s idea of network management amounts to unauthorized network manipulation, says the head of the Federal Communications Commission, who will recommend that the service provider be punished for throttling peer-to-peer traffic.&quot;The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet,&quot; the commission chairman, Kevin J. Martin, told The Associated Press late...</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29812#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paul McNamara</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29812 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>  FCC chair comes down on side of &#039;Net neutrality</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29815</link>
 <description>In a move that should make Google, Amazon and other proponents of &#039;Net neutrality happy, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin says Comcast should be punished for throttling traffic and violating free and open access to the Internet. Read more</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29815#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13589">&amp;#039;Net neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1001">BitTorrent</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13591">decision</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/145">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/71">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/11497">Kevin Martin</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13592">policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13590">punish</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Google Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29815 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>FiOS</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29062</link>
 <description>PLEASE bring fios to Chicago. 

C O M C A S T is horrible. </description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29062#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3200">FiOS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29062 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comcast and me</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29005</link>
 <description>What you wrote was eerily familiar. I went through much the same song and dance with Comcast myself in San Francisco. 

Their HD feed was regularly terrible with frequent video freezes, pixelation and loss of audio. Assurances that they would make this right came frequently and earnestly. And they tried--sort of. They came out and re-wired my house. It didn&#039;t help. They changed out the converter box. That didn&#039;t help either. They re-wired the feed to the vault on the street. No luck. And yes, on occasion, they would credit small portions of my bill. To be fair, once they even comped me an entire month of service. 
 &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29005&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29005#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:20:03 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29005 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comcast ups customer service ante through Twitter</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/28822</link>
 <description>Cable giant Comcast usually gets a bad rep for customer service (even I complained about it), but I have to say I am impressed with their latest efforts through an unlikely source: Twitter.

Last night, while watching the incredible Celtics-Lakers game, I was trying to get some videos and podcasts uploaded to our site, but my Comcast internet connection was running terribly slow. A traceroute showed...</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/28822#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3020">Twitter</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jason Meserve</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">28822 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
