backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by .. on Mar 26 at 1:49 PM

ISP claims FCC has no authority to regulate Comcast's "network management" practices

Comcast continued its resistance to FCC interference last week, with Vice President David L. Cohen firing a strongly-worded and thinly-veiled shot across the FCC’s bow.

“The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful,” wrote Cohen in a letter (PDF) filed March 11. “Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority.”

Cohen proceeded to pick apart the FCC’s authority, pointing out that the bureau’s own policies prohibit it from acting because they have “no force of law.” He cited the 2002 Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, which classified cable modem service as an “information service” instead of a “common carrier,” therefore exempting Comcast from the FCC’s authority as codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – a status upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2005 Brand X decision.

“Any attempt to justify an injunction on Comcast based on a statutory provision that is explicitly limited to common carriers would violate the Communications Act and be arbitrary and capricious,” wrote Cohen.

Cohen further argued that a sudden shift in FCC policy would violate the Administrative Procedures Act, noting that the FCC is not permitted to “switch abruptly from an explicit policy of relying on market forces” to a “new regime” where ISP decisions are “subject to governmental second-guessing and disruption.”

Comcast earned the FCC’s scrutiny in 2007 after it was discovered that the company took an intrusive, novel approach to controlling users’ BitTorrent usage, effectively cutting off users from using the service at reasonable speeds. Fouling up its attempts to explain itself, Comcast quickly earned a fierce public outcry and the attention of the FCC.

Comcast has since made it clear that it is not interested in the FCC’s interference, hiring seat warmers to sit in during an awkward meeting that saw the company grilled on its “reasonable” network policies.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin appears unfazed by Comcast’s responses. Referring to Comcast’s dodging-the-question when asked about its network policy, Martin attacked it directly: “A hallmark of what should be seen as a reasonable business practice is certainly whether or not the people engaging in that practice are willing to describe it publicly.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By PAPutzback on 3/20/2008 9:11:47 AM , Rating: 5
I have 2 choices 3MB DSL or 10MB cable. So I am going to pay the extra 10 bucks (30) for cable. But my ISP (Insight) just got bought out by Comcast and a month after the takeover I get a letter that they are going to jack up our prices to pay for Continued excellent service. I am no lawyer but I can't say a month as a provider is long enough to tell your customers they have given you excellent service. And definitely not a way to win customers. AS soon as I see that UVERSE serves my neighborhood I'll be ditchin COMCAST.




By MasterTemplar on 3/20/2008 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 5
...OMG, I've been waiting for "FIOS" like FOREVER!!!


By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 9:46:27 AM , Rating: 5
Amen. Unfortunately Comcast, Time Warner, and Bellsouth are doing everything in their power to stop Verizon from rolling it out nationwide. But sadly cable is still normally way better than DSL.

I was outside of Dallas this past Christmas at a relatives who had FiOS TV and internet. It was amazing.


By mcnabney on 3/20/2008 3:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
No they aren't. FiOS costs a ton of money to deploy. Verizon hasn't even finished filling in the metro areas that it already covers. They might look to expand outside of their normal service areas, in a few years...


By SpaceRanger on 3/20/2008 9:54:24 AM , Rating: 5
It'll be a LONG while where I live before I see FIOS. It's all around my area, but not in the valley where I live. Won't be for a long while either. For now I have no choice but to have Comcast. :(


By Lazarus Dark on 3/20/2008 9:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
you're lucky, those choices aren't bad.
mine are 768dsl or 1mb-2mb cable.


By epsilonparadox on 3/20/2008 9:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
Uverse isn't as great you seem to think. I've had it for almost a year before I cancelled it and went to DirecTV and Roadrunner. I had FTTH with uverse and still had all sorts of internet and cable tv problems. Their on site techs seem to know less about the uverse tech than the common person.

The fact that I had FTTH and still only can record one HD channel AND lose the ability to watch HD while it records is beyond stupid. The M$ software they run is horrible and responds very slowly.

Oh and AT&T is going to do deep packet inspection and is about to be one of the first to do filtering at the ISP level.


By AntiM on 3/20/2008 10:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone think that the upcoming use of the TV analog spectrum for WiFi broadband will help eliminate the cable industry's monopoly? I'm anxious to find out the results of the recent auction.


By PAPutzback on 3/20/2008 10:16:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's all about the bandwidth. More bandwidth = more services.

That is really disappointing that UVERSE isn't working out as good as I had hoped for some users.

The great thing about Cable is the speed and the analog channels for tvs without boxes. And cable card if you afford one of those boxes.

But depending on what Comcast jacks my price up to next month I'll probably go with Dish or DirectTV and suck up the price of internet thru COMCAST.


By AlphaVirus on 3/20/2008 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But depending on what Comcast jacks my price up to next month I'll probably go with Dish or DirectTV and suck up the price of internet thru COMCAST.

Not sure if you have had satellite before but I would advise almost any person to switch from cable to satellite. Those commercials about satellite are a bit misleading as I only had 2 outages and thats when its about to be a hurricane or something drastic. Something small that made a big difference was the remote for the box, it is very user friendly for Dish Network.

Another thing I like about Dish is how the only stations that show up in the 'browser' screen are stations I paid for. With the cable providers I have used, I still have to click through all the junk I dont care for/dont pay for. This added hastle becomes annoying after a few weeks. There is, however, a button you can press if you would like all those stations to show up again.

In my area satellite is cheaper than cable so its a no-brainer, but if you live in an apartment the 'renters insurance' fee will hurt so it might not be such a great deal. If your apartment allows you to get it without insurance, get it and you will love it.


By eye smite on 3/20/2008 3:04:55 PM , Rating: 4
I realize DSL is not as fast, but it's worked fine for me for 5 yrs where I live now. If it's cheaper and works adequately enough for what you're doing, why not consider it til something better comes along?


By drebo on 3/20/2008 3:35:01 PM , Rating: 3
Indeed.

I had "5 megabit" cable from Charter that cost me $65/mo. Commonly, I'd see speeds at about 3.5 megabit with outages every 15 minutes. I had to go to my local Charter office, cable box in hand, and yell at the operations manager there before they'd even send someone to my house without charging me. Ended up getting 3 months of internet for free, but that still didn't excuse the abominable service I was getting for my money.

3 months later, I promptly canceled service and subscribed to 6 megabit DSL through SBC...low and behold, I get the full 6 megabits and have only had one outage in 6 months...and that outage happened when someone 100 miles away accidentally cut an OC192 with a back hoe and dropped virtually all phone and internet service in the area.

I wish I could switch from cable TV to Dish Network, but unfortunately, AT&T won't install a dish in an appartment complex. Oh well. In 2 months I'll be in a house, and it'll be Dish/DSL and a nice POTS line.


Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By Chosonman on 3/20/2008 9:51:49 AM , Rating: 3
Did I have a choice when I was using them? No... Now that I have FIOS I can't describe just how happy I am with their service. I want competition. And I don't want Verizon FIOS to be the only alternative. But Comcast has to die....




RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 9:55:15 AM , Rating: 3
Don't be absurd.

Personally I am begging to have Comcast where I live because the company I have is even worse. At my girlfriend's place they have Comcast and their selection of HD channels is way better than mine and their internet is way faster at a cheaper price.


By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 9:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
Of course I'd rather have FiOS over Comcast but FiOS isn't even in any part of South Carolina yet.


RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By novacthall on 3/20/2008 10:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a Charter customer. I've got Charter here in South Carolina and around these parts it's pretty much our only option. They've got us hard by the C.O. Jones and couldn't care any less what we think about it.


By Yawgm0th on 3/20/2008 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 3
I'm in MN and those who don't get Comcast have to use Charter for cable. Charter doesn't do any sort of packet filtering or any nonsense like that. There's no need to. You get about half the advertised bandwidth on a good day, and the service goes down every 3-5 weeks.


By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 12:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
Knology. :(


RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By walk2k on 3/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By Chosonman on 3/20/2008 1:29:04 PM , Rating: 4
Or the county I live in could have negotiated a contract for exclusive rights to provide cable service with another company. Or they could have let several companies compete. Don't be a bone head. Living without internet or using dial up today is not an option to a lot of people including those of us in IT. Troll somewhere else.


RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By walk2k on 3/20/08, Rating: -1
By Chosonman on 3/20/2008 4:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
Nice one troll.. Keep it up.


By Chosonman on 3/20/2008 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 3
Check this out. You have nothing good to add. The only thing you are doing is flaming. Classic troll behavior. Get lost.


RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By Chosonman on 3/20/2008 4:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
This is the same company took money from me without you providing service and wouldn't return it even though they admitted it was was their fault. Lesson - never use automatic bank withdraw to pay for Comcast service. Lesson 2 - if you call you local government official that manages cable agreement Comcast has with you county government you can get you $120 refund after 6 months of constant emails and telephone conversations.

This is the same company that continues to provide crappy service that goes out just about once every month and tells you the same thing over and over again.. "restart your router and modem" "sorry looks like your router is bad, it's not our fault" "go buy a new router or modem"

Yea comcast can go to hell


RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By The0ne on 3/20/2008 4:29:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"restart your router and modem" "sorry looks like your router is bad, it's not our fault" "go buy a new router or modem"


I get this all the time when I was with them and connection kept dropping. Very glad I've move but not so glad the only choice in the new city is RoadRunner. At least I don't get the stupid answers anymore :)

I'm in agreement that companies like Comcast should die and be erase. Let there be more competition. And just so I don't get this troll accusation I'm now with tv, cable, phone except for cell phone. Not until Roadrunner has a deal for half price their services again.


RE: Comcast Customer Service SUCKS!
By ok630 on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
market forces huh?
By nvalhalla on 3/20/2008 8:19:20 AM , Rating: 5
So Comcast wants "market forces" to decide, but doesn't want to let anyone else offer cable in their jurisdiction. Once the market HAS AN OPTION to decide, I will be ok with their packet shaping. Until then, if they want the government to protect their monopoly, they need to play by whatever rules the government wants to impose on them. Just my opinion.




RE: market forces huh?
By TheSpaniard on 3/20/2008 8:55:13 AM , Rating: 3
ding ding ding! we have a winner!

If you don't wanna play by the rules then there goes your exclusivity contracts!


RE: market forces huh?
By Chosonman on 3/20/2008 9:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree...


RE: market forces huh?
By Cygni on 3/20/2008 11:39:15 AM , Rating: 5
Comcast vs FCC... whoever wins, we all lose.


RE: market forces huh?
By BMFPitt on 3/20/2008 12:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a 6


RE: market forces huh?
By walk2k on 3/20/2008 1:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
well, they are using public right of ways, but then again they didn spend $BILLIONS upgrading all that cable for HSI and digital/high def cable TV, so why shouldn't they get to use it? this isn't socialist EU.

besides, there ARE other choices for TV and internet in most areas.

there is at least satellite for TV and DSL for internet in most places. many markets now have FIOS and/or IPTV.

bottom line, I don't see how the FCC has jurisdiction over private, closed-circuit cable, we're not talking about broadcast over public airwaves.


RE: market forces huh?
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2008 7:54:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
this isn't socialist EU.
From what I understand, most countries in the EU have a highly competitive ISP market. Whereas we have 2 choices if we're lucky, chosen by the government that gives them a monopoly. When it comes to broadband, we are the socialists and they are the capitalists.

quote:
besides, there ARE other choices for TV and internet in most areas.

there is at least satellite for TV and DSL for internet in most places. many markets now have FIOS and/or IPTV.
My choices for TV are: Comcast. My choices for internet (other than dial-up) are: Comcast.

I live in a Northeast facing apartment where DSL is not available. Other cable companies are barred from competing with Comcast where I live.


RE: market forces huh?
By clovell on 3/20/2008 2:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but in this case, it would seem Comcast has made a very valid case against the FCC having any jurisdiction over them.

Right or wrong, it's the law as it currently stands, so the FCC may not be able to touch them. Call your local legislator if you want that changed.


Article Image
By ViRGE on 3/20/2008 8:00:14 AM , Rating: 5
A byline of "can't touch this" and the article image isn't MC Hammer? I'm disappointed in the DailyTech editors here. =P




RE: Article Image
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/20/2008 8:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Are you happy now? :)


RE: Article Image
By ZimZum on 3/20/2008 8:53:47 AM , Rating: 1
Ahhhh Hammer Pants. Perhaps the greatest bit of means wear ever created.


RE: Article Image
By TomCorelis on 3/20/2008 3:17:04 PM , Rating: 3
It was a terrible mistake. Pardon me while I go and flog myself.


RE: Article Image
By LatinMessiah on 3/20/2008 7:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they've been sleeping at the wheel lately.


Honisty too inconvinent?
By JAB on 3/20/2008 8:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
From the FCC website
quote:
About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.



If Comcast ever wins that dirty fight I am sure congress could create another agency but why bother when it is already covered.

The big problem is that Comcast is blocking their competition. There are many new entertainment business starting up and torrents are one good way to spread it quickly and cheaply IE Azureus and the BBC. If you download you are less likely to buy from your cable company. That makes every reason to have cable regulated.

The best way to avoid painful regulation is act in a mostly fair and appropriate manner and no one will spend there valuable time on it. Force the govenment to create an agency just to babysit you and someone will need to create a problem in order to justify their jobs so you will never be without a monkey on your back.




RE: Honisty too inconvinent?
By Alexstarfire on 3/20/2008 9:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think the fact that they are trying to block FCC interference means that they are trying to cover something up. Perhaps the fact that they are a monopoly, have crappy services, spy on people, etc. Who Knows? If they truly weren't doing something wrong I doubt they'd go fight with the FCC.


RE: Honisty too inconvinent?
By TheDoc9 on 3/20/2008 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
well, anytime a company takes a shot at a government agency like this they're screwed. If comcast didn't have enemies in the past in the government, it does now. The companies ALWAYS loose because the FCC/congress can't show weakness. To bad for comcast, great news for the rest of us.


RE: Honisty too inconvinent?
By clovell on 3/20/2008 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
You might try actually reading what Comcast is saying. It's saying the FCC has no legal jurisdiction over them per current legislation. This isn't 'taking a shot', it's making an arguement based on the law. Anything less and shareholders would probably vote in a whole new BoD, while the stock continues to tank.


RE: Honisty too inconvinent?
By on 3/26/2008 1:49:39 PM , Rating: 1
Die painfully okay? Prefearbly by getting crushed to death in a garbage compactor, by getting your face cut to ribbons with a pocketknife, your head cracked open with a baseball bat, your stomach sliced open and your entrails spilled out, and your eyeballs ripped out of their sockets. Fucking bitch


Question?
By hcahwk19 on 3/20/2008 11:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cohen proceeded to pick apart the FCC’s authority, pointing out that the bureau’s own policies prohibit it from acting because they have “no force of law.


Okay. This is an interesting approach. So, by his logic, all of us, along with every manufacturer, oil company, etc, should go out and ignore the EPA regulations, the FTC rules, the SEC rules, all because they have "no force of law." While this would be a great day for the American people to get the federal government out of our lives, as was intended by the founding fathers, we would probably all be thrown in jail and fined out our wazoos.

I am a law student, and I am pretty sure that there are classes offered at every law school, as well as questions on the Bar exam of every state, that pertain to ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. This area deals exclusively with the interpretation and enforcement of government agency regulations, on both state and federal levels. The agencies themselves render judgment on issues that fall within their area of regulation. Rarely do these cases ever make it to a court of law. They are pretty much all handled by the agencies themselves.




RE: Question?
By clovell on 3/20/2008 2:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the rest of that paragraph?

> He cited the 2002 Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, which classified cable modem service as an “information service” instead of a “common carrier,” therefore exempting Comcast from the FCC’s authority as codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – a status upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2005 Brand X decision.

As a law student, you certainly understand the weight of legal definitions and case law.


RE: Question?
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2008 8:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
They're not a common carrier, then? To me that only means that the Supreme Court seemed to have no understanding of the technology, but fine.

Then they don't get common carrier immunity. Arrest Comcast for everything their customers have ever done with their service.


RE: Question?
By hcahwk19 on 3/22/2008 12:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
I absolutely understand fully the weight of legal definitions and case law. The problem here is that the FCC's power comes directly from Congress and the Executive Branch. These "information service" providers are acting as "common carriers" in their services. They are providing their common phone services through their cable connections now. They are trying to work the system and play both sides of the fence. They want to be exempt from the regulations of the "common carrier" and then also want to hide behind the veil of immunity that is granted to "common carriers." They cannot have it both ways. They are going to really have to choose whether to pony up the dough, or allow their systems and customers to be targeted for investigation. The 2002 Declaratory Ruling was made by the FCC itself. Six years later, the commission has changed its mind, and is within its power to do so. The FCC decided Comcast had gone too far and levied a fine. The FCC interprets and enforces its regulations. Its regulatory and enforcement power comes from Congress and the President. The Supreme Court ruling in 2005 was made using the definition given in the 2002 FCC ruling. The definition has changed and the Court's decision will change. Happens all the time. This isn't like when the Court is looking at the Constitution, in which the language never changes (though they still get it wrong often). Here, they are using a definition as made by the FCC. The FCC has a lot of leeway in changing its regulations and definitions. Courts nearly always defer to the judgment of Congress and the Agencies. If Congress defines something, then the Court will hardly ever go against Congressional judgment. Courts nearly always defer to the judgment of the Agencies, when agency decisions actually make in front of them (which is rare). The 2002 Declaration is simply a definition of the FCC in 2002. The status that the Supreme Court upheld was that given by the FCC. The FCC has changed its definition, and so will the Court. The Court almost never goes against the judgment of Congress and Agencies. It has from time to time, but rarely. Usually when confronted with the intent or definition given by Congress or the Agencies, the courts will avoid the issue by stating something along the lines of: "It is not the job of this court to challenge or reject the intent of Congress/Agency." This language appears over and over again in case law, from the lowest state court, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Now, I am not saying that the Supreme Court won't screw this up, as they have numerous times before (see Roe v. Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dredd Scott v. Sanford, Hawaii v. Midkiff, Kelo v. New London; i could go on and on). The court gets it wrong sometimes, and when it does it is usually in a very big, and very wrong way, as the above cases prove. But, the Court is very reluctant to go against the Congress and Executive Branch Agencies. It does not like to get into power struggles with the other branches, and thus will defer to the other branches, unless the other two are fighting each other (in which case the Court will basically have to take a side). Since the FCC has determined that Comcast has broken the rules and has imposed fines because of it, the Court (if the case ever makes it there) will most likely defer to the FCC. That is why it is so rare that Administrative Agency decisions and rulings ever make it before a normal court.

So, yeah, I do understand the weight of legal definitions and case law. Here, the legal definition has been changed by the agency that created it in the first place (nothing new), and the overwhelmingly vast case law out there will defer to the legal definition given to the court by the legislative or administrative body that creates the definition. If it makes it back to the Supreme Court, I will put my money on the Court siding with the FCC's judgment as it did before.

And another thing. I use Verizon's Voicewing VOIP service. Works great, and is cheaper and better than the digital phone service from my cable company, Cox. As of now, the FCC defines the service as a "data service" and not a "voice/phone service," which therefore exempts Verizon from having to charge the $5.87 FCC charge. But, the FCC can change its mind to include Verizon Voicewing in the "voice/phone service" group, thereby resulting in a $5.87 increase on my monthly bill, as explained to me by both Verizon and Cox representatives. The FCC can and will change its rules and definitions as technology changes, in order to draw more under its regulatory scheme.

Don't get me wrong. I hate government regulation. Our country would be better off with minimal government intervention the marketplace (basically its only presence in the market should be to prevent monopolies and frauds). The government is into every single aspect of our lives whether we like it or not, and the country is worse off because of it. But until enough people who are actually educated enough to know what is going on, vote in people who actually understand the intent and the fears of the founding fathers (read their writings and opininos and you will see what we have done to their vision), and are responsible with OUR money, and short of another Revolution, we have to settle for what the law is as it is now. And as the FCC has now ruled, Comcast has broken the law.


FCC - Revoke
By Mitch101 on 3/20/2008 9:39:36 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder if the FCC can revoke Comcast from offering internet connectivity. Not sure they have the guts to do this.

Maybe cutting off comcasts revenue stream will make them reconsider their actions.




RE: FCC - Revoke
By clovell on 3/20/2008 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not if Comcast's arguement in this article holds water.


What is a cable modem?
By techyguy on 3/20/2008 10:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
He cited the 2002 Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, which classified cable modem service as an “information service” instead of a “common carrier,” therefore exempting Comcast from the FCC’s authority as codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996

We all know that cable modems don't exist. No Modulation or Demodulation exists in a cable internet connection, it's all digital.

Besides I need Bit torrent for my customers, who always loose their disk media but still have the activation codes.




RE: What is a cable modem?
By rcc on 3/20/2008 12:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Being digital does not preclude being modulated / demodulated. It's been done for years/decades.


FCC vs. local municipality control
By vailr on 3/20/2008 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
What seems to go unmentioned, is how local municipalities tend to delegate control of local issues, such as Comcast's bittorrent policies, to the Federal FCC. Since Comcast has a monopoly, they should be made to conform to stricter standards, than if they were in real competition with a potential 3rd-party cable supplier. Similar to how long-distance phone service is open to multiple carriers.
Any public utility that transverses property lines among private homes, businesses, along highways, strung along power lines, railroad right-of-ways, etc. should certainly be subject to scrutiny. Whether by the Federal FCC, or FTC, or by the local municipality. The lawyer-esque attempt to exempt Comcast as being "private" is in direct conflict with long established "common carrier" oversight scrutiny.
Comcast has really gotten too big for the public good, and should broken up, similar to how John D. Rockefeller's oil monopoly was broken up 100+ years ago.




Corruption...
By greylica on 3/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Corruption...
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2008 8:54:26 AM , Rating: 5
Say what?


RE: Corruption...
By greylica on 3/20/2008 10:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
The truth.
It´s not only P2P that cause laggies in traffic.
But why only P2P is the excuse that was chosen ?
Censorship.
They not only block P2P, they block every communication that they don´t want, but who is the (real )judge for that communication ?
Comcast is above the law ?
The situation clears leads to a censorship by interception, if they aren´t stopped.
Why legit uses for P2P is judged ilegal by their point of view ?

And what about the most widely distributed software in the world , called Windows Update, why they don´t block it ?
10 ~ 15 Gb per second entire day to distribute Microsoft Updates, but nothing done to Microsoft...
But is a large traffic too, or not ? More than P2P, now the Vista SP1 is being downloaded. It´s a 1~1,3 GB file...
Hmmmm, this VERY LARGE traffic is not blocked. why ?
And if people needs to share Vista SP1 in order to download it fast, will it be an ilegal traffic only because it´s being shared by P2P software ?
Corruption is the answer, offending people whose accepted it or not, the fact is who´s accepted to intercept communications from others judging them as if they where above the law deserves a name.

What name you can give them (other than corrupts)?


RE: Corruption...
By clovell on 3/20/2008 2:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast is certainly being decietful in their practices, but they're not 'block' traffic, they throttle it.

Sharing windows updates via P2P is security nightmare waiting to happen, and possibly one of the most shortsighted ideas I've heard this afternoon.

Finally, they're not above the law, scooter - they're being hauled in front of the FCC. Who's your supplier?


RE: Corruption...
By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 9:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
What? This is why you shouldn't use the computer when you're drunk.

First of all. Learn to speak. Second. Learn to form an idea and express it so others can understand.

Comcast while perhaps underhanded in its attempts to regulate Bittorrent speeds, is hardly censoring the internet. They are blocking access to no part of the internet. Only slowing traffic of a protocol that is heavily used for pirating software, music, and video (I'm not defending them, just stating what they're doing).

And if you think what they're doing even in the slightest compares to what the Chinese government does, you need to get a freakin clue.


RE: Corruption...
By NaughtyGeek on 3/20/2008 10:15:25 AM , Rating: 5
I only wonder where does it end? Currently they only filter P2P. What if they decide next week/month/year to block Youtube? How about they follow that with blocking .edu extensions? While I'm no fan of government regulations, it's time for them to step up and tell all ISPs that they have no right to dictate the content delivered through their broadband service. Do you want the internet to become like cable where you have to pay extra if you want access to a site you actually want to visit?


RE: Corruption...
By MrBlastman on 3/20/2008 10:16:48 AM , Rating: 5
I think he's foreign and using a translator like Babelfish or Google Translator. At least, I hope he is.

My interpretation of his idea:

"Comcast is corrupt because they block P2P traffic because in "their words", P2P uses too much bandwidth. However, Comcast does not block services such as Windows Update which utilize as much bandwidth."

I'm not sure how he can make such a statement without data to back up how much bandwidth legitimate services are utilizing versus P2P.

Either way, Comcasts policy of throttling P2P traffic is quite lame. Until they have measures in place to determine if the traffic is pirate traffic or not, it is a petty excuse.

However, if they were to have measures in place to detect it, then they could be accused of spying and invading privacy. A double edged sword easily.

There is no easy answer. Your wallet can speak though! (where applicable pending other isps apply to said offer of refusing service. Network cables sold separately. Not available for C.O.D.)


RE: Corruption...
By greylica on 3/20/2008 10:26:32 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you !


RE: Corruption...
By Yawgm0th on 3/20/2008 11:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure how he can make such a statement without data to back up how much bandwidth legitimate services are utilizing versus P2P.


P2P is every bit as legitimate as any other service.


RE: Corruption...
By walk2k on 3/20/2008 12:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, what?

P2P accounts for anywhere between 70% of all internet traffic, with Bittorrent being over 35% of it ALONE. (those are real numbers, look it up anywhere)

It's also about 95% used for illegal downloads. (ok I made that one up... but it's probably within 10% :)

I'm a comcast user and NO I don't mind one bit if they throttle my neighbors downloading the latest Harry Potter movie or Brittany Spears album.


RE: Corruption...
By walk2k on 3/20/2008 12:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
whoops, meant to say "accounts for anywhere between 70% and 90% "

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070903-p2p-...


RE: Corruption...
By clovell on 3/20/2008 2:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy for our browing history? How do cookies factor into that?


RE: Corruption...
By greylica on 3/20/2008 10:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
I know that I have a bad english, but the problem i´ts not even what you do, is HOW you do.
Here in Brazil if someone consumes more bandwidth than specified in a given period, their connection is being downgraded (200kbps X 200kbps)until the last day of the month. It´s clear in the agreement of the service. It´s Honest.
It´s an example of how to manage the traffic without interfering with the communication,(or acting like a spy, sending RST packets for every side, or spoofing the connection with false packets, or then cracking the encryption with deep packet inspection).


RE: Corruption...
By JamRockaz on 3/20/2008 11:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
"They are blocking access to no part of the internet. Only slowing traffic of a protocol that is heavily used for pirating software, music, and video (I'm not defending them, just stating what they're doing)."

and this is where I say don't be stupid and do your home work.
I called them up, they are not only blocking protocols but are flogging and blocking connections that upload for more than 60 minutes even if its good reasons to upload. I heard it from multiple reps. it has nothing to do with "pirating software, music or videos". I wanted to setup a a website at home to stream some of our home movies, the reps told me that if the video streams (upload) for more than 60 minutes my account will be flagged and is a possibility it might be blocked. Not only that, they told me that if I setup the site and someone start streaming a 15 minute clip for 14 minutes and another person starts streaming that same clip before the other stream finished it all counts as 1!!. now tell me, if 30 people starts streaming that same clip each starts even 10 minutes before the other is finished even though I'm not pirating anything illegal, according to their policies I would be flogged and possibly blocked; for what? for having a legitimate website that I'm allowed to have on their stinking Optimum Boost that I am paying for?



RE: Corruption...
By walk2k on 3/20/2008 12:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wanted to setup a a website at home
read the TOS. servers are against the rules. if you want to run a server you have to buy real bandwidth from a legit host, that is not what home cable connections are for.


RE: Corruption...
By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 12:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Beat me to it.


RE: Corruption...
By JamRockaz on 3/20/2008 1:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
didn't I mention I have optimum boost? when you buy optimum boost that becomes apart of the service that you can host a website at home; they open ports 80, 8080, and 25, they give you 2 gigs of webspace and blah blah blah, the part that I really liked was the 30mb down increase (i previously had 20mb down) and upload speed was increased also . and yeah, I did read the TOS.


RE: Corruption...
By walk2k on 3/20/2008 1:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, no I'm not familiar with that, but even so, they told you what your problem is (30 users streaming videos?? yikes) so, either you stay within the rules they give you, or you find another host.

I can assure you that hosting a web site and streaming live video to dozens+ of users at once is not what they envisioned giving you for the extra $9.95 a month (HINT that kind of bandwidth costs a LOT more)


RE: Corruption...
By FITCamaro on 3/20/2008 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how programs like Teamspeak or Ventrilo work completely but I would think you should be able to run a server for that off his kind of home connection. I'm just not sure if there's a constant upload for a program like that provided someone doesn't put the mike down next to the TV for over an hour without a push to talk key assigned.

I seriously doubt that 60 minute upload rule is fast though because people who play MMOs are constantly connected and receiving packets for well over an hour. No its not a lot of traffic but its still a constant stream of packets up and down.


RE: Corruption...
By walk2k on 3/20/2008 2:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think the general attitude is, as long as it doesn't negatively affect the performance of the network as a whole, you should be ok (stay off the radar in other words...)

p2p are servers too, so technically they could be banned outright. instead Comcast came up with a way to throttle the traffic so it doesn't affect other users. Sounds like a win-win to me, and I don't think the loud complaining of pirates is going to gather much sympathy. (oh yes I know there are "legit" uses of p2p... and if that .02% of the traffic was all of it, it wouldn't be this huge issue now would it??)


RE: Corruption...
By JamRockaz on 3/20/2008 3:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
but I'm not doing anything anything on p2p, I just want to host 3 fifteen minute videos on my home site I'm paying them for. what is so wrong in that?

its not a win win my friend, they don't deliver what they advertise: its like a car manufacturer told you the car you bought can reach speeds of 100mps, but after buying and driving around for couple months then trying to reach speeds of 80mps you find that the car can't go over 60mps. bring it to a mechanic, the mechanic told you that the manufacturer put a seal to hinder the car from going over 60mps, and if you try to remove it the transition will be broken.
its technically the same situation here.


RE: Corruption...
By JamRockaz on 3/20/2008 2:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
apparently you got what I was saying very wrong: its not 30 videos, its 1 video; even if 5 people start streaming the 1 fifteen minute video each streamer starting when the other is 14 minutes in the 15 minute movie. that would be 70 minutes and by that they could flog my account.


RE: Corruption...
By rcc on 3/20/2008 12:29:25 PM , Rating: 3
Jeez, this is like reading Haiku.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki