Print 31 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Jan 11 at 12:20 PM

Users outraged last October when they discovered Comcast messing with their P2P

The FCC announced a formal investigation into Comcast’s controversial practice of “data discrimination” in response to a flood of complaints from consumers and Internet groups.

Last October, users discovered that Comcast employed a novel implementation of traffic shaping against its subscribers, which impersonated subscribers' machines in order to trick their P2P software into disconnecting. While this form of traffic shaping met Comcast’s objectives – to control the massive bandwidth sink that results from illegal P2P use – it also affected legitimate P2P users, as well as unrelated services, like the network features in Lotus Notes.

User suspicion eventually culminated into an investigation by the Associated Press, of which the results were released last October. Shortly afterwards, testing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation reached a similar conclusion, and as a result released the “Test Your ISP” project – allowing users to see for themselves whether or not their ISPs implemented similar practices.

At the heart of the matter is whether or not Comcast’s “data discrimination” is permissible under the FCC’s guidelines of “reasonable network management,” and whether or not the practice is a violation of the current rules on network neutrality and service availability. Speaking Tuesday at CES in Vegas, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told consumers that the FCC will “investigate” the matter in order “make sure that no consumer is … blocked.”

“The question is going to arise: Are they reasonable network practices?” said Martin. “When they have reasonable network practices, they should disclose those and make those public.”

Comcast’s PR team was caught off-guard by the initial turn of events in October, as even after the practice was outed by the Associated Press, Comcast continued to deny any kind of manipulation. However, facing the wrath of an increasingly angry Internet mob, Comcast’s tune quickly changed to a coy comparison of its actions with that of a busy signal, like one hears over landline telephones.

Complicating an already messy situation, a California man filed a class-action lawsuit against Comcast last November. In it, plaintiff Jon Hart accused Comcast of breach of contract, as well as violating the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, the Business and Professions Code, and the Legal Remedies act by throttling bandwidth and “transmitting unauthorized hidden messages” to subscribers’ offending software.

“Comcast plans to work with the Commission in its desire to bring more transparency for consumers,” said Comcast executive VP David L. Cohen. “We do disclose in our terms of use our right to manage our network for the benefit of all customers.”

Comments     Threshold

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

Retarded much?
By KitKat06 on 1/8/2008 10:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
“We do disclose in our terms of use our right to manage our network for the benefit of all customers.”

So this now means that accounts and networks can be hacked into to benefit other users?!? Last time I checked, small print was decieving, but come ON!
Total bullhonky if I ever heard any... geez.

RE: Retarded much?
By Christopher1 on 1/8/2008 10:53:10 PM , Rating: 5
I have to agree. This is not even about 'managing the network for the benefit of all customers'. It's more about managing the network for the benefit of COMCAST, in that they won't have to upgrade their servers and other stuff more often than they had planned because people are actually using everything that they said they would give them!

RE: Retarded much?
By Lazarus Dark on 1/9/2008 6:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
And there it is exactly. When ISP's originally started offering "unlimited" service, they had ample bandwidth for everything customers wanted to do, especially considering each customer only had a couple hundred kbps, which is hardly enough to do much. But the game has changed, people have found more and more use for all that bandwidth, particularly as each is given more bandwidth, 1mbps up to 30 or so in the cities. Crappy text web sites and bbs didn't take much, but now we are looking to a future of youtube, flash, 24 hour internet radio (if they don't kill it), full legal program downloads, multigig linux distros via BT, and hopefully HD on demand very soon.

But the ISP's have not kept up. There are two options: give users a limit, which I think would cause a revolt at this point. Or upgrade the network, which will eventually cut into thier profit, as customers can barely tolerate the high prices as it is. But network management (aside from stopping truly illegal uses) is simply out of the question. The users have shown that they won't tolerate it. I'd happily join that class action suit mentioned, if I wasn't already about to drop Comcast for HD satellite and DSL.

RE: Retarded much?
By Gholam on 1/9/2008 7:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
Over here in Israel, I pay approximately $20/month to the phone company and $25/month to ISP, for a 5mbps down/500kbps up ADSL connection. From what I understand, US prices are similar, which, combined with overall higher cost of living in USA, makes it even cheaper on your end. For comparison, back in '95, a 14.4kbps dialup connection cost me approximately 60 cents per hour to the ISP, and significantly more to the phone company - that was expensive. Compuserve, Prodigy and other pre-Internet networks charged several dollars per hour - that was EXPENSIVE. Nowadays, broadband is cheap. High quality broadband is another matter - my office pays approximately $500/month for a 2mbps ATM segment, with 50% guaranteed bandwidth, but that's business service we're talking about.

RE: Retarded much?
By euclidean on 1/9/2008 8:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
Actually we look more like paying $40/mo for just a phone, and if we get DSL your looking at about the same price for a 5mb/784kb connection. If you look at a cable connection of 6mb/1m your looking to pay ~60/mo. Though that's AT&T or Charter communications here in Michigan, US. :\

RE: Retarded much?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/9/2008 9:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
Comcast high speed internet here in FL is 60 a month if you dont have their cable package, or 45 a month if you do.

RE: Retarded much?
By marvdmartian on 1/9/2008 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
Currently I pay $65/month for landline phone (with unlimited long distance) and $47/month for 6Mbps cable modem.

The sad part is that, while my cable modem is set up for 6Mbps download, I seldom see anything close to that in reality. Not sure if there's throttling going on (TW cable) or if it's just the places I'm downloading from can't handle that sort of bandwidth.

RE: Retarded much?
By SpaceRanger on 1/9/2008 10:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
at 6Mbps, you should be seeing a max transfer of 600-700KBps, with an average in the 300-400's. Your mileage may vary depending on what site you're downloading from of course.

RE: Retarded much?
By eye smite on 1/9/2008 3:33:29 PM , Rating: 4
I've taken calls for going on 7 yrs with customers that have comcast in different parts of the country. Not one that I've spoken to has ever had anything nice to say about Comcast. Seeing this article does not surprise me at all.

RE: Retarded much?
By The0ne on 1/9/2008 11:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to quote the same thing haha.

Taking a little bit from everyone to make a few better, kinda sounds like rich people doing businesses and playing around with taxes :)

By knowom on 1/8/2008 9:30:07 PM , Rating: 3
that'll teach em!

RE: haha
By Yames on 1/9/2008 12:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's right, this is OUR Internet!

RE: haha
By Samus on 1/9/2008 3:53:30 AM , Rating: 5
I hope they are forced to give customers huge refunds instead of just being fined. I'm tired of company's getting fines. Why the hell are governments getting this money, it's the customers that are getting hurt!

P2P not the only ones effected here!!
By SpaceRanger on 1/9/2008 9:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
If you use FTP over their network you get throttled as well. I have to upload 100+MB worth of information to my web host on a regular basis at home and here is how the transfer goes:

First 5MB - Uploads at about 200-250K per second...
once their "Network Management" kicks in...
Remaining 95+MB - Uploads at 85-90K per second...

I cannot WAIT for Verizon FIOS to be offered in my area. Where I live it's either ComCast (ugh), or Satellite, or Dial-up. No DSL available (too far from telco).

RE: P2P not the only ones effected here!!
By soydeedo on 1/9/2008 11:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
Uh...that's how it's supposed to work. 85-90k/sec is probably what you're paying for [I could be wrong]. The first 5mb is called PowerBoost and you can read more about it at the link below. It specifically states that the first 5mb of an upload and the first 10mb of a download will be significantly increased after which you return to your advertised speeds.

What this inquiry is about is dropping transfer rates to pretty much nothing if usage is too high. This doesn't seem to apply to you.

By SpaceRanger on 1/9/2008 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm paying extra for more bandwidth. My cable internet bill is $75 a month.

note to self
By senbassador on 1/10/2008 10:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
note to self: Find a p2p service that runs via port 80. Crack that sucka up and just don't use my browser for a few hours.

RE: note to self
By clovell on 1/11/2008 12:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
uTorrent can actually use a random port that changes every time you start it.

you do realize
By ikkeman on 1/9/2008 1:02:00 PM , Rating: 3
you do realize that if the FCC concludes comcast's practices do not comply with their ideals, they'll just adjust their ideals, and bury it under the rug!

Fingers Crossed.
By Mitch101 on 1/9/2008 9:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Here is to hoping that other internet providers get the message to not mess around.

Ever since this started gaining ground RoadRunner/Time Warner haven't been messing around with limiting in my area.

By Screwballl on 1/9/2008 2:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why not put more time and energy into preventing spammers from using your connections, your customers compromised computers and your stupid open relay servers.
I would say 85% of comcasts connection speed is hindered by spammers using their open relay servers. The ISP I work for had to recently block a large portion of IPs from Comcast open relay servers for this exact reason.

Wait a minute...
By noirsoft on 1/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Wait a minute...
By rninneman on 1/9/2008 12:58:17 AM , Rating: 4
I download new Linux distros with BitTorrent all the time.

RE: Wait a minute...
By tdktank59 on 1/9/2008 2:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
I do as well. I also get some of my podcasts that was as well as free movies note the free not the copyrighted "free" movies that most p2p traffic takes...

RE: Wait a minute...
By FredEx on 1/9/2008 3:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
As well as all that has been said here in this portion of the comments, I also have purchased software and gotten a torrent download link to get it right away and gotten upgrades via torrent. I have a friend who is a programmer out of his home and the best way for him cost wise to spread his programs and upgrades to his customers many sites has been to use P2P.

RE: Wait a minute...
By TomCorelis on 1/9/2008 4:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ever played World of Warcraft?

RE: Wait a minute...
By Gholam on 1/9/2008 7:47:46 AM , Rating: 4
9 million World of Warcraft players, for starters.

RE: Wait a minute...
By metaltoiletry on 1/9/2008 9:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, you can download most new game patches (500mb sizes at times) way faster using torrents.

I'm just happy that I don't use Comcast

RE: Wait a minute...
By Staples on 1/9/2008 9:58:52 AM , Rating: 1
I'd love to see how much P2P traffic is for legitimate use. I'd imagine that Linux distros, podcasts and uncopyrighted work accounts for less than 5%, probably half of that at best. I love how people who have interest in getting illegal stuff off torrents make ridiculous arguments trying to make it sound like only a small percentage of BT is used for illegal activity. These arguments are almost as bad as "why don't they take down google, I mean it is a search engine just like the pirate bay."

RE: Wait a minute...
By jeff834 on 1/9/2008 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's a moot point. It doesn't matter how much is for legitimate use and how much is illegal. As long as some is legitimate they shouldn't block it until they can come up with a way to just block the illegal use.

The real problem with the whole ISP thing is lack of competition. Prices for dialup dropped quickly when there were dozens to choose from. We only have one cable provider per area and no other good ISP options so far. Guaranteed if you had 2 providers, same speeds, same reliability, same price, one blocks BT and the other doesn't the unblocked one would get more business from today's users. I personally am drooling over FIOS which is available in my town but has not reached my house yet. $50 a month for 20Mbps/5Mbps with no blocks.

RE: Wait a minute...
By The0ne on 1/9/2008 11:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but but some people are using it legally. You can't blame those who are using it properly for those millions *points fingers* that aren't. If you take that practice to real world situations you have chaos out in the streets.

I'm hoping Comcast gets a huge fine for what they are doing. I'm hoping FCC looks into other companies like Cox and Time Warner as well. Cox I know for sure they do as I have specifically been told and limited on how much I can do per month.

All this is really happening because there are NO competition. There are absolutely NO competition for Time Warner in my large San Diego area. Cox is more to the west side. You have no choice but to pay and live with the service you're getting. Either that or be without TV, phone, internet.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki