backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by CascadingDarkn.. on Sep 9 at 1:11 PM

Embattled ISP fires another volley at the FCC

The FCC’s August 1 “Data Discrimination” ruling against Comcast Corp. came under fire Thursday, after the Philadelphia-based nationwide ISP filed appeals to a U.S. District Court.

In its suit, Comcast accuses the FCC of overstepping its authority when it issued a formal cease-and-desist order against the company’s policy of interfering with subscribers’ BitTorrent traffic last month.

Comcast characterizes its policy – since nicknamed “data discrimination” by observers – as necessary in order to protect its infrastructure from being overwhelmed with traffic.

When it was discovered in October 2007, Comcast’s “data discrimination” policy targeted a number of P2P protocols – most notably BitTorrent – and actively inserted fake disconnect requests with forged return addresses.

While the suit recognizes the FCC’s authority in governing ISPs’ actions, it says that it has not enacted any “enforceable rules or standards” over the way internet providers manage their networks.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said he was “disappointed” with the appeal, noting that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding how the company manages its network.

“The commission needs to understand the answers,” he said. “Perhaps more importantly, Comcast's subscribers deserve to know the answers.”

In a statement justifying his August 1 ruling, Martin characterized Comcast’s policy as akin to “opening your mail, decided they didn’t want to bother delivering it, and hiding that fact by sending it back to you stamped ‘address unknown – return to sender’.” The ruling enjoined Comcast to cease the practice – something it already committed to doing on its own, earlier this year – and describe the exact nature of the techniques it uses to manage traffic on its network.

In its response to the August 1 ruling, Comcast accused the FCC of being “deeply divided” in its decision, and disagrees with Comcast’s contentions that its network management practices were “reasonable”.

The company’s policy shift, from “data discrimination” to its just-announced 250 GB usage cap, is seen as a direct response to continuing FCC pressure. As part of this new initiative, which it dubbed “fair share,” Comcast will actively and temporarily throttle service for customers hogging the network.

Comcast is the second-largest ISP in the country, maintaining a 15% market share and trailing rival SBC by less approximately 300,000 subscribers.



Comments     Threshold


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

great work FCC
By someguy123 on 9/5/2008 11:59:50 PM , Rating: 5
I'm surprised at how adamant the FCC is about this issue, and I applaud their efforts to enforce this decision. I do understand that comcast's networks are dragged down heavily due to a very small percentage of people, but the only reason this is even an issue is due to their own poor business practices.

comcast should have enacted a limit from the beginning if they couldn't support a few people saturating the lines. the way they handled this situation was incredibly underhanded, if not downright illegal.




RE: great work FCC
By daftrok on 9/6/2008 12:50:54 AM , Rating: 3
Makes me glad I have Cox (hehe). Not only is there no data cap, but if you are doing large downloads and are surrounded by an area of low traffic, they POWERBOOST your connection so you can get the download done faster. Pure genius.


RE: great work FCC
By GaryJohnson on 9/6/2008 1:23:52 AM , Rating: 1
Comcast has 'powerboost' too, in fact they actually had it before Cox did:
quote:
December 20, 2006...Cox Communications announced availability of PowerBoost...Comcast first introduced this to its customers last summer.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cox+High+Speed+Inter...

And why does everyone keep calling this a cap?
quote:
Subscribers who exceed their quota "may be contacted by Comcast to notify them of excessive use."

http://www.dailytech.com/Comcast+Sets+Data+Cap+at+...

To me a 'cap' would be some limit that they shut you off at, but it sounds like all they'll do is send you an angry letter.


RE: great work FCC
By rudolphna on 9/6/2008 1:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, but they have shut people off for excessive usage.


RE: great work FCC
By TBottch on 9/6/2008 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
I have cox too and I am fairly certain my torrents are being throttled as my download speeds have dropped significantly lately. Makes downloading linux distros a huge chore. I have run the glasnost test and it didn't find any isp manipulation but my download speeds have gone from the multiple hundreds to the tens. Not only that but they are dropping cable channels left and right. I think it may be time to go isp shopping. Unfortunatly, there are no decent alternatives here.


RE: great work FCC
By realmp06 on 9/7/2008 8:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
I have Cox Communications as well, they keep on improving their network so we do not have to worry about data caps! How in the world do you think people will be able to keep that cap with the advent of this new digital revolution where everything from music, high definition movies, TV shows, and video games are downloadable? The next Xbox you'll be able to download video games! And with more peoople going online instead to stores to buy movies, I think this move by Comcast is very irrsponsible. If they can't manage to keep their networks up to speed, then they shouldn't even be considered in ISP provider.


RE: great work FCC
By The0ne on 9/7/2008 3:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
Cox is not different than Comcast in capping your download/upload, at least here in the San Diego area. I got a call from Cox saying I was downloading too much (~30gig) and was told to stop. They also told me I would be monitor. So I canceled the connection and went with Time Warner. Maybe you have a better Cox service where you are.

Having said that though, Cox connections is much better than Time Warner. Time Warner has many many issues with all their connections. It's sad really.


RE: great work FCC
By LyCannon on 9/6/2008 1:37:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
comcast should have enacted a limit from the beginning if they couldn't support a few people saturating the lines


Or heaven forbid, they upgrade their lines so their infrastructure matches the fact that they are the U.S.'s 2nd largest ISP.

But instead of spending millions on infrastructure, they instead spend (presumably) millions on lawyer fees and hardware/software to filter traffic. That's capitalism for you!!!


RE: great work FCC
By zombiexl on 9/6/2008 7:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
My guess is that it would cost billions to upgrade the infrastructure. They are still dealing with replacing lines in a good chunk of the Adelphia area's they acquired.

Hell, I'm just starting to see line upgrades when I moved to last year. It had been an Adelphia area and the lines were complete crap (although most of my neighbors have DSL or dial-up so i receive fast speeds, but QoS isn't great).

Not to mention the cable system upgrades they need to make to compete with satellite better. Like whole-home DVR, etc. Also replacing these crappy SA boxes with the Motorola one's.


RE: great work FCC
By Lord 666 on 9/6/2008 11:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
Portions of Adelphia were and still are more advanced than Comcast areas. In 1997, Adelphia completed fiber to the curb in Toms River and parts of Ocean County, NJ. Eleven years later, Verizon nor Comcast have agressively invested in migrating to fiber in all areas. Verizon has only focused on towns were they assume will be the most profitable with FiOS, which is just thinly veiled discrimination.


RE: great work FCC
By Regs on 9/6/2008 12:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people keep demonizing ISP services? There are no short term answers on fixing the network to catch up to competitors in other developing nations. Japan for instance, established many regulations that took years for their communication company's to build up and our networks are considerably older.

ISP's will not spend millions on new infrastructure, they will have to spend billions (like FIOS) and most of those billions will come from loans (debt). The amount of money that they will have to shell out for that 1% just so the other potential 99% percent don't have to suffer is a steep price.

It is only a matter of time before they have too shell out the big bucks to upgrade our aging network, I agree. But these shallow remarks about "just simply upgrading" is easier said than done.


RE: great work FCC
By StevoLincolnite on 9/6/2008 6:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
And I quote:
quote:
Today, Federal Labor has taken an historic decision to build a world class national broadband network. We believe this is a critical step when it comes to Australia’s long-term economic future. We’re proposing to invest up to $4.7 billion in this proposal in a partnership with the private sector for it to be constructed over a five year period which will deliver for 98 per cent of Australians, a broadband service which is up to 40 times faster than they currently enjoy.


Now if the Aussie's Government can do it, surely the American Government could help "Upgrade" your nations Broadband networks? - And then once the building is completed, they can "Lease" the bandwidth to ISP's or even sell parts of the network, and get there money back or make a profit, which in turn could be spent on other projects. The apparently increase of the new network should be around 6mbps, which isn't exactly stingy when some people can enjoy 20mbps speeds.


RE: great work FCC
By borismkv on 9/6/2008 8:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
If I recall correctly, the US passed a similar act several years ago. The ISPs ended up pocketing the cash instead of upgrading.


RE: great work FCC
By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2008 2:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
That's why the Government should build the network, not leave it in an ISP's hands, then sell parts of the networks to the highest bidder.


RE: great work FCC
By walk2k on 9/6/2008 1:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong! They HAVE been upgrading the infastructure CONSTANTLY. When Comcast took over we had 1.5mb internet, and no HDTV, no VOD. Now we have 6mbit standard and 16mbit premium service, along with HDTV, VOD, DVR etc... They are upgrading.

Nevermind the fact that even if they upgraded the service to 100 GIGABITS people would STILL try to hog it all for themselves. They would STILL need to do some kind of traffic management for those heavy users, so the point is totally moot.


RE: great work FCC
By CascadingDarkness on 9/9/2008 1:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
100 GIGABITS people would STILL try to hog it all for themselves.

I call shenanigans on that. Few 'people' could find things to use that much bandwidth for an extended period.

Most likely anyone that is either should be no a business plan or they're a spammer and should be killed.


RE: great work FCC
By walk2k on 9/6/2008 1:06:00 PM , Rating: 1
COMCAST HAS ALWAYS HAD LIMITS!

Go to dslreports.com and check the Comcast forum, several reports of people being throttled and even disconnected for exeeding their bandwidth limits.

The only change to their policy is now they actually tell you what that limit is, which is a GOOD THING. Before it was a "secret".

Also the email analogy is completely wrong. THEY DO NOT AND NEVER DID OPEN YOUR EMAIL!! My god people are so guilible. The p2p throttling had nothing to do with email! It was only throttling heavy users of (99% illegal) p2p file sharing.


RE: great work FCC
By twhittet on 9/6/2008 2:35:22 PM , Rating: 3
The analogy was spot on! And the analogy was to mail (unless the post has been edited since then). Comcast looks at your packets, decides it doesn't want to deliver them, and sends a disconnect back. If the US post office opened my playboy, decided it did not want to deliver it, and then sent playboy a letter saying I no longer wanted the magazine, I would be a little mad!


RE: great work FCC
By walk2k on 9/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: great work FCC
By glennpratt on 9/6/2008 4:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
They are/were NOT only throttling heavy users! They have throttled all P2P at times.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept the argument that I'm hogging my internet connection by using it as advertised. Honestly, I don't understand why consumers want to allow ISP's to act as arbiters of what is good and bad on the internet.

Caps are fine, temporary limits/throttling is fine as long as it's on all packets. However, Comcast should not be allowed to 'shape' internet as they see fit - for one because they have a conflict of interest. They want you to pay for cable and PPV - not downloading HD video (which can be done quite legally). They want hosts like Google and YouTube to pay the send data across their networks. This is all plainly anti-consumer and truly bad for the health of the internet.


RE: great work FCC
By CascadingDarkness on 9/9/2008 1:11:33 PM , Rating: 3
The internet is not a big truck (dump truck)!

quote:
a dump truck full of mail

I just got an internet that was sent to me on Friday.


RE: great work FCC
By someguy123 on 9/6/2008 7:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
i don't think you understand what "analogy" means. he was comparing the fact that comcast checks data packets to see if they're similar to other p2p services, and then stopping or delaying the packets if they are found to be similar. this is like going through a stack of mail, opening them and reading the letters inside to see if they're similar to other letters that you don't want to deliver, and then deciding not to deliver them without telling your customer.

this is NOT only done to the top percentage of users. I only go through about 7gb of downloads a month (most of it from streaming small videos on websites) but when I load up a p2p program to get something, such as a large patch from a video game that uses p2p to share the update, i get throttled almost instantly and I have never gotten even close to my advertised speed while using p2p. hell most of the time I get lower than DSL speeds on p2p.


RE: great work FCC
By hobbes7869 on 9/7/2008 9:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the thing, while i myself do not like the idea of caps and throttling or any limits etc. i completely disagree with the FCC getting involved, this is a private company, and there are alternatives if you don't like what is being done. go to DSL (speeds approaching those of cable are available) or perhaps you are lucky enough to have the choice of cable providers, but the last thing we needs is another government agency dictating to private business how they should run their companies. And i am sure i will be down voted, so be it


Comcast False Advertising
By ICBM on 9/6/2008 8:41:26 AM , Rating: 5
If you offer 6.0 Mbps to a customer and tell them the service is unlimited, then your network should be able to handle that. If not it is more like false advertising. I don't care what the fine print says, unlimited is well unlimited. There isn't room for it to mean anything else. Since comcast can't supply the bandwidth limit they are selling at all times, they should be hit with false advertising. They need to either upgrade their network to support the speeds they are selling, or downgrade their plans to something they can handle. It is very simple. Ten years ago, people didn't constantly use bandwidth, so you could get away with offering more bandwidth to a customer than the network could handle overall because not everyone was using it at the same time. The internet is evolving, to where people are starting to use it all the time. Comcast needs to understand this and evolve with the internet.




RE: Comcast False Advertising
By graziano on 9/6/2008 10:49:16 AM , Rating: 5
FUCK YOU COMCAST! They want their cake and eat it too. You advertise one thing (Which as been false advertising since day one) and practive something else. You greedy bastards. Upgrade the network instead of trying to bring on as many new customers as possilbe. GREED. Upper Mgt=GREED. FUCK YOU. I hope you go down.


RE: Comcast False Advertising
By Atala on 9/6/2008 11:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
What irks me more is that Comcast is deliberatly limiting their own technical advancement in the name of money. Japan & Europe has had high speed internet access (speeds that make high speed in America look like 14.4 mps) for years. And they keep getting faster. Why? Because they invest in their technology. They replace and/or upgrade their old equipment as needed to keep-up with user damands. By limiting how much data a person can download, Comcast is deliberatly stagnating the technology. They won't need to invest in faster servers and better wires, because no-one will be able to reach both the speeds and data demands such upgrades would require. PLUS it allows Comcast to monopolize (again) direct-to-tv movie and show downloads (such as using NetFliks to download a HD movie directly to a computer or even an X-Box 360) Just one (1)movie can be 4 GIGs or more in file size.

Which is also why Comcast wants to slow down p2p services - If they can slow down p2p, they can start to slow down other high-data file sharing, effectively making such legit entertainment download services unusuable. EXCEPT if someone uses their own (Comcast) services.


RE: Comcast False Advertising
By walk2k on 9/6/2008 4:16:14 PM , Rating: 1
Show me where they ever said you can saturate your pipe 24/7? They do deliver the speeds they advertise, but speed has nothing to do with total usage which they never said was "unlimited".

If you really think you are going to get DS3 level service with no caps for $40/month you need to stop huffing paint.


RE: Comcast False Advertising
By bendrx on 9/6/2008 10:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
you must work for comcast or hold a lot of stock in it.


By feelingshorter on 9/6/2008 11:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
Most people do. Switch service that is...to Verizon. But verizon isn't in all areas and it is more expensive than cable (even with tv/net package compared to cable).

Comcast is just anal about spending money. The age of youtube/hulu is there. Its a multimedia internet, not just text emails anymore. Once Verizon lowers their price a little, i'm also going to be switching.


RE: Comcast False Advertising
By bigboxes on 9/6/2008 11:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
You sir are a freakin' retard. Regardless of the current revisions to there TOS, the current TOS was unlimited in regard to amount of bandwidth usage. What have you been smoking?


By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2008 2:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
I Totally agree with you, Telstra (Australia's largest Telco) Had a similar issue a few years ago, where it was advertising it's Broadband Plans as "Unlimited" - However after 10gb's worth of Data Transferred which is Downloads and Uploads included in the same 10gb limit, you were throttled to 64k speeds, The issue there is that they added extremely tiny tiny tiny small print at the bottom of the plan, which someone with poor sight would miss, consequently they did get in trouble with it, and the ACCC put there foot down and had the names of the plans changed.

However, the largest difference is that Telstra's Network could handle more data than they allow it's users, significantly more, un-like Comcast where from what I have read seems to have far to many users than there is Bandwidth available, however again most ISP's usually tell you in the fine print of a contract etc. that they "May" Throttle Peer to Peer Traffic. (My current ISP which is Westnet told me they may do this if the network became congested, but has not happened as of yet).

Before I was With Westnet, I was with an ISP called Dodo Internet, which used the Comandico network and offered "Unlimited" Downloads and uploads with pricing similar to Telstra's, however they did throttle my traffic considerably at times, for instance every-now-and-then I would be playing StarCraft on battle.net then suddenly have massive amounts of lag, I would then exit the game and do a speed test only to find I was only downloading at a speed of 3-6kb, And for 130 bucks a month it's not something you wanted either, it also took them 3 months to get me connected to the service, and the support is just... non-existent.

Thankfully Westnet came to the rescue, despite the slightly higher pricing, I get 40gb's worth of Downloads during Peak times, and 60gb's worth of downloads during off-peak times, which doesn't include uploads! (Listen to that Telstra!)
And there Customer Service is rather great, with all English-Speaking people and hardly any wait time, Still it's only 1.5mb Down and 256k up (ADSL 2+ isn't available in my area) for only $109.95 a month, plus they got me connected in only 4 days which is impressive. (You listening Dodo?)

I reckon everyone needs to start Jumping up and down, and start changing to Better Alternatives for there Internet, Sometimes Speeds/Amount of Downloads just doesn't cut it for everyone, then hopefully the Dodgy Internet Providers will look up and start listening to it's customers.


250gb cap
By leexgx on 9/6/2008 1:10:49 PM , Rating: 1
250gb month cap is more then any one should need really

even me in the uk on virgin cable I could do that amount in an day and an half or 2 (20mb BB) even with the day cap of 6gb and 3.5gb (10am to 3pm - 4pm to 10pm {drops speed to 5mb for 5 hrs} any time after that no caps as I am not in house in the day does not bother me)
Most UK BT ADSL providers do not go beyond 40GB per month when they have an capping system in place, cable use download limiting in day

but I do not need to, if you download lots of HD then that only gets you around 50 downloads (5gb per hd file yes it mite be 10gb then it be only 25 make your own numbers up then divide it) or 80 dvds but that’s not very likely, so there cap is very high




RE: 250gb cap
By Atala on 9/7/2008 3:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
250gb month cap is more then any one should need really
250gb month cap is more then any one should need really

"No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."


RE: 250gb cap
By koenshaku on 9/8/2008 11:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well they're about to be 300,001 subscribers behind SBC come next week when I relocate any banwidth quota is the blowsis not what I signed up for. I always wondered why my torrent connections disconnected so often...


Why is Comcast...
By nismotigerwvu on 9/6/2008 12:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Trying to become the least likable company since AOL. In all reality, the Comcast of today is very much like the AOL of 1999. For the users' sake, I hope we end with the same results.




By mganey on 9/7/2008 11:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
They took our money (Government Tax Incentives) in the 90s and when Bush to office and now they want to punish us for their theft ( Hell You Say)I hope the FCC makes them do what they were supposed to do for the benefits that they received or how about the Justice System holding the Top echelon of Comcast to the same laws that you and I are held accountable to ! "If we forget the past, we are sure to pay in the future!"




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki