As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

FCC vs Comcast: Blocking Filesharing customers is a no go

LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
edited July 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
news text in spoiler
InRich.com wrote:
FCC chief to rebuke Comcast on access
Martin to recommend company be punished in file-sharing case


Friday, Jul 11, 2008 - 12:55 AM Updated: 01:16 AM

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The head of the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday he will recommend that Comcast be punished for violating agency principles that guarantee customers open access to the Internet.

The potentially precedent-setting move stems from a complaint against Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, that the company had blocked Internet traffic among users of a type of "file sharing" software that allows them to exchange large amounts of data.

"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers' access to the Internet," FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin told The Associated Press yesterday. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

Martin said Comcast has arbitrarily blocked Internet access, regardless of the level of traffic, and failed to disclose to consumers that it was doing so.

Company spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice denied yesterday that it blocks Internet content or services and said that the "carefully limited measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network are a reasonable part" of the company's strategy to ensure all customers receive quality service.

Martin will circulate an order recommending enforcement action against the company today among his fellow commissioners, who will vote on the measure at an open meeting on Aug. 1.

The action was in response to a complaint filed by Free Press, a nonprofit group that advocates for "network neutrality," the idea that all Internet content should be treated equally.

Martin's order would require Comcast to stop its practice of blocking; provide details to the commission on the extent and manner in which the practice has been used; and to disclose to consumers details on future plans for managing its network.

The FCC approved a policy statement in September 2005 that outlined principles meant to ensure that broadband networks are "widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers."

The principles, however, are "subject to reasonable network management."

Comcast argues that the agency's policy statement is not enforceable and that the commission has "never before provided any guidance on what it means by 'reasonable network management.'"
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-07-11-0181.html

So, long story short, after receiving complaints regarding their internet service being blocked, The FCC has come out and said that By blocking service and not disclosing the reasoning to their costumers, Comcast has violated FCC principles that guarantee people open access to the internet.

As a result, Comcast can no longer can block (and I'd assume throttle down) customer speeds as they have been for god knows how long now, and must tell the FCC what and how exactly they've been doing this. In addition, they'll from now on have to tell customers from now on how they plan to "manage" their networks.

Personally, I see this overall as a good thing for Net Neutrality and hopefully the FCC will prevent any further attempts from ISPs from blocking off internet access. Especially in a day where people are constantly taxing their bandwidth with video services like YouTube, the myriad of Television stations that deliver online content (such as CBS and it's massive catalog of episodes free for streaming), not to mention legal movie and game downloads and ISPs may try to find underhanded means of shaping traffic at the customer's expense

As a sidenote, I'm wondering now if anyone continues trying tactics like this to restrict internet access, could customers have a firm leg to stand on to take legal actions against their providers?

I also wonder, could this lead to companies like comcast actually investing in ways to get more efficient broadband into the areas it services?

EDIT: Edited title to be mroe accurate

waNkm4k.jpg?1
Lanz on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Hooray! Hopefully they won't jack up prices in response.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    halkunhalkun Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    It's not about bandwidth caps. It's about arbitrarily discriminating against programs that Comcast doesn't like.

    halkun on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ah, my mistake then Halkun

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    halkun wrote: »
    It's not about bandwidth caps. It's about arbitrarily discriminating against programs that Comcast doesn't like.

    Yeah, I'd suspect they're trying to do it to protect themselves from subpoenas or some-such from those that are after illegal file sharing using completely legal services and applications.

    I'd also suspect they're not going to be allowed to raise their prices in response to them not being able to do this.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    halkun wrote: »
    It's not about bandwidth caps. It's about arbitrarily discriminating against programs that Comcast doesn't like.

    Yeah, I'd suspect they're trying to do it to protect themselves from subpoenas or some-such from those that are after illegal file sharing using completely legal services and applications.

    If I dare ask, why does one need to "protect themselve" from a "subpoena" and what does "some such" mean? Is there an official PA propaganda campaign about how the ISP's are scared of litigation? Because that topic comes up in every single internet related thread we have and I'm forced to quote the same 100 sources again and again as to why it is not so.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    halkun wrote: »
    It's not about bandwidth caps. It's about arbitrarily discriminating against programs that Comcast doesn't like.

    Yeah, I'd suspect they're trying to do it to protect themselves from subpoenas or some-such from those that are after illegal file sharing using completely legal services and applications.

    I'd also suspect they're not going to be allowed to raise their prices in response to them not being able to do this.
    I'm really hoping this is the case. I mean, I just became a Comcast customer (by force of monopoly) and like nothing more than to see that bullshit company slapped for their methods, as long as I don't end up paying extra for their fuckups.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    halkun wrote: »
    It's not about bandwidth caps. It's about arbitrarily discriminating against programs that Comcast doesn't like.

    Yeah, I'd suspect they're trying to do it to protect themselves from subpoenas or some-such from those that are after illegal file sharing using completely legal services and applications.

    If I dare ask, why does one need to "protect themselve" from a "subpoena" and what does "some such" mean? Is there an official PA propaganda campaign about how the ISP's are scared of litigation? Because that topic comes up in every single internet related thread we have and I'm forced to quote the same 100 sources again and again as to why it is not so.

    Well, I'm not a lawyer. I would assume, probably bad on my part, that a company would like to protect information about their infrastructure and customers as best as possible. And opening themselves up to a subpoena by RIAA, and all of those fancy people, by not taking measures to stop illegal file sharing would probably not be in their best interests. (EDIT: This is a hypothetical, I don't know what kind of traffic they were capping or shaping, but I think it's pretty evident what they're trying to stop)

    It costs them money (someone has to get that information presentable), and possibly, a lawsuit. You can link all the sources you want, it doesn't stop someone from bringing them up for trial. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Just because it has happened and has failed, doesn't mean it will this time.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I've pointed out more than once that ISP's, even those without Common Carrier status(Comcast) do not hold an obligation to "stop illegal file sharing".
    If you actually bother to read FCC's statement, ISP's are not allowed to act in a way policing their networks. Their involvement in copyright infringement ends with identifying users on court requests.
    I also have some breaking news for you. No matter how many times you sue somebody, if the law isn't on your side, you're not going to win. Ever.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    I've pointed out more than once that ISP's, even those without Common Carrier status(Comcast) do not hold an obligation to "stop illegal file sharing".
    If you actually bother to read FCC's statement, ISP's actually are not allowed to act in a way policing their networks. Their involvement in copyright infringement ends with identifying users on court requests.
    I also have some breaking news for you. No matter how many times you sue somebody, if the law isn't on your side, you're not going to win. Ever.

    I absolutely agree with you. And if you remember, I agreed with you in the last thread. That's why I said subpoena, you know, for information. I never said they'd get successfully sued, but you seemed to imply that they couldn't be brought to trial, ever. (That also doesn't mean they can't be ass-fucking-lucky and get successfully sued because of a clueless judge, it happens)

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I implied that the final verdict of such a trial simply can not go two ways with the current legislation, even if an appeal is necessary because of what we could call the "clueless" factor.
    I'm also not trying to be a jerk on purpose, but every time somebody implies ISP's are scared of litigation to justify a stick for the consumers I get slightly pissed off. It's just that somebody reads it, buys it and starts repeating it.
    On the information requests, I honestly don't get it. I can't think of a subpoena that could be potentially harmful to an ISP's business. Probably there is one, but I can't see it and anyway, we're really going into far fetched theories.
    I believe there was a study illustrating that main reason for Comcast's throttling(and that it was region based) were bandwidth demands for their own hi-def & ppv services, so all the legal talk really isn't necessary.
    I'm more interested to see if the FCC's decision actually has consequences with regards of future net neutrality debates. It would make the FCC look all kinds of dumb if NN doesn't pass.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    KalTorak wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    halkun wrote: »
    It's not about bandwidth caps. It's about arbitrarily discriminating against programs that Comcast doesn't like.

    Yeah, I'd suspect they're trying to do it to protect themselves from subpoenas or some-such from those that are after illegal file sharing using completely legal services and applications.

    I'd also suspect they're not going to be allowed to raise their prices in response to them not being able to do this.
    I'm really hoping this is the case. I mean, I just became a Comcast customer (by force of monopoly) and like nothing more than to see that bullshit company slapped for their methods, as long as I don't end up paying extra for their fuckups.

    They couldn't easily. Each market sets its own prices, they aren't nationwide, and those prices are agreed upon with a franchise agreement with the city. Which is what allows them to setup a monopoly in the areas. Your local government has a lot of say in your cable companies prices.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I apologize for the far-fetched ideas. However I think that's honestly the only reason they'd put a throttle on it, to protect themselves. I'm sure there's a service quality factor there somewhere, but if they weren't prepared for maximum usage of their network, perhaps they should've stopped acquiring customers, or improved their infrastructure first.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    I apologize for the far-fetched ideas. However I think that's honestly the only reason they'd put a throttle on it, to protect themselves. I'm sure there's a service quality factor there somewhere, but if they weren't prepared for maximum usage of their network, perhaps they should've stopped acquiring customers, or improved their infrastructure first.

    My guess is every single guy that has suggested that on a board meeting got a pink slip the following morning. Seems too obvious from a rational point of view to be acceptable for businesses.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Americans have had it easy with unlimited bandwidth for years. People in most other countries will tell you an unlimited data plan normally costs a lot more, and isn't standard.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Americans have had it easy with unlimited bandwidth for years. People in most other countries will tell you an unlimited data plan normally costs a lot more, and isn't standard.

    It's very true, but their unlimited plans are usually on par for price as ours are. I had a friend in Norway who paid about $25 USD for his "limited" broadband and $60 USD for his "unlimited" plan. That's about what our broadband plans cost, at least mine does.
    zeeny wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    I apologize for the far-fetched ideas. However I think that's honestly the only reason they'd put a throttle on it, to protect themselves. I'm sure there's a service quality factor there somewhere, but if they weren't prepared for maximum usage of their network, perhaps they should've stopped acquiring customers, or improved their infrastructure first.

    My guess is every single guy that has suggested that on a board meeting got a pink slip the following morning. Seems too obvious from a rational point of view to be acceptable for businesses.

    Yeah, very true. However, as a business, I'd rather have 8,000 loyal and happy customers than 8,001 unhappy and pissed customers.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    I apologize for the far-fetched ideas. However I think that's honestly the only reason they'd put a throttle on it, to protect themselves. I'm sure there's a service quality factor there somewhere, but if they weren't prepared for maximum usage of their network, perhaps they should've stopped acquiring customers, or improved their infrastructure first.

    See, this is the kind of thing businesses with competition have to do. In most areas the competition in the high-speed internet provider market is a joke. Hate to break it to you, but their desire to throttle has a lot to do with the fact that a small percentage of customers use a large percentage of bandwidth, and this is their way of limiting it.

    That, and the fact that services ranging from Hulu to Netflix's instant viewing put them in the awkward position of competing with themselves (because in Comcast's case, they're also a cable television provider).

    If it was actually about protecting themselves from lawsuits for copyright infringement, they'd be working to block specific ports/applications/traffic, not shutting down customers who over-use their bandwidth (or throttling them, or throttling specific applications). If, presumably, the person who downloaded 80GB this month was pirating shit, the damage is already done. And as far as throttling goes, the MPAA and RIAA don't much care if you're sharing their shit at 56K or at a megabit, they're going to subpoena either way.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Americans have had it easy with unlimited bandwidth for years. People in most other countries will tell you an unlimited data plan normally costs a lot more, and isn't standard.

    Canada was the only place where I actually had to pay more for uncapped broadband and that was because I insisted on not using Bell's services(it was still uncapped at the time.). I've not seen this anywhere in Europe, so I'm not sure how "most other countries" is defined.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Off the top of my head Canada, Australia and I believe the UK all have separate unlimited data plans.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Off the top of my head Canada, Australia and I believe the UK all have separate unlimited data plans.
    ...Fuck the Commonwealth?;o))))

    I believe in two of those countries(UK, I'm sure, Canada should be that way if it hasn't changed) unlimited cap is tied to faster services. It's not that you pay extra for the cap per se, but rather, it's used an incentive in the offer.
    (what I get quoted from my UK friends is 5pounds 8MB, 40GB cap, 10 pounds 16MB, unlimited with Sky Dig and the other guy has an unlimited 8MB from BT)

    Edit: Also, it seems that the "unlimited" is subject to a "Fair use" policy. Meaning they could fuck you up at any given time.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Plus you can only blame so much on a companies infrastructure, seeing they have to buy bandwidth from the internet backbone like any other company.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Off the top of my head Canada, Australia and I believe the UK all have separate unlimited data plans.

    Not so much anymore.

    Unlimited data plans are pretty much gone in the current economic climate.

    SUCK

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Off the top of my head Canada, Australia and I believe the UK all have separate unlimited data plans.

    Not so much anymore.

    Unlimited data plans are pretty much gone in the current economic climate.

    SUCK

    I wouldn't sign up for it unless I had roll-over, or the limits were incredibly high. I'd rather have 56K with unlimited than 2 MBits that I can only use for 8 hours a month unless I want to pay $200 a month for a business line.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Thank you. I've been saying for a while now that this sort of thing (that Comcast was doing) is illegal under COPE, and now that there's actually a case the FCC agrees.

    Marty81 on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Off the top of my head Canada, Australia and I believe the UK all have separate unlimited data plans.

    Not so much anymore.

    Unlimited data plans are pretty much gone in the current economic climate.

    SUCK

    I wouldn't sign up for it unless I had roll-over, or the limits were incredibly high. I'd rather have 56K with unlimited than 2 MBits that I can only use for 8 hours a month unless I want to pay $200 a month for a business line.

    I'm currently on a 20Mbit ADSL2+ line 60 GB peak, 150 Off peak 10 GB Usenet (although because of the distance from the exchange it maxes out at about 14Mbit)

    It's not bad, but not brilliant.

    It is, as far as I can tell the best deal currently available on the Australian market..

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Wow, FCC growing a spine, colour me impressed. Though does Comcast have any procedural means to appeal this decision?

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The decision unfortunately hasn't been made. Just a decision to make a decision.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Americans have had it easy with unlimited bandwidth for years. People in most other countries will tell you an unlimited data plan normally costs a lot more, and isn't standard.

    do other countries have unlimited bandwidth? or at least to the point that it's ridiculously unlikely right now that you'd max your caps (I think I heard it was Japan that had like a significant amount of gigabytes a day, well into the tens of gigabytes. I want to think 50, but I'm not 100% certain)

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Americans have had it easy with unlimited bandwidth for years. People in most other countries will tell you an unlimited data plan normally costs a lot more, and isn't standard.

    Yes, but in America we don't have an equivalent to the low-cost capped plans. Comcast wants to keep prices the same, but add caps. A quick google says that UK residents can get broadband for 11 US dollars a month, which is much lower than in the US.

    Not to mention that our speeds are generally terrible. I get 30 kb/s upload, which means that it takes about half an hour to upload a video to Youtube.
    Lanz wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Americans have had it easy with unlimited bandwidth for years. People in most other countries will tell you an unlimited data plan normally costs a lot more, and isn't standard.

    do other countries have unlimited bandwidth? or at least to the point that it's ridiculously unlikely right now that you'd max your caps (I think I heard it was Japan that had like a significant amount of gigabytes a day, well into the tens of gigabytes. I want to think 50, but I'm not 100% certain)

    30GB per day upload, but they have fiber optics so a heavy P2P user can actually reach that.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Comcast was not "throttling" bandwidth, as far as I could tell... they were targeting bit torrent traffic, intercepting the transmissions between peers and injecting forged packets that forced the connection between those peers to reset which caused greatly reduced functionality. Through the process of injecting these packets Comcast had to impersonate both of the peers... which I think is fraud or something silly like that.

    Also, it costs a hell of a lot of money to shape that much traffic... money that is provided through government subsidies that were allocated for the purpose of the improvement of infrastructure... gogo Comcast.

    wazilla on
    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    wazilla wrote: »
    Comcast was not "throttling" bandwidth, as far as I could tell... they were targeting bit torrent traffic, intercepting the transmissions between peers and injecting forged packets that forced the connection between those peers to reset which caused greatly reduced functionality. Through the process of injecting these packets Comcast had to impersonate both of the peers... which I think is fraud or something silly like that.

    Also, it costs a hell of a lot of money to shape that much traffic... money that is provided through government subsidies that were allocated for the purpose of the improvement of infrastructure... gogo Comcast.

    A computer crime by any other name...

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Ah, finally someone pointed out that Comcast wasn't just throttling traffic, but performing man in the middle attacks. I think what they were doing is illegal in at least a few states, although I'm not sure about the federal regulations. The FCC sure doesn't seem cool with it, which is a pleasant surprise.

    If they were just limiting speeds or even dropping some packets here and there for people using up a lot of bandwidth I think they probably would have had a case. Forging packets though, not so much.

    Savant on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm just curious, how would this affect stuff like this?

    That's a US satellite internet company, by the by.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I'm currently on a 20Mbit ADSL2+ line 60 GB peak, 150 Off peak 10 GB Usenet (although because of the distance from the exchange it maxes out at about 14Mbit)

    It's not bad, but not brilliant.

    It is, as far as I can tell the best deal currently available on the Australian market..
    Pretty please tell me what company this is with (via PM if necessary).

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm just curious, how would this affect stuff like this?

    That's a US satellite internet company, by the by.

    Their internet policy is called "FAP"?!

    What?!

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    I'm just curious, how would this affect stuff like this?

    That's a US satellite internet company, by the by.

    Their internet policy is called "FAP"?!

    What?!

    I know, I know.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    I'm just curious, how would this affect stuff like this?

    That's a US satellite internet company, by the by.

    Their internet policy is called "FAP"?!

    What?!

    I know, I know.

    Anyway, it depends; I think the FCC got mad at Comcast because they were injecting forged packets to deliberately fuck with BitTorrent traffic specifically, so we'll see in the coming weeks how the FCC decides to run it.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    FCC: Comcast Broke Rules, But Will Not Face Fines
    By Chloe Albanesius
    ARTICLE DATE: 07.11.08
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Kevin Martin will not recommend a fine against Comcast regarding its network management policy, but will instead demand that Comcast stop hindering consumer access to certain applications.

    News reports surfaced late Thursday night that Martin would soon issue a ruling in the long-awaited case against the cable provider. The chairman subsequently held a press conference in Washington this afternoon during which he announced plans to circulate "an item that finds Comcast's broadband network management practices to be in violation of the FCC's policy principles," according to an FCC source.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this roughly translate to "You broke the law. Your punishment will be that you must stop breaking the law."?

    B/c if so, that's bullshit.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    khainkhain Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    KalTorak wrote: »
    FCC: Comcast Broke Rules, But Will Not Face Fines
    By Chloe Albanesius
    ARTICLE DATE: 07.11.08
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Kevin Martin will not recommend a fine against Comcast regarding its network management policy, but will instead demand that Comcast stop hindering consumer access to certain applications.

    News reports surfaced late Thursday night that Martin would soon issue a ruling in the long-awaited case against the cable provider. The chairman subsequently held a press conference in Washington this afternoon during which he announced plans to circulate "an item that finds Comcast's broadband network management practices to be in violation of the FCC's policy principles," according to an FCC source.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this roughly translate to "You broke the law. Your punishment will be that you must stop breaking the law."?

    B/c if so, that's bullshit.

    If the first article is correct and the FCC never specified what reasonable network management is then I don't really see how they can fine them.

    Salvation122: I'm pretty sure bandwidth caps are still legal as long as they are stated.

    khain on
  • Options
    DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    I apologize for the far-fetched ideas. However I think that's honestly the only reason they'd put a throttle on it, to protect themselves. I'm sure there's a service quality factor there somewhere, but if they weren't prepared for maximum usage of their network, perhaps they should've stopped acquiring customers, or improved their infrastructure first.

    Especially since the government's been subsidizing them to do so for a while.

    Delzhand on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I'm currently on a 20Mbit ADSL2+ line 60 GB peak, 150 Off peak 10 GB Usenet (although because of the distance from the exchange it maxes out at about 14Mbit)

    It's not bad, but not brilliant.

    It is, as far as I can tell the best deal currently available on the Australian market..
    Pretty please tell me what company this is with (via PM if necessary).

    Oh, shit, sorry, I realise that it's not actually an accurate description.

    It's no longer available (at least at for the moment) I got on this plan through the following set of circumstances.

    Started off with Koala Telecom on an unlimited 1.5Mps ADSL plan, they nixed the unlimited and so convinced me to move to ADSL2 for the same price per month with the same download limit (100GB). Then they went broke (because of an idiot marketting guy that the board put in charge above the GM) and got purchased by Blitz, Blitz killed everyone's plans and started new ones, one of which was the Velocity max plan. You either got 30 GB download per month with 190GB usenet access or 40 Peak, 130 Off peak and 10 Usenet and free PIPE (for both), I chose the latter option.

    Blitz got screwed by Koala's previous purchases and we spent like 10 days without internet when the investors pulled the plug, the administrators did a bunch o idiotic stuff and then Supernerd who had come to the rescue providing back up bandwidth to as many customers as they could bought all the old blitz customers.

    Which brings me to the present day - Supernerd have purchased the Blitz customer base and are currently honouring old plans. They've started up the new server and it's even better than before, and their release says that they really like the blitz plans so are seeing if they can offer the ones they like, one of which, will hopefully be the velocity max plans (assuming you want to join). They also say that the free PIPE is coming back, but it's going to take a month or so - at the moment I trust my new nerdy overlords.

    Actually, since joining SN it looks like the quotas have been raised a bit. But I can't remember what they used to be.

    Currently there are similar plans offered by TPG and SPIN internet. I'd go with spin because they offer free PIPE (but no usenet).

    Apothe0sis on
Sign In or Register to comment.