how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2010-04-06 12:08:35: The FCC and Comcast have been in court fighting over whether the FCC had the right to "sanction" Comcast for lying to customers about throttling P2P services back in 2008 (a debate that actually began right here at Broadband Reports before blowing up.. ..
|
 mprogersPremium
join:2007-07-05
Hollis, NH Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Truth and Freedom - never trust a Marxist! First, It's Comcast's business, not the FCC's - if they choose to p!ss off their customers, then they will lose out to ever-improving DSL and fiber alternatives.
Second, it will never be possible to have reliable VoIP if the bit carriers cannot impose ANY restrictions.
BUT, Thirdly, and this is where the FCC may choose to enforce some kind of disclosure, it is in Comcast's interest to explain what it's doing, set clear limits for each class of service, and compete with other providers on price/features.
Let us never forget freedom of association - unless I am discriminating against you by your membership of some victimhood group, of which I was aware at the time of the alleged discrimination, then I can choose to serve you well, badly, or ask you to leave. Likewise, you can decide my service stinks and decide to leave for greener pastures. This is freedom and the free market.
Bottom line - Comcast's sole error was in lying about the BW/byte limits, and transparency rules would help keep the honest people honest.
NOW, about those Marxists - never trust a "Public Interest Law Firm", "Customer Advocacy Group" or any such organization, without thoroughly verifying their credentials!
I'll bet that most of the members of this forum are freedom loving, keep the government's hands off, anarchy's OK as long as no-one gets hurt (EG EFF) types - am I wrong?
So, Puhlease, why is anybody talking up the wonderful advocacy of "FreePress.org", whose goal is to enable government micromanagement of all aspects of the internet.
The founder of FreePress.Org is on record suggesting that less freedom on the Internet would be a good thing.
Please see these comments from AFP's Phil Kerpen - a very clear thinker on the subject:
The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private ownership of telecommunications systems.
[Phil Kerpen] discussed McChesney and the so-called media reform movement [Apr 5th] on the Glenn Beck show, and you can watch that clip here. [Phil will] be on with Glenn again [Apr 6th] at 5PM and 2AM Eastern, 2PM and 11PM Pacific to discuss net neutrality specifically | |
| | | | Re: Truth and Freedom - never trust a Marxist! You lost any credibility when you mentioned Glenn Beck. | |
|
1 edit | Biased reporting Note that the story above contains two quotes from opponents of the decision and only one short, vague one from a proponent. And the story itself is likewise biased. Very disappointing.
Fortunately, the rule of law prevailed here. | |
| | | | Re: Biased reporting said by SuperWISP:Note that the story above contains two quotes from opponents of the decision and only one short, vague one from a proponent. And the story itself is likewise biased. Very disappointing. Fortunately, the rule of law prevailed here. Your incessant whining about Karl's articles got old a long time ago. I'm sure you wouldn't be missed. | |
|
| | FCC Loses Case I just hope Comcast doesn't start Throttling Torrents again. I realize the reasons why they would, but it still doesn't make it a good thing that they can do that. If the FCC can't stop them from doing it, then who can? | |
| | | Regarding the "questionable" authority of the FCC The FCC has the authority to fine the hell out of you if you go on CBS and say the F word. I don't remember Congress passing any "indecency" legislation regarding television, yet we go through with this. Even though I do believe in free enterprise, this isn't. Comcast owns what, 30% of the market? That's not a little mom and pop establishment. I say call their bluff and reclassify. I want to know who, on here has the cojones to stand up for Comcast. It's very simple, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon need to meet something called anti-trust litigation; and be broken up into little companies. | |
| | | | Re: Regarding the "questionable" authority of the FCC said by tigernike23:The FCC has the authority to fine the hell out of you if you go on CBS and say the F word. I don't remember Congress passing any "indecency" legislation regarding television, yet we go through with this. You really don't think there is a law made by Congress and signed by the President that allows the FCC to regulate decency standards on public television and radio airwaves?
What do you mean you don't remember? Do you mean you've been alive long enough that you should remember it? Or do you think it is something that Congress passed in the last couple of years and therefore you should remember it?
You might want to check US Code Title 18 Section 1464.
This bill became law on June 25, 1948, and the FCC was ordered to enforce it 24 hours per day on Jan 31, 1989. Sorry you don't remember any of that. | |
|
| | Comcast fumbles Hope Comcast realizes what they did which was stupid. Now the FCC will limp back to congress and get more power than the industry bargained for and is gonna pretty much be bad as bad can be. | |
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Reclassify as Title 2? quote:
Karl said:
Comcast may have been better served leaving things alone. As we mentioned recently, part of the reason the FCC's broadband plan was so vague is because the agency was waiting on this ruling to see precisely where they stand legally. It's widely expected that the FCC will now try to reclassify broadband services as Title 2 common carriage, giving them broader authority over broadband providers. That's going to mean additional legal and political battles not only with Comcast, but with carriers like AT&T and Verizon.
"It's widely expected" ?? I don't think so, I don't think this is going to happen. They are going to wait for Congress to do something (or nothing). | |
| | | Is CC back at it? RSTs showing up again... My CC connection has been great for the last several months..until today. For the first time in quite a while, I'm attempting to seed a torrent that I made. Normally when I'm just another seed in a swarm, my u/l speeds are great.
Today I started seeding one of my own files and noticed my u/l speeds rapidly vary from 10k-200k with plenty of peers available. My usual u/l is 500-700k (have the 22/5 tier) when I'm one of many seeds on a torrent. Seeing this behavior immediately reminded of CC's Sandvine traffic shaping...so I hunted down the .bat I was using to spot the forged RSTs before CC stopped the interference, and found that I have a 50% RST rate!!!!!!! From what I can tell, this is only happening on my own torrents where I'm am the only seed. All is fine when I'm just another seed in a swarm tho.
Anyone else seeing this behavior when they try and seed their own file?? | |
| | | | Re: Is CC back at it? RSTs showing up again... Sandvine would be forging RST for all of your torrents, whether you where the only seed or you were in a swarm, it has no way of knowing if you're the only seed.
So you've got something else going on. | |
| | | | | Re: Is CC back at it? RSTs showing up again... Mk...call me a sceptic, but I find it hard to believe CC just scrapped their Sandvine equipment and implementation costs when they stopped traffic shaping.
But ur right now that I think about it..no way it knows the swarm deets. | |
|
| |
|
