dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-07-11 08:37:35: Comcast worked so hard to get the FCC off their back for the company's throttling of P2P traffic, a practice first discovered in our forums in May of 2007. Comcast first denied they were doing anything out of the ordinary. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits

Good but only if it applies to everyone

Don't single out Comcast. Both Cox and Time Warner Roadrunner traffic shape.

If the FCC is going to go after Comcast, they should have to go after everyone else too. And if they're going after traffic shaping, why not port blocking? It could certainly be argued that port 25 blocking for example is anticompetitive against other mail providers in violation of FCC item 4 below.

Before going after people...they need to make VERY CLEAR rules as to what they expect instead of this sort of "we know it when we see it" crap the FCC usually adheres to.

said by FCC :
New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet
Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet:

(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
(3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
(4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management.

Action by the Commission August 5, 2005, by Policy Statement (FCC 05-151).
Chairman Martin, Commissioners Martin, Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein, with Chairman Martin issuing a statement.

That's about as vague as you can get. They need to clearly state the rules. And who gets to decide what network management is reasonable. We've seen what Comcast sees as reasonable and evidentially the FCC didn't agree.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

4 edits

6 recommendations

Thank you to BroadbandReports.com

I am the author of the piece at »Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections.

When Comcast bought up large systems to become the largest Cable MSO, it did not buy the Internet. It has no right to change how it works -- not one byte of it.

How the world-wide Internet works is defined by all of us, through our participation and trust in the Internet Society and the Internet Engineering Task Force. To ensure interoperability and access for all, changes must be carefully deliberated and standardized there. The responsibility of operating the Internet in accordance with those standards is entrusted to companies providing access to it. It's not Comcast's job to change how the Internet works nor can it decide who or what gets preference upon it.

In the year 1999, this website created a forum where people could come together and "demystify" DSL-based and cable-based Internet and learn about how to gain access to it. Quickly, those of us knowledgeable or interested in learning about the technology became members here. I was one of the latter, and members here have taught me a lot.

BroadbandReports.com has always been a system of people helping people, and when necessary, shedding light to those issues that would change the Internet or the industries it has created. I'm grateful that its users taught me so much through the years. It enabled me, and this outcome is a direct result of the coaching I have received here and the platform that this website provides to all of us.

I haven't seen anything other than the press reports about something to be circulated around the FCC. I am hopeful that when the details are released that it serves to preserve and protect the Internet from those who would abuse their power and change it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...


Sky King

join:2001-07-02
Naugatuck, CT

Comcast

I have comcast so I am not worried about what they do to other net providers. I am for going after them all but I don't have a dog in that fight.



ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to funchords

Re: Thank you to BroadbandReports.com

Let me say again to you Rob thanks for your hard work and perseverance. This is a lesson as to why ISP's should be honest with their customers.



kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

Kevin Martin Has Principles?

Since when?

While I suppose one should support his efforts to feign concern over net neutrality, they seem awfully one sided.

The phone companies, one in particular, are the ones who started the noise about their pipes and their right to recover the investment made in lay those pipes. Does Kevin Martin give them any hassle? Nope. Because he knows they are going to give him a plush corner office with a salary to match as soon as he's done dismantling the competition.
--
»www.DumbLogic.com



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Dogfather

Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone

said by Dogfather:

Don't single out Comcast. Both Cox and Time Warner traffic shape.

If the FCC is going to go after Comcast, they should have to go after everyone else too. And if they're going after traffic shaping, why not port blocking? It could certainly be argued that port 25 blocking for example is anticompetitive against other mail providers in violation of FCC item 4 below.

Before going after people...they need to make VERY CLEAR rules as to what they expect instead of this sort of "we know it when we see it" crap the FCC usually adheres to.

That's about as vague as you can get. They need to clearly state the rules. And who gets to decide what network management is reasonable. We've seen what Comcast sees as reasonable and evidentially the FCC didn't agree.
Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

2 edits
reply to Dogfather

said by Dogfather:

Don't single out Comcast. Both Cox and Time Warner traffic shape.

TWC does not do it in all areas

when i use torrent i can get 900Kbyte/s to 1.1MByte/s down any time of the day

upload avg is 115kbyte/s


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

Law of unintended consequences

The push to keep illegal P2P traffic flowing for the nets freeloaders will result in more drastic methods of network management. And they are already coming - caps; pay-by-byte tiers; overage fees; and higher costs. What will the next crusade be because the music thieves are unhappy their free music fix has been threatened? Price regulation by the government? Laws to prohibit caps? Nationalization of the communication industry?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
reply to Anonymous_

Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone

TW was also allegedly throttling NNTP (Usenet) traffic as
well. Though I never did see that for the few weeks I
still had it last year around the time they starting doing it.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so.
I'm just a tech guy, but I wondered the same thing as you until one of the lawyer's at Free Press listed more than half-a-dozen precedents that indicate the FCC already has the authority, enabled via that very Policy Statement.

Have you looked at those arguments? They're quite strong and together they are unassailable. They've been listed in a recent FCC filing and can be read here: »www.freepress.net/node/41653
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

said by funchords:

said by FFH:

Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so.
I'm just a tech guy, but I wondered the same thing as you until one of the lawyer's at Free Press listed more than half-a-dozen precedents that indicate the FCC already has the authority, enabled via that very Policy Statement.

Have you looked at those arguments? They're quite strong and together they are unassailable. They've been listed in a recent FCC filing and can be read here: »www.freepress.net/node/41653
I'd be more impressed with their legal arguments if I thought Federal Circuit & Appeals Courts and the USSC actually based their decisions purely on the law. What they apparently do is decide what they think is right(based on their own personal & political views and on current popular political theory) and then DIG UP precedent to back their decision. They don't appear to work as most people believe - that is base the decision on the law alone. I had a sitting Federal judge as a teacher in graduate school and, off the record & after class, admit that is how many cases are decided. They make a decision and THEN research the law to back the way they want to rule on a case.

So, no matter what the LAW is, the D.C. circuit may very well rule as they have in the past where cable is concerned- against the FCC.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 edit
reply to Doctor Four

Click for full size
....

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Anonymous_

TWC DOES NOT DO IT! RoadRunner does who is the actual ISP.

Go read your TOS and AUPs from the help.rr.com site. You agree to both their AUPs as well as Time Warner's. RR has the right to do what they want to you since they "own" the network, TWC "leases" it according to the AUP and the TOS. The same with BH customers and anyone else who leases their lines to RoadRunner.



Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2

1 edit

my avg upload speed out of 130Megabytes is 114Kbyte up (OR 914 KBITS/s)

no one reads em anyhow

why should i read an buch of crap


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to ptrowski

Re: Thank you to BroadbandReports.com

Ehhh. Since the FCC does not define "reasonable" Comcast could have a field day with this in court. When you issue something for someone else to follow such as this make sure you define what you're actually saying. Lesson #1 of Business. You better look like defining.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to FFH

Re: Law of unintended consequences

If Comcast loses in Court; they should announce their caps the same day as starting that week. Get rid of all those damn free loading P2P. When i first signed up for RoadRunner in Fremont Ohio the node was hella slow after a certain time. Found out one neighbor was on there downloading from LimeWire when it first came out. Movies up the ass and music. It was good to call the Abuse Department and have his Internet killed.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Thank you to BroadbandReports.com

IANAL, but there is historical legal perspective on the word "Reasonable" and on the "Reasonable Network Management" footnote. I don't think it is as open to interpretation as it would initially seem.

That said, I'm having trouble parsing your line, "Lesson #1 of Business. You better look like defining." -- can you say a few more words about that so that I know what you mean?

Thanks
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Law of unintended consequences

said by hottboiinnc:

If Comcast loses in Court; they should announce their caps the same day as starting that week. Get rid of all those damn free loading P2P.
There's nothing wrong with P2P, and it's not freeloading if your neighbor is voluntarily donating the bandwidth on his paid-for subscription.

said by hottboiinnc:

When i first signed up for RoadRunner in Fremont Ohio the node was hella slow after a certain time. Found out one neighbor was on there downloading from LimeWire when it first came out. Movies up the ass and music. It was good to call the Abuse Department and have his Internet killed.
That's the way that Comcast should handle such things as well. Legally participating in P2P and harming nobody is one thing. Interfering with your neighbors and refusing to fix it is another. The traditional practice in Internetdom is to cancel access for those that generate interference complaints.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...


kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Thank you to BroadbandReports.com

Is it "reasonable" to punish the majority for the actions of a few?



Hereyougo

@tds.net
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone

I call BS. Just becuase someone hides something in a TOS doesn't mean they get carte blanche on whatever they want to do. That does seem to be a very 'equal' contract when these companies do that kind of thing. Remember that that for a contract to be enforceable they need to be conscionable. Here's a little link about this kind of thing. It works in theory in the US like this as well.
»www.fairtrading.act.gov.au/Pages···uct.html

Most of these TOS and AUP are pretty badly slanted towards the provider.
Cell phone companies trie this crap too and it seems that the feds don't care too much as much as it has happen this past 8 years.: »lawprofessors.typepad.com/contra···bit.html


axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Thank you to BroadbandReports.com

Reasonable means: users don't notice that any management is taking place. Everything should run in specifications... if there are too many packets, drop them randomly. Tolerance for packet loss is built into the internet.

Clearly defined caps could also be called reasonable, invisible and arbitrary is not.



Interesting

@tds.net
reply to FFH

Re: Law of unintended consequences

Interesting wording there, buddy.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to FFH

quote:
What will the next crusade be because the music thieves are unhappy their free music fix has been threatened? Price regulation by the government? Laws to prohibit caps? Nationalization of the communication industry?
Puppy murder? The slaughter of seals? Be afraid!

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH

Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone

said by FFH:

Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. ...
I have a new theory about why Martin seems to carry water for the telcos:

before I begin, please note that Martin's wife worked in the office of the VP for Cheney.

Martin was told to make sure the telcos get whatever they want in the way of regulatory forbearance to make sure they would continue to implement the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

a little "tin foil hat", but isn't it fun to speculate?

id_deleted

join:2003-05-01
Salt Lake City, UT

4 edits

Does it really even matter?

I dont care if they throttle P2P into nonexistence. I get all the mp3's I want for free. Its completely legal and there is absolutely nothing that Comcast or any other ISP can do about it (individual 320 kb/s mp3 files automatically recorded from the digital signals broadcasted over-the-air by radio stations now).
I rent all the movies I could ever watch in a month from netflix, and I've never been even remotely interested in downloading a bunch of virus infected warez files.



JakCrow

join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
reply to FFH

Re: Law of unintended consequences

And there will be ISPs that will not do caps and per-byte fees and they will take customers away from those ISPs that do. Your doom-n-gloom is very un-capitalistic, but that is to be expected.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by JakCrow:

And there will be ISPs that will not do caps and per-byte fees and they will take customers away from those ISPs that do.
And I'll believe it when it happens. So far it hasn't.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Anonymous_

Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone

because chances are if you don't read them you'll be one of the many on here that cries about the way ISPs manage their network.

Read what you agree to. Its there for you to read. Other wise if you don't read it shut the hell up and take your business else where. I'm sure your ISP will be glad to get rid of you.



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Even if you do read them, more often than not don't tell you anything about how they manage their network.

In some cases they simply say that you can't use the service in a way that degrades the performance of others in the sole opinion of the ISP.

WTF does that mean? These ISPs repeatedly refuse to clearly define abuse and/or they apply these network management principles across the board whether you're negatively "affecting" the network or not.

Unless the AUP spells out in detail what constitutes abuse, pointing to the AUP saying they told you is silly.



45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
reply to Dogfather

Time Warner Cable doesn't traffic shape.