said by matrix3D:You are completely mixing apples and oranges. They instituted the cap long before net neutrality was even an argument to deal with bandwidth hogs.
Incorrect. The cap was instituted when people were complaining about certain protocols being throttled. Comcast's response was the hard cap because said cap is "neutral" as the net neutrality crowd wished.
said by matrix3D:The FCC "rules," in fact, allow for "reasonable" network management under which the caps would fit.
Which law grants to the FCC the power to tell an ISP to do this. If there is no law, and the FCC is just making things up, then the FCC deserves to be punished for it.
said by matrix3D:Please explain to me how treating protocols differently does not amount to traffic discrimination?
Of course it is traffic discrimination, but since when did packets on a network get civil rights? Are you seriously arguing that packets that are used for VOIP, gaming or web services are not more time sensitive than those used for things like file transfers and BitTorrent? If Comcast doesn't feel the need to upgrade its network to allow all traffic to flow unimpeded, then what business does the government have to force it to do so?
said by matrix3D:Also, if Comcast were to suddenly decide to throttle Vonage, would you also continue to say "there's nothing to see here?"
Ironically enough the FCC has used existing authority granted to it by the Telecommunications Act of 1934 to punish an ISP for blocking access to (not throttling) Vonage.
»
FCC Identifies, Fines VoIP Blocker
