 DogfatherPremium 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. | |
|
 |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | 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 | |
|
 |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by Romney2012: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...
| |
|
 |  |  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 1 edit | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by funchords:said by Romney2012: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 | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Romney2012: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? | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Entirely plausible, all things considered. | |
|
 |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | When it comes to Martin and the cable industry, period, its simply hard to take anything he says serious. It so incredibly clear that he's MORE than biased that he makes Fox news truly look fair and balanced in their reporting. | |
|
 |  |  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by Romney2012:[Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - huge amounts of lobbying dollars, hookers and vacations. Fixed. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX | 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)
| |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 2 edits | said by Doctor Four: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. I didn't see it right away. It started for me long after all the hub-bub in the forums here. Then my normally 15Mb DLs from Giganews dropped into the 2-3Mb range in the late evenings. Use encryption and the speeds would be 15Mb day or night. My neighbors complained that their torrent traffic was getting hammered and using encryption sped them up as well. | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| 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_AnonymousPremium join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 kudos:2 1 edit | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone 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 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone RoadRunner does state in their's at help.rr.com what they do. You would know this if you went to read it. But since you don't feel like you should have to follow their guidelines you simply feel that the rules they have don't apply to you; the same as many others on here. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | 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 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Please explain how anything is "hidden" in an agreement. Are these terms written on white paper in white ink? Do you need a magic decode ring to decipher the encrypted symbols to turn them into English letters? Do they hide them behind bushes in the agreement? what?
The last time I checked the TOS agreement, every word was available for me, and everyone else *should they choose to bother to read*, to read every work.
My hang up with your comment is that something is being hidden. I think you need to change your comment because as it is stated, you simply show that the consumer is lazy and doesn't care what they sign which says NOTHING for the average consumer. And, who's fault is that for the consumer not taking time to read? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by fiberguy:Please explain how anything is "hidden" in an agreement. Are these terms written on white paper in white ink? Do you need a magic decode ring to decipher the encrypted symbols to turn them into English letters? Do they hide them behind bushes in the agreement? what? So every time you start your web browser, you re-read your service "agreement" to see if someone has changed it without notifying you?
(And what kind of an "agreement" is it really if you have to check it to see whether or not you've agreed to something new?) -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone No, I didn't say that. BUT, when it's updated, do you not get the notice from them stating they updated their TOS agreement?
Where I WILL damn them is if they make changes to the TOS and NOT notify people. I do not agree with those that update their TOS and do so quietly. I do NOT agree that it's up to the user to "review it periodically"... you and I are talking about the word "reasonable" in another thread. Here is a perfect clear example of what is not reasonable. It's NOT reasonable to expect a user to always look over their shoulder.
Just like any other chance, I believe they should have to notify consumer with a "reasonable" amount of time and using reasonable measures.. ie: registered email address, or by mail, or in the bill.
Paypal sends out updates regularly.. and, if the update is serious enough, I have to click to agree or I can't continue. That's fair. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 3 edits | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by fiberguy:No, I didn't say that. BUT, when it's updated, do you not get the notice from them stating they updated their TOS agreement? When Comcast last updated its agreements, it was a few days before an FCC filing where they defended their case by referring to the changed agreements!
I had software that was monitoring the changes.
They changed the TOS documents and told nobody for about 8-9 days. Nobody mentioned it anywhere in any of Comcast's online forums or on DSLReports. The changes were significant, and there is no way that such a change would go unmentioned by a user or the press.
After waiting to see if anyone picked up on it, I sent e-mail to a contact at FreePress.net telling them about what changed and giving them the diffs. That started a round of press where Comcast essentially called FreePress.net's lawyer a liar or trouble-maker by saying that the TOS was front-page news on Comcast.net (except that it wasn't front-page news, and Google cache confirmed that).
»Comcast Changes TOS In Response To Traffic Shaping Firestorm
»www.savetheinternet.com/blog/200···ination/
-- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|
 |  |  |  CheesePremium join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL kudos:1 | said by hottboiinnc: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. TWC = Roadrunner I believe | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| RR is a separate company from TWC. RR is the ISP. TWC is the operator. Go read the TOS and the AUP on the RR side. They are separate. You don't call TWC to get RR support. You call RoadRunner Support who is in Canada. Not in your home state. The only thing that is in your home state is the reboot monkeys and Tier 3/Network Operations.
RR uses the same agreement with BH and Insight in the areas that use RR instead of InsightBB or BH Internet.
You just fail to go read the agreements as I have said before. InsightBB and BH also have RR logos on their website but does NOT mean that they are RR.
You people are just stupid and only do what is easy for you to argue about because you're fuckin lazy to go read what the agreements actually say. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Consider this:

Assume this is or becomes enforceable, would conflicting provisions in boilerplate TOS/AUP documents supersede it or be nullified by it? -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by funchords:Consider this:  Assume this is or becomes enforceable, would conflicting provisions in boilerplate TOS/AUP documents supersede it or be nullified by it? It all depends on how "reasonable" is defined. And Comcast isn't going to leave that up to the FCC. Off to court they go to define "reasonable". -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Fine. Do you know what? The FCC ought to just reissue the policy statement without that in there. Will that satisfy you? | |
|
 |  | | Time Warner Cable doesn't traffic shape. | |
|
 |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 2 edits | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Really?
»[TWC] TW Officially Announces Packet Shaping for All RR Users
said by From Time Warner's Help Desk : TIME WARNER ANNOUNCES INTRODUCTION OF PACKET SHAPING TECHNOLOGY NATIONWIDE
June 6, 2007 -- Time Warner today implemented a network management tool to improve the operation of the network for all subscribers. As a result, a small minority of users may experience slower speeds during peak hours when using certain applications that consume lots of bandwidth. You can address this situation by reducing your use of bandwidth-intensive applications during peak hours. "Peak hours" are generally in the evenings.
"Packet shaping" technology has been implemented for newsgroup applications, regardless of the provider, and all peer-to-peer networks and certain other high bandwidth applications not necessarily limited to audio, video, and voice over IP telephony. Road Runner reserves the right to implement network management tools for other applications in the future.
Customers are reminded of the terms of our Acceptable Use Policy at »help.rr.com/aup:
* The Road Runner service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with Road Runner's ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth.
* The Road Runner service may not be used to breach or attempt to breach the security, the computer, the software or the data of any person or entity, including Road Runner, to circumvent the user authentication features or security of any host, network or account, to use or distribute tools designed to compromise security, or to interfere with another's use of the Road Runner service through the posting or transmitting of a virus or other harmful item or to deliberately overload or flood that entity's system.
Customers are further advised that efforts designed to circumvent our network management tools may be in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy and may result in account suspension without warning.
And my 3rd party NNTP service was traffic shaped into the ground. Only after using encryption (on the same service, Giganews) did my speeds pick back up. Turn off encryption and they would over time fall again. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone I downloaded over 500 gigs off of Usenet last month on my RR connection without experiencing throttling.
Sucks to be you, I guess. That little news announcement hasn't come to fruition for me. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Doesn't suck to be me anymore. At that address I switched to FiOS. 50/20Mb for a while 'cause of the free first month but now I have 20/5. Of course now there aren't any problems.
At my Cox address I rarely use usenet and don't use BT do I don't know what they're up to. Lately though speeds in the evening have been shitty no matter what. | |
|
 |  Morac join:2001-08-30 Riverside, NJ kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Except Comcast went above and beyond traffic shaping. Traffic shaping gives certain packets priority over others and limits connection speeds. Comcast just decided to block certain packets completely and violated several Internet standards to do so. They did all this while refusing to acknowledge that they did so. --
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
 |  | | Cox does throttle Bittorrent Traffic but it's only for Uploads, AND they ADMITTED they do ... and they have limits you actually know about. Comcast throttled both Download & Upload and said they did no such thing which was a obvious lie ... which I think is worse then actually doing it without admitting they are even when it was proved. | |
|
 |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 1 edit | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by KnightAR:Cox does throttle Bittorrent Traffic but it's only for Uploads, AND they ADMITTED they do ... and they have limits you actually know about. Comcast throttled both Download & Upload 1. Cox's day is coming 2. In P2P, everyone's upload is someone else's download 3. Admitting doing wrong doesn't make it right
and said they did no such thing which was a obvious lie ... which I think is worse then actually doing it without admitting they are even when it was proved. Right. On a technical and real level, Cox and Comcast did precisely and exactly the same thing.
On an investigative level, both kept it secret. But when directly confronted, only Comcast denied, deflected, diverted attention in order for people to get confused. Cox got a pass from the public's anger when it simply confirmed the allegation.
I haven't tested in a while, but it seems that both companies continue to do this, apparently. (I haven't heard otherwise.) -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone That's what I'm trying to say tho, That is why Cox is getting a pass. I didn't say it made it right ... It just seems that it's better to admit what they are doing then to try to deny it and try to keep the truth a secret.
I mostly download from people on dedicated servers on Bittorrent ... so Cox's blocking doesn't bother me much ... eventually any isp doing this will get whats coming to them. | |
|
 |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | LOL. Lots of noise about how TOUGH Martin was going to be. Well he has released his recommendation on Comcast: - No fine. - Stop P2P blocking before year end. Something Comcast already said they were going to do.
I guess he doesn't think he has any real power given his recommendations are already what was going to happen.
I wonder if Comcast will take the FCC to court over this anyway if the FCC even issues this weak order. The news story says they will.
Story: »money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art···UNE5.htm -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  See 7 replies to this post |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 4 edits | 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...
| |
|
 |  See 17 replies to this post |
|
 | | 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. | |
|
 kapilThe 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 | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 1 edit | 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 | |
|
 |  See 20 replies to this post |
|
 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. | |
|
 | | P2P Protocol and gamers I know most of you if not all of you dont care about gamers but I play Halo3. Halo3 uses a P2P protocol in its game to make it so you dont have just one host to the game. Most of the time you can see over 300,000 at any given time on-line playing. The amount of Bandwidth being used is in the safe numbers but if anyone see's whats going on it will be the gamer because it is so steady. Not only does it affect the game play but also the headset for voice. It is a game built for High speed internet and thats what I expect to have but not a High speed internet being played around with. I am well aware of Latency and gaming and I do know the difference between that and what I see going on along with my fellow Comcast user friends. | |
|
 |  | | Re: P2P Protocol and gamers Amen! I used to be kind of apathetic to the u/l speed but when I got my XBOX it became imperative that I called my ISP and ask for a higher tier just for the gaming. Unfortunately, since DSL in this area is no threat to their cable HSI (speed wise), I don't think they'll offer anything faster than they currently do when they obviously can. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: P2P Protocol and gamers in this case speed is not the issue. They can give you all the speed they have but with them playing around with there network it becomes not much better than DSL. | |
|
 | | how is it possible How is it possible to enforce anything or even fine Comcast based on principle? Technically it isn't a law or rule Comcast is obligated to follow right? A principle to me, means its more a matter of conscience as to what is generally acceptable or nonacceptable, but not a straightforward requirement. | |
|
 |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 2 edits | Re: how is it possible said by toolazytologin :
How is it possible to enforce anything or even fine Comcast based on principle? Technically it isn't a law or rule Comcast is obligated to follow right? A principle to me, means its more a matter of conscience as to what is generally acceptable or nonacceptable, but not a straightforward requirement. There is law. The FCC has the authority to regulate wired and wireless communications in the USA.
But the FCC without a solid complaint, in 2005 had a choice to establish non-discrimination rules which are generally inflexible and that nobody really could prove were necessary nor could they ever seem specific enough to keep up with the fast-paced changes in technology.
Instead, an expressed policy with regards to their Congress-given authority seemed both functionally useful and understandable. While many in the public were skeptical, it seemed that everyone in the industry, including Comcast, wanted a general policy statement instead of formal rules. They -could- have made rules in absence of any proven need for them, but that's not a very Republican thing to do. The policy statement with an Order makes it possible to deliberate later when presented with a set of facts.
Some federal commissions never set any rules. They handle everything through Orders and policy statements.
PS: IANAL -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|
 elveySpamassassin join:2001-02-17 San Francisco, CA | Congratulations and Thanks to Robb Topolski! So far so good. | |
|
 Dillz85 join:2008-07-04 united state kudos:1 | Emp Response on Network Management
Comcast manages its network with one goal: to deliver the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers. High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited. Managing the network is essential as we work to promote the use and enjoyment of the Internet by all of our subscribers.
Comcast uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards. Comcast tries to use tools and technologies that are minimally intrusive and in our independent judgment guided by industry experience, among the best in class. Of course, the company's network management practices will change and evolve along with the uses of the Internet and the challenges and threats that may present themselves in the future.
By engaging in responsible network management practices including enforcement of the TOS, Comcast can deliver the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers.
Comcast network management activities may include (i) identifying spam and preventing its delivery to customer e-mail accounts, (ii) detecting malicious Internet traffic and preventing the distribution of viruses or other harmful code or content, (iii) temporarily delaying peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) that users of the Service may wish to establish during periods of high network congestion, (iv) limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions users of the Service may establish, and (v) using other tools and techniques that Comcast may be required to implement in order to meet its goal of delivering the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers.
Comcast may on a limited basis, temporarily delay certain P2P traffic when that traffic has, or is projected to have, an adverse effect on other customers' use of the service. Comcast manages certain P2P traffic specifically because, in certain situations, that type of traffic consumes a disproportionately large amount of network resources. This kind of traffic poses the biggest challenge we face today to maintaining a consistent and excellent experience for all users - including for the great majority of users who don't use P2P applications.
Announced in March 2008 Comcast will begin a switch to a new network management strategy that is expected to dramatically improve our network congestion management.
This technique represents a change from our current managment practice, which focuses upon certain high-volume P2P protocols. Instead, it will focus on the data (or bandwidth) consumption activity of individual customers who are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth over a specific length of time and are contributing to congestion that degrades the online experience for other users.
- During times of network congestion, the company will focus its management efforts on individuals who are using a disproportionate amount of network resources for a specific period of time and are contributing to congestion that degrades the online experience for other users.
- The network management technique will temporarily de-prioritize their data usage so that other customers will be able to continue to enjoy a good online experience. Impacted customers will still be able to use any applications they choose, but they may temporarily experience slower response times while Web browsing, for example.
- Once the period of congestion passes then the network management technique will no longer be in effect.
As the Internet and technology as a whole continue to advance, Comcast's network management strategies will evolve and keep pace so that the company can continue to deliver an excellent, reliable, and safe online experience to all of our customers. | |
|
 |
|