dslreports logo
FCC Finally Issues Comcast Throttling Order
For whatever it's worth...

While the FCC actually voted on and approved their "sanction" of Comcast three weeks ago for throttling P2P traffic and lying about it, the vote was curiously on an order that hadn't been fully written yet. Today the full 67 page order was released on the FCC website, and demands that within 30 days of the release of the order, Comcast must:

quote:
Disclose the details of their unreasonable network management practices, submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these unreasonable management practices by the end of the year, and disclose to both the Commission and the public the details of the network management practices that it intends to deploy following termination of its current practices.
While a lot has been made of the FCC's investigation and Comcast's shift to a "protocol agnostic" network management system, the FCC order doesn't actually punish Comcast, doesn't request they do anything they didn't plan to do voluntarily, and might not even be enforceable in court anyway. In fact, Comcast continues to use forged packets to throttle upstream P2P traffic and will continue to do so until the end of the year.

At that time, as insiders have informed me, the company is considering implementing a clear 250GB cap, increased DMCA enforcement, and the throttling of high-consumption users back to "above DSL speeds". Comcast has told me their goal is to make these new network management processes "as transparent as possible." What will trigger the throttling hasn't been determined yet because Comcast is still testing the system in several markets.

While the FCC's order has no teeth, creates no new guidelines, and may be overturned in court, consumer advocates remain confident they've won a major battle. "With today’s Order, the FCC acted to protect the rights of Internet users and set the precedent that unreasonable, discriminatory behavior like Comcast’s will not be tolerated," says Gig Sohn of Public Knowledge. "It agreed with public interest advocates and technical experts that Comcast’s conduct violated FCC principles and was not reasonable network management."

Now we wait to see if Comcast adheres to the letter of the order or begins fighting the FCC's authority. If the former, Comcast needs to disclose additional detail on their current and future network management practices within the next few weeks. What happens if they don't? Probably nothing.
view:
topics flat nest 

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 recommendation

baineschile

Premium Member

Wow

The FCC is like the college dean nerd that is trying to discipline the jock that doenst care. a laughing matter....

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

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Wow

Zero...point...zero

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Cry...

As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

said by markofmayhem:

As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly.
You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

said by funchords:

said by markofmayhem:

As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly.
You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering.
Which will only hurt the consumer, not help them.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to funchords

Member

to funchords
Yaknow, "above DSL speeds" could mean an *increase* in connectin speeds for those throttled . I mean, Qwest has 20 Mbps DSL and 5 Mbps in most places, Windstream has 12 Mbps DSL...I have 8 Mbps Comcast w\PowerBoost so it all depends on how you interpret "above DSL speeds"
ross7
join:2000-08-16

ross7

Member

Re: Cry...

said by iansltx:

Yaknow, "above DSL speeds" could mean an *increase* in connectin speeds for those throttled . I mean, Qwest has 20 Mbps DSL and 5 Mbps in most places, Windstream has 12 Mbps DSL...I have 8 Mbps Comcast w\PowerBoost so it all depends on how you interpret "above DSL speeds"
HaHaHa! They mean the new FCC definition of "broadband" speed (768Kbps), I'm sure...
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Cry...

Nah, they at least mean 1.5 Mbps, because that seems to be the usual quote of DSL speed. Still not too bad (T1 speed) but it's not what you're payin' fer!
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

4 edits

Rick5 to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
said by funchords:
said by markofmayhem:

As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly.
You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering.
And you do realize that 250 gigs would be less than the 300 to 400 gigs that was previously allowed until the hogs decided even that wasn't enough and decided to try to turn what was always meant to be a residential service at a residential price into something resembling their own private dedicated network that otherwise someone would have to pay thousands for each month.

Nice gig I guess to want a thousand dollar a month connection for 42 bucks but that's just not how it works.

As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" disclosure.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

said by Rick5:

said by funchords:
said by markofmayhem:

As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly.
You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering.
And you do realize that 250 gigs would be less than the 300 to 400 gigs that was previously allowed until the hogs decided even that wasn't enough and decided to try to turn what was always meant to be a residential service at a residential price into something resembling their own private dedicated network that otherwise someone would have to pay thousands for each month.

Nice gig I guess to want a thousand dollar a month connection for 42 bucks but that's just not how it works.

As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" lack of disclosure.
Why? He found something that was not being disclosed, they blatantly lied about it, and are being sued. Sounds about right to me.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 edit

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

said by ptrowski:

Why? He found something that was not being disclosed, they blatantly lied about it, and are being sued. Sounds about right to me.
Hmm..seems like you're missing a few steps...not to mention the entire point of my comment.

You might want to educate yourself about what happened here in this thread..starting first with the "woe is me..comcast is attacking poor little old me"....which ultimately led up to the discovery on page 3 of the thread by TKJunkmail that perhaps the reason they had something to say about him was because of his undisclosed lawsuit seeking class action ..Ie: support from the members of the board he apparently hoped would be joining in on the suit.

»Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized

It's particularly interesting to note the date of the suit and compare that to the date of the first post in the thread and then see if that "undisclosure" would have put a different light on things he had to say.

I sure think it would have.

In any event...back on topic...personally I hope they do institute caps. It's time for the high consumption users to pay their share and stop having everyone else subsidize this outrageous behavior and enough..is never enough..usage.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

Re: Cry...

They already instituted caps, remember the letters they send telling you to use [undefined] less bandwidth or be cutoff?

I agree that 250GB is reasonable, it works out to 4 people each using 2GB per day, which can be expected from "high speed internet". It's the bullshit 50GB caps that get people upset. If Comcast stops forging packets and advertising unlimited while setting secret limits, we can have a better relationship with them.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Cry...

Comcast hasn't used "unlimited" for some time now. TWC does but their ISP actually limits. RR is NOT unlimited.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to Rick5

Premium Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:
said by ptrowski:

Why? He found something that was not being disclosed, they blatantly lied about it, and are being sued. Sounds about right to me.
Hmm..seems like you're missing a few steps...not to mention the entire point of my comment.

You might want to educate yourself about what happened here in this thread..starting first with the "woe is me..comcast is attacking poor little old me"....which ultimately led up to the "revelation" that perhaps the reason they had something to say about him was because of his undisclosed lawsuit seeking class action ..Ie: support from the members of the board he apparently hoped would be joining in on the suit.

»Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized

In any event...back on topic...personally I hope they do institute caps. It's time for the high consumption users to pay their share and stop having everyone else subsidize this outrageous behavior and enough..is never enough..usage.
I didn't miss a few steps, and am well aware of that thread. I don't see how that has anything to do with the FCC has now posted the order. Robb used the information he found out to start a lawsuit. I don't think he ever said that he wasn't suing them. As a matter of fact it was on a website.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

I think it all has plenty to do with each other.

Isp's including comcast have tried to police their networks in such a way the last few years to be as reasonable as possible IMHO. Instead of putting fixed numbers on bandwidth, they've attempted to be as flexible as possible and to deal with those abusing the networks with cautions to tone down their usage.

I've always thought that was a great way to operate and really resembled in a way the spirit of the internet itself in letting it be as free and open as possible.
In particular, I think that comcast has been one of the most generous ones of all. I have yet to EVER see a post where anyone ever had a problem unless they hit the 300 to 400 gig amounts PER MONTH. And, even that was following a warning letter.

It's really too bad that some couldn't appreciate that and how generous it was. Instead..they criticized and criticized some more.

And now..I think they're going to reap what they've sown.
Not only with comcast..but across the whole ISP world.

Some people have simply treated this 42 dollar a month service as if they paid 2 thousand a month for it.
Their expectations and demands have been nothing short of outrageous. It's a residential service..not a private dedicated line for all their own use.

Maybe now they'll start to get a clue.

But..then again..maybe it will take the first big bill instead.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

said by Rick5:

I think it all has plenty to do with each other.

Isp's including comcast have tried to police their networks in such a way the last few years to be as reasonable as possible IMHO. Instead of putting fixed numbers on bandwidth, they've attempted to be as flexible as possible and to deal with those abusing the networks with cautions to tone down their usage.

I've always thought that was a great way to operate and really resembled in a way the spirit of the internet itself in letting it be as free and open as possible.
In particular, I think that comcast has been one of the most generous ones of all. I have yet to EVER see a post where anyone ever had a problem unless they hit the 300 to 400 gig amounts PER MONTH. And, even that was following a warning letter.

It's really too bad that some couldn't appreciate that and how generous it was. Instead..they criticized and criticized some more.

And now..I think they're going to reap what they've sown.
Not only with comcast..but across the whole ISP world.

Some people have simply treated this 42 dollar a month service as if they paid 2 thousand a month for it.
Their expectations and demands have been nothing short of outrageous. It's a residential service..not a private dedicated line for all their own use.

Maybe now they'll start to get a clue.

But..then again..maybe it will take the first big bill instead.
So, you are for the caps to limit the bandwidth hogs, and the stated caps are now most likely a direct result of what Rob found. So I would imagine you would be one of Rob's #1 fans as he has now helped limit the bandwidth hogs you have been so vocal about....
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

I have never been in favor of caps. Instead, I have often written in the Comcast and other forums about people trying to be reasonable and responsible instead. If I was someone who wanted to consume 400 gigs of bandwidth per month, I simply wouldn't expect it from a 42 dollars a month residential isp service. At the very least..I'd upgrade to a business class type of service and perhaps split my usage across a dsl and cable connection. In short..I'd respect both my neighbors and the company I'm getting service from.

Some simply haven't done that. They've treated this like an all you can eat 6.99 chinese buffet that they go in and attach a chain to their pickup truck with and drag it home.
And do it under the guise of "they said it was all I can eat".

This is what I mean about being reasonable and responsible.

As for Rob and his suit..that's up to him if he feels wronged. Personally I'd have to severely question however how wronged someone could be obviously using the connection as much as he did..at the price he paid for it.
I saw in the news he was asked how much he felt he was due and his response was "the answer was tremendously difficult".
To me..the answer seems pretty simple.
Zero.

But...that's really here nor there. This is America..and if a person would like to waste their time on a frivolous suit..feel free to I guess. My point wasn't that..it was the "undisclosure" in response to his own post above where he talks about Comcast doing that.

Did he contribute to what is occurring with caps now?
Probably. In some ways...I think the answer is yes. But it's far from being just him. It's collectively "they"..who I feel never seemed to appreciate what they had for the price they had it.

Isp's really are going to have no choice but to cap if reasonable network management practices..ie: throttling..aren't allowed.

And, I don't think it's going to hurt me or the average user at all..unless the numbers get so low as to be in the range Time Warner is talking about. Being a former RR customer..I certainly hope that doesn't come to pass. But I think who they can thank for it is the ones who simply could never get enough.

They are driving the industry to this.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

said by Rick5:

As for Rob and his suit..that's up to him if he feels wronged. Personally I'd have to severely question however how wronged someone could be obviously using the connection as much as he did..at the price he paid for it.
Rick, my average use falls around 150 GB a month, and I'm also hyper conscience about ensuring that any use that I'm about to do and I won't contribute to the neighborhood's congestion.

During tests with Seth Shoen at the EFF, even when I was transferring at data rates limited to 1 KB/s, I was receiving the RSTs. Comcast was keeping me from accessing bandwidth that I paid for.

Quit throwing bombs at me.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to Rick5

Premium Member

to Rick5
Rick, you can't have a contract without the people knowing what it is they are supposed to be doing or adhering to.

Let's face it, the Caps have always been there, but Comcast didn't want to take the marketing flap for admitting it.

Some people did get away with 300+ GB, but didn't get hit. Others got hit at lower amounts.... it all depends on how much capacity they had.

Declaring it is much fairer to all.
Expand your moderator at work

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Good point. Some of these people have gone nuts with bandwidth.

If running business volume you should pay a business rate.

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

1 edit

funchords to Rick5

MVM

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" disclosure.
So, Rick, I'm dishonest because I posted a thread and didn't disclose that I was suing?

How so?

Rick, I've been saying the same thing for over a year prior to the suit -- that Comcast ought to sell its service honestly and disclose things like speeds, caps, and devices that it uses that interfere.

Despite my complaints, Comcast didn't change its practices. I sued. That's a civilized process that responsible people in disagreement must do. (The alternative, resorting to violence, is unacceptable.)

Suing is a public act. It's pretty hard to keep a suit a secret. Why would I try?

And I don't make my living suing people. I make my living as a technologist, and I adhere to codes of ethics that require my honesty and objectivity.

And finally, as to the topic you mention, the sequence of events goes something like this...
  • I started the ball rolling on the suit some time before, but it had not been filed to my knowledge and I wasn't certain when it would be.
  • Then I learned from one terse web report on 7/22 that it was finally filed, but I wasn't sure why that lonely report was out there since I didn't hear from anyone else.
  • I started the thread that you're talking about on 7/23.
  • Then TK picked up about it and posted it and you started giving me hell.
  • Then I heard from our lawyers who had just got the stamped copy back from the court about a week later 7/25 or so.

Even if I had known, I'm not sure I would have disclosed it, because it doesn't really make a difference (it was off-topic to the issue), but if I had disclosed it, I wouldn't have disclosed it until I had heard from the lawyers.

Edit: corrected order, turns out my first clue was the day before I posted that thread.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

said by funchords:

So, Rick, I'm dishonest because I posted a thread and didn't disclose that I was suing?

I didn't say you were being dishonest. I said it was undisclosed for the purpose of that thread and this website..which it was. People can form their own opinions from there..or not if they don't want to.

I think that both I and others in that thread were somewhat taken aback by the non disclosure and it did put your opening post in a very different light.

Certainly, as you say the issue was ongoing long before that thread however and so that should certainly be weighed in as well.

For my part..personally I think your suit is completely without merit and ranks with the kinds of things that are wrong with this countries legal system.
Why? Because of the price paid for the service. And what it was..and was intended to be. My critique isn't just directed at you when I say too many people expect thousands of dollars worth a service per month for 42 bucks. And it's off the backs of everyone else that they get it.

Comcast has the right to reasonable network management and doesn't have to open their doors to nonstop 24/7 p2p users.
Comcast hasn't capped people at 5 gigs or 20 gigs or 100gigs.
It's been at 300 to 400 gigs for christs sake. It is outrageous what people expect for 42 dollars per month and to criticize it..critique it to death..and sue on top of it is just flat out wrong IMO.

I and MANY others use our connections a LOT! And have ZERO problems with it. Our voices have been silent for too long about this. What REASONABLE people want is for our connections to be fast..and service to be good and consistent. I don't want my 24/7 bandwidth hogging neighbor to take down my and others connections. Comcast has the RIGHT..and OBLIGATION..to PROTECT US.

Again..to be clear...I'm not saying you're dishonest. You obviously feel strongly about your point..enough so to feel it's right to sue them.

Don't object however to other peoples points who don't feel that way. Because there are many very happy..very satisfied users as well.

And it's time we had something to say about this.

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

1 edit

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

And for the record, I agree with all of these things --
  • Comcast has the right to reasonable network management
  • Comcast hasn't capped people at 5 gigs or 20 gigs or 100gigs. It's been at 300 to 400 gigs for christs sake.
  • What REASONABLE people want is for our connections to be fast..and service to be good and consistent.
  • I don't want my 24/7 bandwidth hogging neighbor to take down my and others connections. Comcast has the RIGHT..and OBLIGATION..to PROTECT US.


Comcast doesn't have the right to prohibit P2P users as a category, but does have the right to ensure that users don't unduly interfere with other users. And you know I have zero tolerance for that. "Cut 'em off!"

If you don't want to have users that are simply heavy users of bandwidth (that don't interfere), then don't offer services to them. But if you do business with them, you are obligated (ethically, morally, legally?) to serve them and deliver the product that you described when they laid the money down.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

And does your local chinese buffet owe you "all you can eat" for a week, month or year for 6.99 simply because you laid your money down (and they didn't say in their tagline..all you can eat HERE in one sitting)?

I think it's the same thing. It's about being reasonable in ones expectations.

You paid what for your service..42.95? You say here you consumed over 120 gigs a month of bandwidth.

Rob..tell us. If that was a dedicated line...how much would you have paid? You say you're a professional in this industry..you should know or have a pretty good idea.

Did you get your 42.95's worth in that 125 gigs of data you consumed compared to what it cost the provider?

You see Rob..that is where I think you lose the argument completely. And, not just you..but all those consuming mega amounts of bandwidth. You're simply not being reasonable and are spinning words and meanings to fit your needs.

How much would a T1 cost you? 500 a month? And this was at what..4 times those speeds?
Does that make your 125 gigs worth maybe 1600.00 a month..that you paid 43 dollars for?

Perhaps someone can chime in who does buy bandwidth like this because I don't know how much it would cost.

I sure know it's a lot more than 43 bucks though.

Rob..with all due respect I see your suit as being like you hooked up your chain to that buffet table.dragged it home..fed your family and friends..and now want them to replenish it again for you.

And I don't think that's going to fly very well in court.

But..if you feel wronged..then so be it. This is America.the land of the free...and home of the lawsuits.

Good night.

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

1 edit

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

You paid what for your service..42.95? You say here you consumed over 120 gigs a month of bandwidth.

Rob..tell us. If that was a dedicated line...how much would you have paid? You say you're a professional in this industry..you should know or have a pretty good idea.

Did you get your 42.95's worth in that 125 gigs of data you consumed compared to what it cost the provider?
So my 120 GB a month. That works out to about 365 Kbps when averaged over the entire month.

If this was a T1, it would cost about $350 (many sources) to as low as $309 a month (Intercom, promo deal). But keep in mind that's a T1 1500 Kbps in each direction (3000 Kbps combined). I used about 365 Kbps or about 12% of that, so -- guess what Rick -- it works out to around $40.

So you lost your "unreasonableness" case completely. (That is if I bought this apples and oranges comparison, which I don't.)
funchords

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

I just realized that our 150 GB/mo turned into 125 or 120 GB/mo somewhere in this calculation. That changes things a little bit.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Who gives you permission to say what Comcast can and can not do? It's their network. IF you don't like it Robb then take your business else where.

The only thing you're going to do is get everyone a higher cable bill in the end so you can come back here and bitch some more that you're cable bill went up along with everyone elses.

But then again I hope you have big enough pockets so when it does NOT become a class action and they drag it through court you won't end up selling your house to them just to turn around and give the money back to them.

Be prepared to lose.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

Kyle,
Who gives you permission to say what Comcast can and can not do? It's their network. IF you don't like it Robb then take your business else where.
Kyle, I'm a Comcast customer and I have a contract. I'm also an American with the rights to an opinion and the freedom to speak it.

Let's say you rented a hotel room at the Marriott and after you accepted the room, they moved all of the furniture out? Should you just keep quiet and take your business elsewhere or do you do something about it?
The only thing you're going to do is get everyone a higher cable bill in the end so you can come back here and bitch some more that you're cable bill went up along with everyone elses.
Maybe. But the risk of jacking up everyone's bill is that it provides incentive for more complaints, more customer defections, and the invitation of new competitors.
But then again I hope you have big enough pockets so when it does NOT become a class action and they drag it through court you won't end up selling your house to them just to turn around and give the money back to them.

Be prepared to lose.
I don't have big pockets. My biggest vacation in two years was to go to the Stanford hearing. Might does not make right.

And what did I ever do to you? You must be in some real pain to treat other people like that.

asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdfdfdf to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
I don't know robb topolski. I have no connection to this comcast business except as an interested spectator.

Those of us who spend considerable time here know that robb was at the center of uncovering the whole comcast forged rst issue from the beginning. This goes back to the middle of last year, if you are interested. Robb also went before the fcc earlier this year in april.
Suggesting that he is engaged in hiding some scheming or that a thread from july of 2008 "uncovered" some heretofore hidden information doesn't accord with the history of this issue.
You have been pretty clear in your opinion about this whole comcast business. If you aren't really aware of the way this issue has played out you should be forgiven your lack of awareness, but you shouldn't be trying to hint or imply that there is some underhanded plot on robb's part.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Cry...

thanks asdfdfdfdf..! I appreciate that!
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

1 edit

HiDesert to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

said by funchords:

For my part..personally I think your suit is completely without merit and ranks with the kinds of things that are wrong with this countries legal system.
I think the reason that there is merit, and why the FCC got pissed off as well as me is that Comcast flatly denied the use of sandvine once they were caught red handed. No big deal if they had just fessed up to begin with. But for a corporation as large as CC to just lie about something like that is just beyond me. Right there comcast earned its right to be monitored and to be held responsible to make all their moves transparent. Its their own freaking fault that they are on a short leash now. Had they just acknowledged the truth when faced with the facts they could have avoided being on a short leash with the FCC. I am convinced this is what put the FCC on their tail. Nobody likes being lied to. I fully support Robb and appreciate all his efforts making Comcast a honest company.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but sometimes I wonder if some posters work for comcast or what. I mean to you support a company that can drastically hamper your internet performance without telling you what, why or when? And if you find out what and when they tell you no were not? Its childish behavior nothing less. But if some want to defend this behavior then I guess that's their choice.

ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium Member
join:2002-12-13
USA

ChrisXP

Premium Member

Re: Cry...

said by HiDesert:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but sometimes I wonder if some posters work for comcast or what.
Makes sense, because a broadband site isn't much of one if it doesn't have broadband's ear. So if the site is overly critical, the broadband provider may leave.

So naturally, there will be Comcast types here, doing what they can to protect their jobs, too. Let alone the pirates and more defending downloading 1TB of data at everyone else's expense, too.

Meanwhile, end-users continue to get the shaft. Explains the business world to a "T".

NOZIREV
join:2008-07-10
New Bedford, MA

NOZIREV to markofmayhem

Member

to markofmayhem
really... 250GB is a pretty reasonable cap you must be a pirate, ARRRRRR Matey

••••••••••••••

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to markofmayhem

Premium Member

to markofmayhem
»www.bloomberg.com/apps/n ··· NA18k1dY
The top Internet speeds for targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, said in an interview yesterday.

The new system will move away from a focus on specific applications that hog Web traffic, Bowling said. Comcast will determine ``in nearly real time'' whether congestion is caused by a heavy user, he said.

``If in fact a person is generating enough packets that they're the ones creating that situation, we will manage that consumer for the overall good of all of our consumers,'' Bowling said.

Comcast has decided to use the new system, which it calls ``fair share,''
and will fine-tune it further before introducing it, Bowling said.

The company is considering whether to charge subscribers more for heavier Internet use, a step announced by some other cable companies, Bowling said.

In trials, Comcast has found the fair share system to be effective if the slowing lasts for ``roughly between, probably, 10 and 20 minutes,'' Bowling said. The user's Internet speed would then return to normal.

``If they continue that, we would have to manage them again,'' Bowling said.

A user being impeded would have Internet speeds equivalent to ``a really good DSL experience,'' Bowling said.
LOL. The hogs will get really upset when their speed is squashed.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: How Comcast plans to throttle in future revealed

I think it should be and it would be funny as hell. Especially once they get on here and start bitching about it.

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

4 edits

funchords

MVM

Great Comments by David P. Reed

For more about David P. Reed, read the Wikipedia entry about him.

David P. Reed: FCC Order on Comcast - a good job
said by Dr. David P. Reed :

The FCC today issued its formal opinion and order in regard to Comcasts degrading of P2P and other traffic using DPI and RST injection. Of course, Ive been very interested in this, especially since I was asked by the Commission to testify as a witness at the en banc hearing at Harvard Law School in February.

After reading the order this morning, I felt like commending the FCC - so I filed a formal comment with the FCC, and I posted it on my site as well...
This note represents my personal comments as a citizen and Internet expert regarding todays decision by the FCC in the matter of Comcasts use of Deep Packet Inspection and RST packet injection to interfere with certain customer traffic.

I was one of the witnesses who testified at the FCC en banc hearing on the subject of reasonable network management practices at Harvard Law School in February. Portions of my testimony and written statement are cited in the order, so there is no need to repeat them here.

However, I would like to commend the order and the process that led to it. Lawyers and policy experts will have their own point of view, but as an engineer and architect, Id like to commend the Commissions decision on technical and architectural grounds.

As an engineer and scientist, I was impressed by the Commissions process in this matter, particularly its interest in coming to an understanding the particular technological structure of the Internet design. The FCC clearly invested a great deal of effort to the end of understanding the complex technology of the Internet. As a former member of the FCC Technological Advisory Council, I have seen the need for accurate and state-of-the-art technical input to the Commission that is not colored by the interests of the regulated parties. In this decision, the Commission should be commended for its efforts to seek inputs from the Internet technical community.

The decision rendered by the FCC today shows that the agency understands the importance of the technological principles of the Internets design. The core ideas of that design were shaped by a desire to create a system that could both scale to the size it has reached today and evolve through massive changes in infrastructure technology and applications. The decision and order reinforce those core ideas -- they do not mandate that ISPs support particular applications or implement speciric solutions, but instead reinforce the concept that companies that claim to offer the Internet must conform to the Internets framework.

The Internet is a world-wide system that does not belong to any one operator, whether providing access lines or backbone transport. This is the essence of internetworking. The Internet is not just another network owned and operated by a private concern for a set of customers. The Commission order clearly comprehends that special quality that transcends the interests of Comcast or any other access provider.

The strongest part of the order, for me personally, is that it navigates the tough path between heavy-handed regulation and disciplining misbehavior. To me, this is the challenge that separates government by sound bite and the difficult work of making our country work. The key technical and architectural issues are twofold:

  • The design of the Internet Protocols specifies clear limits on what operators can and cannot do to Internet Protocol datagrams when those operators are acting as part of the Internet.


  • Not obeying those limits poses a serious risk to the continued success of the world-wide Internet. Happily, the FCC recognized and exposed Comcasts transgressions of those limits.


These are not in themselves legal issues. Nor are they guaranteed by the market because the short-term behavior of certain actors with market power can break the technical covenant that keeps the Internet running. For the most part, so-called network externalities make misbehavior by any one participant in the Internet self-defeating -- cutting the misbehaving participants customers off from many of the benefits provided by others. However, certain participants in the Internet are in a position to control or to deceive customers using their market power and government-granted exclusivity. Access providers are one such category.

The Commission made a wise decision today, taking a decision that sends a notice to Internet service providers that the Commission is watching, that it understands that the Internet involves a new set of technical challenges, and that the Commission is willing to act in a way that reinforces the success of the Internet as a whole.

[Note: in addition to filing this comment formally with the Commission, I am also posting it on my personal blog -- happy that blogs and the blogosphere are one of the many applications that would never have happened, had Internet access providers in the past two decades attempted to control what services and applications their customers could use in the name of network management]
...The decision is a good decision for the Internet. In short heres why:

The decision shows that the agency understands the importance of the technological principles of the Internets design.

The Internet is a world-wide system that does not belong to any one operator, whether providing access lines or backbone transport.

The design of the Internet Protocols specifies clear limits on what operators can and cannot do to Internet Protocol datagrams when those operators are acting as part of the Internet.

Not obeying those limits poses a serious risk to the continued success of the world-wide Internet. Happily, the FCC recognized and exposed Comcasts transgressions of those limits.

Though Internet design is not a law, the Commissions order respects the importance of that design, and rejects Comcasts misbehavior and deception in applying technologies that go against the principles of that design.
What can I say that he didn't already say, better, and with more authority, than I ever could.

•••

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

The order still allows content blocking

One thing the order doesn't do is stop Comcast from blocking illegal content. And that includes videos & music that violate copyright rights.

»www.lightreading.com/doc ··· site=cdn
The Commission also reiterated that its interest is in protecting consumers access to lawful content. Blocking unlawful content such as child pornography or pirated music or video would be consistent with federal Internet policy.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_ ··· 83A1.pdf
We also note that because consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice,providers, consistent with federal policy, may block transmissions of illegal content (e.g., child pornography) or transmissions that violate copyright law.
So, Comcast can still block access to content that violates copyright. The open issue is HOW THEY DO THAT. The FCC has nixed using RST packets. But if Comcast comes up with another way to block P2P file sharing that violated copyright, they are free to do so.

••••••••••

WiseOldBear
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Litchfield Park, AZ

WiseOldBear

Premium Member

FCC Blind, Deaf, Dumb & Clueless

Thanks to the Bush Nazis and the other "free market" jingoists the FCC is toothless, ball less, deaf, dumb, blind and without a clue as to what is really needed by citizens of this country.

sleepydumbdude
@cingular.com

sleepydumbdude

Anon

BAH

I hate caps but I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them if I was able to log onto their site and see my usage.

StevenB
Premium Member
join:2000-10-27
New York, NY
·Charter

StevenB

Premium Member

Tax Payers Money Wasted Again

So we wasted all this money for this type of order? I mean come on now. The entire order reads like, a parent scolding a child for eating too much junk food before dinner.

Comcast is going to have the last laugh, like every single MSO in this country. Caps, Deep Packet Inspection, Higher prices - or anything new to stop the 'evil saturaters, congestion clogging pirates' - that make the entire MSO network, bogged down.

Now even if you can 'switch' - ATT is already mulling over Caps for their Broadband products. So basically you gotta be in a Verizon lit area, and hope they dont switch to caps and any other 'funny' network management.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Tax Payers Money Wasted Again

and the CTO of VZ hints at they will as well.
u3912974
join:2007-07-31
San Francisco, CA

u3912974

Member

this isn't fair to go after "big cable"

Comcast does what it can to bring the fastest service possible and some people just want to take all the bandwidth and pay $19.99 for it. People just should be more reasonable and not suck all the bandwidth.

Dryvlyne
Far Beyond Driven
Premium Member
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH

Dryvlyne

Premium Member

Re: this isn't fair to go after "big cable"

said by u3912974:

People just should be more reasonable and not suck all the bandwidth.
Maybe people would be more mindful of how their using their bandwidth if ISP's actually articulated what they mean by "reasonable usage". Without a clear definition what's "reasonable" then reasonable to you might not be reasonable to me and so on.

This is why ISP's must be held to account for their network management practices. It's not that they don't have the right to manage their network for the greater good of all their customers (of course they do), but it's how they go about actually doing it and disclosing it to customers that makes people suspicious.

There has to be oversight (hello, FCC?) to ensure that the ISP's are not trying to slant things to their favor. For example, by implementing caps so low that they don't make sense for the amount of money they are already making off of customers, etc.

techlte
join:2003-01-01
US

techlte to u3912974

Member

to u3912974
said by u3912974:

Comcast does what it can to bring the fastest service possible and some people just want to take all the bandwidth and pay $19.99 for it. People just should be more reasonable and not suck all the bandwidth.
Oh please, all we another another tool like Rick.. Comcast doesn't do anything about bringing anyone the fastest service possible.. That is, unless they have competition in your area. They're real quick to bump the performance when they have competition otherwise you're paying just as much for 1/2 the speed. People will consume more and more bandwidth in the upcoming years. While 250GB might be enough for you now, when it isn't don't expect Comcrap to raise the limit. This is just another way for them to keep internet TV, satellite, and other internet based services under their control.

Comcast is big business, and big business is bad. When are some of you guys going to get it? Don't answer that, because the way these replies have been going.. you won't.

merddynemrys
@comcast.net

merddynemrys

Anon

Comcast bandwidth (and other lies...)

I'd be VERY HAPPY to help Comcast to reduce bandwidth needs to subscribers - for a reasonable price. I'm not a bandwidth hog and before Comcast took over from RoadRunner (and ROYALLY screwed things up in the Houston area) I had RRLite (limited bandwidth for a total of $30.31 per month). Comcast, without refernce to me, decided to up the ante and charge me more for a service I neither need nor want. Here's a copy of my pending complaint to the FCC:

"About a year ago Time-Warner transferred it's cable (Internet) franchise to Comcast in the Houston area. At that time we (subscribers) were given to believe that the transfer would NOT affect current service contracts. I had Road-Runner Lite (a lower speed broadband connection at a lower cost) at the time. Comcast continued to bill for this service without change until recently. Now they've bumped my bill significantly. When I queried Comcast they maintain that I was on a six month "promotional" service which was now converting to regular service. This is a damned lie (Comcast has been providing, and billing, for service for ONE YEAR under the original Road Runner Lite service contract). I have had NO COMMUNICATION from Comcast during the past year to indicate that there has or would be any change in my service agreement (to the contrary, as I indicated, when the service was changed over we had assurances of NO CHANGES to the service). Comcast has arbitrarily, capriciously, spuriously, maliciously and WITHOUT any notice whatsoever to subscribers decided to change the terms of service to it's customers. Comcast has a TOTAL MONOPOLY in this part of the State of Texas for Cable service (some parts of Houston have alternatives, we do not). This is completely unconscionable

I have spoken to Comcast Billing and another department (unidentified) - both told me the same story. Both refused to discuss or honor the original Road Runner Lite service agreement."

I've spoken with three different representatives at Comcast NONE of whom will discuss the original problem, all of whom are trying to pretend that I had some sort of special deal which has reset (one of whom can add 1 PLUS 1 and make it come out to anything but 2) - none of them is willing to provide any documentation to justify (or even give evidence) of the arbitrary price reset.

Comcast STINKS!!!!

If you have a viable alternative I strongly suggest you use it.

jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA

jlivingood

Premium Member

Some Additional Detail

Folks interested in this topic may want to check out »www.comcast.net/networkm ··· agement/ (now and on an on-going basis for updates). One of the downloads at »downloads.comcast.net/do ··· 0528.pdf is also informative.

JL

Dillz85
join:2008-07-04
united state

Dillz85

Member

And now the bandwith hogs should ask themselves....

Was it all worth it?

Chainzz
Aka Snippy
join:2004-07-26
Sarnia, ON

Chainzz

Member

I'm with rick on this one....

I completely agree with Rick, if you want a business class service then pay for the damn service. You want a residential class service then accept what comcast offers or go elsewhere. I myself consume my fair share but I pay for residential service and don't abuse it. I have a family, 4 kids a house, a yard and a life. I dont need to spend countless hours downloading porn, unix distros, etc just to store on dvd. Also of the cry babies in here are like my children, they load their plates at the chinese food buffet and take a couple bites and toss it out and go help themselves again. Hence like bandwidth, people like me in the past have hundreds of dvd's of downloaded crap that I WIll never use but those were the days b4 family and a life. My isp offers 60gb a month combined....do I agree completely no, however I do agree isp's should offer blocks of certain bandwidth for sale for the bandwidth pigs.

e

••••