dslreports logo
FCC Majority Plans To Punish Comcast For Throttling
Official vote pending announcement next week

Earlier this month, FCC Chief Kevin Martin announced that he believes Comcast should be punished for the actions that they have taken to throttle P2P traffic. That punishment is pending agreement from the other FCC commissioners which won’t be official until August 1st. However, rumors indicate that a majority of the members intend to vote in favor of punishing the company.

Even if punishment is approved when the official vote is announced, the result will probably not be too damaging to Comcast – a slap on the wrist and the requirement that they make changes they’ve already agreed to make (more consumer disclosure about network management practices, for example). But the decision would set precedent and could have a more widespread impact on future violations.

view:
topics flat nest 

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

FFH5

Premium Member

Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

The vote is next Friday. The Lawsuit by Comcast the following Monday? 2 yrs of court hearings & FCC loses in Federal Court once gain.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

Wouldnt this mean that nobody in the US can throttle verizon, comcast, or att?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

said by majortom1029:

Wouldnt this mean that nobody in the US can throttle verizon, comcast, or att?
Not exactly. Most likely it will just mean they can't single out a specific application, and they will have to disclose their network management policy.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

said by SpaethCo:
said by majortom1029:

Wouldnt this mean that nobody in the US can throttle verizon, comcast, or att?
Not exactly. Most likely it will just mean they can't single out a specific application, and they will have to disclose their network management policy.
That's exactly right. And if such policy is not "Reasonable Network Management" (probably as defined as supported by some kind of standard or other non-controversial practice), it will be subject to review or supervision or something.

I'm celebrating the vote, but the devil is in the details and the details have yet to be seen by anyone.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

said by funchords:

That's exactly right. And if such policy is not "Reasonable Network Management" (probably as defined as supported by some kind of standard or other non-controversial practice), it will be subject to review or supervision or something.
The irony of that statement is that the practice of singling out P2P traffic for throttling is almost universally present in college resnet networks across the US, including the colleges that hosted the "Net Neutrality" hearings.

The net effect of all of this is going to essentially be the same situation. P2P will continue to be throttled going forward, not because it is specifically being singled out, but because it will match the bandwidth profile of overly heavy use.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

Yeah, we'll see. Like I said somewhere else yesterday, the heaviest use is now in HTTP streaming and that trend is likely to keep growing. As more and more studios figure out ways to meet demand, the pressure will be on streaming video encapsulated inside TCP. THAT'S THE NEW BANDWIDTH HOG.

It is an inefficient thing to use a supervised protocol for transient video on one hand but probably necessary to keep the cable ISPs from interfering in order to "save bandwdith" and give their product visual superiority.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

said by funchords:

It is an inefficient thing to use a supervised protocol for transient video on one hand but probably necessary to keep the cable ISPs from interfering in order to "save bandwdith" and give their product visual superiority.
The cable companies have superiority because they have networks designed to distribute video. To say that unicast IP will take over is like saying humans will be able to outswim dolphins. The only place that Video over IP has a serious play is in delivering content that's not available via the MSO networks, and that isn't competition.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP to funchords

Member

to funchords

Bandwidth hogging

said by funchords:

Yeah, we'll see. Like I said somewhere else yesterday, the heaviest use is now in HTTP streaming and that trend is likely to keep growing. As more and more studios figure out ways to meet demand, the pressure will be on streaming video encapsulated inside TCP. THAT'S THE NEW BANDWIDTH HOG.
Dead wrong, Rob. Video over HTTP "plays fair;" it doesn't exploit weaknesses in TCP by seizing priority over other applications, and P2P (especially BitTorrent) does. It's no different than an ordinary download, which can be appropriately paced and does not attempt to consume all available resources. Nor does it try to shift the content provider's bandwidth costs to the ISP (readers, see »www.brettglass.com/FCC/r ··· rks.html for an explanation of this).

Of course, you are unlikely to want to admit this, being a paid spokesperson for Free Press, BitTorrent, and Vuze.

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

1 recommendation

funchords

MVM

Re: Bandwidth hogging

I'm only responding to make it clear that I'm not a paid spokesman for anyone. I carry nobody's water.

I am a technology consultant, but my words are my own, are honest, and they do not always agree with the political goals of those who employ me.

In short: They may quote me -- I don't speak for them, ever.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

1 recommendation

SuperWISP

Member

Topolski and Free Press

Robb, it appears that Free Press is not only paying for your travel to forums where you spout their propaganda but also is providing very expensive legal aid to your frivolous lawsuit against Comcast. You are quite obviously in their pay.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Topolski and Free Press

Even if he is, so what? There are more sides to an issue than yours, and to say any point is moot or invalid or less valid than others for WHAT EVER reason make you an extremest.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Topolski and Free Press

said by fiberguy2:

to say any point is moot or invalid or less valid than others for WHAT EVER reason make you an extremest.
In that case, Topolski is beyond being an "extremest" [sic]. He and Free Press are not only doing that but are spouting outright lies.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Topolski and Free Press

said by SuperWISP:

said by fiberguy2:

to say any point is moot or invalid or less valid than others for WHAT EVER reason make you an extremest.
In that case, Topolski is beyond being an "extremest" [sic]. He and Free Press are not only doing that but are spouting outright lies.
So..? If he is, we still live in the United States the last time I checked. It is VERY important to think you should patrol and silence anyone's speech because YOU say it's lies.

For one, we have courts to judge people,... also, you have the right to make your own decision. If YOU believe they are lies, you have the right to not believe him. If on the other hand, they are not lies, and you don't believe what you hear, then you're the dolt. The point is, lies or not, under most circumstances, you're not going to patrol the lies. However, be smart and identify them and ignore them and move on with your life. Buyer beware is very well alive in this day and age. If anyone is trying to sell you a bill of goods that you don't think is on the up (and look past retail on this statement) then move on.

I still fail to see what's wrong with what was stated above.
A husband and wife in divorce court always say the other is lying.. maybe they should both be silenced.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Topolski and Free Press

said by fiberguy2:

So..? If he is, we still live in the United States the last time I checked. It is VERY important to think you should patrol and silence anyone's speech because YOU say it's lies.
Funny that you should say that. I haven't silenced anyone's speech. However, Topolski's group -- Free Press -- has censored comments which I have posted to its blog. So much for open political discourse and open access to media! You can see a few of the censored comments at »bennett.com/blog/2008/07 ··· ad-this/, where another blogger thought that they were worthwhile to re-post after Free Press censored them.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Topolski and Free Press

Well, MY opinion on that is pretty simple. Real men will debate and hold their sides and take what comes their way and give it right back. P***ies will silence the other side, or call for the silence of the other side's view. I don't agree with that. Often when people don't want others to speak and silence them, it usually means their own position or argument is weak to begin with.

However, not being able to post on their blog your views.. I'm not so sure I would support your side ONLY because it still doesn't silence you. You still have a right to post your own thoughts on your own blog and get your readers to see what you have to say, OR, call people over to your own site to see your side. I'm all for that.

Nonuser
@comcast.net

Nonuser

Anon

Re: Topolski and Free Press

Lying is not debating.
said by fiberguy2:

Well, MY opinion on that is pretty simple. Real men will debate and hold their sides and take what comes their way and give it right back.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Topolski and Free Press

Judging is to be seen. Nothing is a lie until it's proven to be. It first has to be stated to be a lie. Further, it has to be a lie to willingly and knowingly mis-state something. Take THAT into account and apply your feeling and it could be said that well over 50% of the BBR users here are lying and don't even know it. Some people are just stupid.
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

wentlanc to SuperWISP

Member

to SuperWISP
I see lots of name calling, and bellyaching about who people are, where they get their paychecks from, and accusations of lying, but not very many useful suggestions at all.

Application developers will work around any limitations that ISPs put in place. So why don't the ISP's work with them to make P2P distribution methods more agreeable?? The short answer, IMHO, is that they do not want to work with any P2P, because there is no money in it. Sure, there are illegal uses for it, but there are also very legal uses. You can't block access to legal services, just because the same protocols could be used for illegal purposes. At the same time, you can't just impose to people how much technology they are permitted to use, when you are selling it as faster access to cutting edge technology. Who set's the bar as to what is "normal use"? If we are running out of bandwidth, how can they now sell what they are saying they don't have?

Let's debate the issue here, not whine about who gets paid by whom, or whose post got deleted for whatever reason.

cw
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

1 recommendation

SuperWISP

Member

ISPs and P2P

ISPs have no reason to want to "work with" P2P because it is fundamentally a bad idea. It attempts to serve content from the edges -- the most expensive and inefficient place to serve it from. If you're an ISP and are spending big bucks just to reach certain areas, the last thing you need is to have that investment compromised by people who are (a) clogging it up; (b) making it unprofitable; (c) are violating your terms of service; (d) are shifting the costs of content providers to you; and (e) are mostly engaged in piracy which you're already nervous about being required to block. There is zero, zilch, nada, nothing in P2P for ISPs. Even if they charge by the bit, it destroys quality of service.

Remember, P2P is used for two reasons: to make it difficult to stop piracy (that's the reason it was invented) and to shift costs away from content providers (a more recent use). It has no other uses that cannot be served much better and more efficiently via other means.
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

wentlanc

Member

Re: ISPs and P2P

said by SuperWISP:

Remember, P2P is used for two reasons: to make it difficult to stop piracy (that's the reason it was invented) and to shift costs away from content providers (a more recent use). It has no other uses that cannot be served much better and more efficiently via other means.
Again, I'm looking for people who can bring ideas to the table. Too often we hear people step up and tell us all that P2P is bad, that we're all pirates and thieves, and companies want to freeload off ISP's as a distribution channel. You're not offering anything here. You're supposed to be the expert in your field. What is being done to help steer these legit uses of P2P into more of an ISP friendly model?

You say that even if they charge by the bit, it still destroys the quality of service. I completely agree with you there. So then what does charging by the bit do aside from lining the pockets of the ISP? They're willing to sell bandwidth they don't have. And they are willing to degrade their network, as long as they get paid for it.

What is the answer to the problem here? Certainly, punishing all users for the actions of a few is less than ideal, right?

cw

Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
MVM
join:2003-02-18
San Jose, CA

Nerdtalker to SuperWISP

MVM

to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:

Dead wrong, Rob. Video over HTTP "plays fair;" it doesn't exploit weaknesses in TCP by seizing priority over other applications, and P2P (especially BitTorrent) does.
I'd love to know how BT traffic takes advantages of "weaknesses" in TCP/IP which allow it to seize priority over other applications.

Especially considering, you know, this little thing called the OSI Model, and especially considering TCP/IP is Transport Layer and BT/HTTP/FTP are all Application Layer...

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Bandwidth hogging

said by Nerdtalker:

I'd love to know how BT traffic takes advantages of "weaknesses" in TCP/IP which allow it to seize priority over other applications.
Again, there's elements of truth to both sides here. TCP congestion control works such that each TCP session responds to packet loss / packet delay using the same rules. The problem is, if your application has more active TCP sessions than others, you can unfairly take control of capacity on the pipe.

This really only plays out in scale -- it's not the issue of a single client that only has 2-3 sessions open at a time, it's a problem of the shared node that has 40-50 users that all have 2-3 sessions open continuously.

Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
MVM
join:2003-02-18
San Jose, CA

Nerdtalker

MVM

Re: Bandwidth hogging

Very, very true. I had not considered that.

What you're saying reminds me of this: »www.formortals.com/Home/ ··· ult.aspx

Even proper, higher-level QoS filtering simply takes more CPU load to work properly considering all the open sessions, so even that might eventually degrade network performance... An intriguing problem with the session-based architecture of TCP/IP. Perhaps UDP might be better in this case.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Bandwidth hogging

George's analysis (and it isn't really his) is flawed because it doesn't take into account the cable modem as being the first point of congestion. Any inbalance is going to be settled there. Nobody actually gets a substantial advantage since the tier is enforced at the cable modem, regardless of how many flows there are.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP to Nerdtalker

Member

to Nerdtalker

Re; Bandwidth hogging

George Ou, in his presentation to the FCC, has explained in great detail the ways in which BitTorrent exploits weaknesses in TCP to seize both bandwidth and priority; see »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/e ··· 19869132. The vulnerability it exploits has actually been well known since the 1980s. For more, also see Bob Briscoe's excellent paper at »www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/B ··· _ccr.pdf and George Ou's ZDNet blog at »blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?cat=30.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6 to SuperWISP

Member

to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:
said by funchords:

Yeah, we'll see. Like I said somewhere else yesterday, the heaviest use is now in HTTP streaming and that trend is likely to keep growing. As more and more studios figure out ways to meet demand, the pressure will be on streaming video encapsulated inside TCP. THAT'S THE NEW BANDWIDTH HOG.
Dead wrong, Rob. Video over HTTP "plays fair;" it doesn't exploit weaknesses in TCP by seizing priority over other applications, and P2P (especially BitTorrent) does. It's no different than an ordinary download, which can be appropriately paced and does not attempt to consume all available resources. Nor does it try to shift the content provider's bandwidth costs to the ISP (readers, see »www.brettglass.com/FCC/r ··· rks.html for an explanation of this).

Of course, you are unlikely to want to admit this, being a paid spokesperson for Free Press, BitTorrent, and Vuze.
Yeah, Rob should not speak. Let only the paid speakers from Comcast that hang around here do.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Bandwidth hogging

I haven't seen any "paid speakers from Comcast" in this forum. I compete with the cable company in my area (though it does not happen to be Comcast but rather Bresnan Communications).
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to SpaethCo

Premium Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

said by majortom1029:

Wouldnt this mean that nobody in the US can throttle verizon, comcast, or att?
Not exactly. Most likely it will just mean they can't single out a specific application, and they will have to disclose their network management policy.
Then Comcast lawyers are idiots. They have already disclosed their network management policy. They stated that you can't run servers.. P2P apps have a server component built it. They blocked that part of P2P (the upload side of it) and people got upset.

Comcast is stupid, but not for the reason that popular "hang em high" group here would think in this case.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Comcast did act stupidly

Comcast did act stupidly, especially in the early phases of the matter. Its public relations people were inept at responding to negative press. It didn't insist on equal time for ISPs at both hearings. It didn't do positive PR in and around the hearings. It didn't go to the grass roots and work with them to fend off harmful regulation. It didn't work hard enough to refute lies such as those spread by Robb Topolski, Free Press, and MAP. Its lawyers finally filed some brilliant comments in the FCC docket... only after three of the Commissioners already had agreed to vote against it! In short, it harmed the entire Internet by failing to fight this battle well. I, a small ISP, devoted about 1000% more of my resources, proportionately, to this than Comcast did, but was obviously too small to turn the tide when going up against the full time inside-the-Beltway DC lawyers and lobbyists who were pushing for regulation. (I still had to tend to my customers and run my business.) About all Comcast can do now, belatedly, is to make up for some of the damage it caused is to fight the FCC's ruling in court.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

PDXPLT to majortom1029

Member

to majortom1029
said by majortom1029:

Wouldnt this mean that nobody in the US can throttle verizon, comcast, or att?
No. The story is misleading. Comcast isn't being punished for throttling. They're being punished for saying they don't do it, and doing it anyway.

This is essentially a "truth in advertising" issue as far as the FCC is concerned, rather than a "net neutrality" one. A network provider can manipulate things however it wants as long as they disclose it. Consumers and the marketplace can then use that knowledge to make decisions about which provider they want to buy internet service from.

Or so it goes in the Free Market nirvana envisioned by those in charge at the Commission.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Comcast punishment

All of Kevin Martin's remarks to date indicate that Comcast will be sanctioned for throttling, with perhaps an unkind word thrown in about its failing to disclose exactly how and when it did it. But of course we will not know until we see the actual ruling. And alas, unlike legislation, the language of the FCC's decision will be kept under wraps until it's a fait accompli. The public will have no chance to comment on, and point out problems in, proposed language. There won't even be a formal rule making process; Comcast will be sanctioned for violating "rules" that were never said to be rules. This is arbitrary, capricious, and a violation of the Constitutional requirement for due process. I would be glad to be a party to a lawsuit protesting this end run not only around the law and the Constitution but around the FCC's own rule making process.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

1 recommendation

TScheisskopf to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I thought you guys hated trial lawyers? I guess only when the little guys use them.

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

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Countdown 3 , 2 , 1 - Lawsuit by Comcast

said by TScheisskopf:

I thought you guys hated trial lawyers? I guess only when the little guys use them.
And exactly what in my statement implied I like trial lawyers. All I am doing is commenting on what is most likely to happen after the vote by the FCC.

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

funchords to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

The vote is next Friday. The Lawsuit by Comcast the following Monday? 2 yrs of court hearings & FCC loses in Federal Court once gain.
Why Comcast Can't Appeal -- A Story of Prior Notice and Procedural Problems By Harold Feld

••••

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

FFH5

Premium Member

said by FFH5:

The vote is next Friday. The Lawsuit by Comcast the following Monday? 2 yrs of court hearings & FCC loses in Federal Court once gain.
Commentary on limits of FCC power and the likelihood they would lose in court IF Comcast decides to sue.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578 ··· 1_3-0-20

A good writeup over the limits of the FCC and the total hypocrisy of the groups claiming the FCC principles have the power of law. And their flip flop on their support of FCC powers.

FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

FastiBook

Member

For once...

For once i'm rooting FOR the FCC...
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: For once...

Translation - "I'm fair weathered and I go where it benefits me"..

I'm sorry, but you can only like, or dislike, the FCC. Their policy and views haven't changed under Alfred E Newman's reign.

The FCC could mandate all systems provide 100/100m connections by next year and I'd still not like the FCC. Corruption is corruption.

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

Dogfather

Premium Member

What about Cox?

Why single out Comcast and not "punish" TWC and Cox who also traffic shape?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Good news.

In the last eight years, all of the telecomm sector has pretty much gotten what it wants. Some, and I can speak of Embarq here, due to personal experience, have been responsible and customer-centered. Others, such as Comcast and others, have done the "boiling frogs in a pot" deal on their customers. It is well past time for competent adult supervision to step in and teach some of the hard lessons of impulse control to these companies.

I hope the sanctions have real and painful consequesnces. But, I hold not my breath on that one.

nonuser
@comcast.net

nonuser

Anon

Re: Good news.

I would be interested in knowing what facts you have concerning this?

Has comcast LOWERED speeds? (not from the people posting about HIGHER SPEEDS they are getting, seen at this site.)

Has comcast slowly shut off E-mail services? Or lowered the amount of user space people get? (don't think so)

Certainly, you can't back up your statement with any facts.

You lose points for equating comcast's actions with those of a "child" that needs "adult supervision".

Maybe what you really wanted to say is the government should just get on with the socialization/nationalization of whatever YOU feel is cheating you so they can do a better job?

LOL, yeah, the US government runs things so well. I can't imagine the speed with which the US would fall further and further behind on internet speeds compared to the rest of the world if the US government where the only High Speed internet provider.
said by TScheisskopf:

In the last eight years, all of the telecomm sector has pretty much gotten what it wants. Some, and I can speak of Embarq here, due to personal experience, have been responsible and customer-centered. Others, such as Comcast and others, have done the "boiling frogs in a pot" deal on their customers. It is well past time for competent adult supervision to step in and teach some of the hard lessons of impulse control to these companies.

I hope the sanctions have real and painful consequesnces. But, I hold not my breath on that one.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Re: Good news.

Socialization? Nationalization?

Tropes. All you have is tropes and buzzwords. Byebye.

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

Robert

Premium Member

Title should read..

FCC Majority Plans To Punish Customers For Throttling

Really, who loses here? Not Comcast. Not the government. But the little guy.

••••••••••••••••••••••
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Watch for higher prices, worse service, download caps

This isn't good news. Preventing ISPs from throttling back P2P bandwidth hogs will force them to raise prices. Bandwidth hogs will be able to congest networks, slowing everyone's service. And ISPs will be forced to impose monthly download caps and possibly cell phone-like overage charges. Wireless providers are going to be in a REAL bind, because the same FCC that is requiring them to allow bandwidth hogging is also giving them insufficient spectrum to handle the load. Some rural and wireless providers may close up shop, leaving customers with no service. The best we can hope for is that Comcast will due and have the ruling overturned. Because the FCC previously said that its policy statement was not binding, there was no formal rulemaking process, and the Commission has moved directly to sanctioning violations, the ruling will surely be judged to be "arbitrary and capricious" -- even more so than in CBS v. FCC (the "wardrobe malfunction" case). But many ISPs, especially small ones, will not dare to cross the FCC anyway, because they can't afford a Federal lawsuit. So, we'll still get higher prices, worse service, and bandwidth caps.

•••

Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS

Ikyuao

Member

Japan of high speed?

Have we heard any customers bitching about their ISPs? NONE!
That much less problematic than our country. I guess that japan communications are much more advanced technologically than our country.

•••••••
notwrth10
join:2007-03-03
1001EB

notwrth10

Member

I would like to punish Rick

For

• Lying to the general public
• spreading disinformation
• personal attacks.
• avoiding questions.

Have I hit on the theme yet?

Bellundo
@teksavvy.com

Bellundo

Anon

The FCC has to do something

Please send out a message to these Canadian isp's that have all but destroyed the internet in Canada. Throw the book at Comcast.

SALAMANCA
join:2008-06-07
Toronto, ON

SALAMANCA

Member

The FCC has to do something

Well let's hope that the Canadian counterpart CRTC sees the light of day and punishes Bell Canada for doing the same thing that Comcast is doing; throttling, and orders Bell Canada to 'cease and desist' throttling.

Guilty
@comcast.net

Guilty

Anon

Throttle

Comcast also throttles or down-ramps file uploads via FTP. It's embarrassing and very transparent. Greatly reduced rates than advertised... they made their bed, no they get whats coming to them...