dslreports logo
Zoom Accuses Comcast Of Net Neutrality Violation
Zoom: Comcast makes modem approval process expensive, redundant

A joint announcement by consumer advocacy groups Free Press and Public Knowledge this afternoon points out that modem manufacturer Zoom Telephonics has filed a complaint against Comcast with the FCC, accusing Comcast of "restricting consumer access to innovative devices" by creating artificial barriers for consumer hardware. According to Zoom, Comcast (which has direct control of about 40% of the cable modem market) is jacking up the cost of device testing and creating additional hurdles above and beyond CableLabs testing.


While several cable operators conduct device testing, Zoom complains Comcast is the only one that charges a fee ($25,000), and alleges they're intentionally making the approval process more difficult for smaller hardware vendors. Interestingly, Zoom and the consumer groups are framing this as a neutrality infraction, claiming it violates an FCC neutrality principle that proclaims consumers have the right to attach any device to a network they see fit:
quote:
The requirements ranged from paying tens of thousands of dollars for duplicative testing and related expenses (including business class air fare and expensive hotels), to requiring the company to meet standards far in excess of normal consumer electronics needs which have no bearing on whether the cable network would be harmed (including weight, labeling, packaging, waxes to be applied) to "arbitrarily refusing" to test one of Zoom's modems for distribution.
Of course Free Press and Public Knowledge are both engaged in a Sisyphean attempt to derail the Comcast/NBC merger or get meaningful conditions imposed, so it makes sense to frame this as a neutrality violation for public relations effect. However, it's not clear that Zoom's problems with Comcast testing practices (even if anti-competitive) are a net neutrality violation -- since we've seen exactly what the FCC's neutrality principles are worth legally in recent months: not much.

Update: It's a busy day for Comcast from the anti-competitive perspective, Level3 also accusing the company of demanding a toll to carry Internet video traffic.
view:
topics flat nest 

Ken
MVM
join:2003-06-16
Markle, IN

1 recommendation

Ken

MVM

Huh?

So Comcast has higher standards than CableLabs? Good for them. The real issue is Zoom trying to play this off as a Net Neutrality violation which it isn't.
kingofdsl
join:2002-12-11
Indianapolis, IN

kingofdsl

Member

Re: Huh?

It's all a "Neutrality"" issue.

It's whoever has the deepest pockets in the Government rules.

This madness will stop eventually when the people have had enough.

HappyAnarchy
@iauq.com

HappyAnarchy to Ken

Anon

to Ken
It would be if the higher standards were for things like reliability, and not things like weight, special waxing or labelling. Those are arbitrary qualifications intended to limit the cable modem market as much as possible. At least read the post itself, if not the article.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

1 edit

1 recommendation

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: Huh?

According to the actual complaint:
»www.publicknowledge.org/ ··· aint.pdf

Comcast certified the Zoom DOCSIS 3 modem with out running it through the additional P&E (physical and environmental) tests because it was intended for retail sale, not leasing through Comcast. The certification process Comcast did do noted an issue with the modem resyncing after a power interruption (which would have cause trouble calls), once that was corrected Comcast certified it.

Comcast declined to certify the new DOCSIS 2 modem because they stopped certifying all DOCSIS 2 modems last year and are in-process to transition to a full DOCSIS 3 network.

What's the problem here again? Sounds like Comcast is just trying to prevent out of date or crappy modems from being attached to their network and then having to deal with the fallout. Being the largest cable provider means they have to deal with the most problems from flaky modems being attached to it and they pay for it in customer satisfaction, trouble calls, and money.
franklin101
join:2010-10-12
Irvine, CA

franklin101

Member

Re: Huh?

Paying for custmer satisfaction isn't going to work. They are taking heat yet again for the possible level 3 net neutrality violation.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: Huh?

said by franklin101:

Paying for custmer satisfaction isn't going to work. They are taking heat yet again for the possible level 3 net neutrality violation.

1. They are not trying to pay for customer satisfaction, you misunderstood. Allowing bad or old standard modems on their network would cost them customer satisfaction when customers get unhappy due to modem problems. Comcast is trying to prevent future modem problems.
2. The Comcast/L3 issue has to do with L3 wanting a relatively free ride for it's CDN (Content Distribution Network) business (not the normal peering arrangements) vs. what Comcast normally bills other CDNs like Akatami. There's no net neutrality violations involved.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: Huh?

It shouldn't matter if want to use an old crappy modem. Just like it shouldn't matter if you want to use an old crappy computer or old outdated software. If you want comcast support for your hardware, lease your equipment.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: Huh?

said by Uncle Paul:

It shouldn't matter if want to use an old crappy modem. Just like it shouldn't matter if you want to use an old crappy computer or old outdated software. If you want comcast support for your hardware, lease your equipment.

What if that crappy modem won't support features of the new network gear?

Do customers blame the modem maker or their ISP for not supporting them?

Hint: they call their ISP... and Comcast wants to prevent that before it starts.

Zoom WANTS Comcast support so they can sell modems in Comcast areas and tell customers it's supported. Zoom could've just ditched the Comcast support, but they won't sell nearly as many modems and will get many more returns.

So if Zoom WANTS Comcast to support them, they have to let Comcast test them.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: Huh?

Does the telephone company test each phone model that is attached to their POTS service?

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: Huh?

said by Uncle Paul:

Does the telephone company test each phone model that is attached to their POTS service?

No and the phone company doesn't support the individual phone either, they stop at the NID. If you want them to support it, they'll bill you through the nose.

Then again individual phone makers don't desire phone company certification either. Zoom WANTS Comcast certification.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: Huh?

said by DocDrew:

No and the phone company doesn't support the individual phone either, they stop at the NID. If you want them to support it, they'll bill you through the nose.

Then again individual phone makers don't desire phone company certification either. Zoom WANTS Comcast certification.

And Comcast can do the same. They provide service up to a point on the house and the rest is the home owners unless they lease equipment or purchase the service plan.

Does Comcast require the certification for devices? If Zoom is just asking because they want it, then Comcast should have the right to charge whatever they want for it.

beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium Member
join:2008-01-06

beachintech

Premium Member

Re: Huh?

Unfortunately for techs, comcast does not work that way. We support just about everything and do almost anything to get a customer back online. We charge a pittance for trouble calls, if anything. New lines are cheap, etc.

nerdburg
Premium Member
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA

nerdburg to Ken

Premium Member

to Ken
Nah, not really. Cable Labs is just a consortium of cable companies (Brian Roberts, Comcast's CEO is the chairman) -- they are already anti-competitive. It cost an insane amount of many to get anything certified. Zoom is complaining because Comcast is now demanding more money above and beyond what Cable Labs has already screwed them out of...but I agree it's not a net neutrality issue.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Huh?

the fact is; don't wanna pay the $$$ to offer your product to the consumer then don't bitch later. This is just Zoom bitching about not wanting to pay but they want the consumer. VZ must not be buying enough products from them this month.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Is the FCC in a Coma?

There is nothing new here. From Wikipedia "The ICC's original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers." See link to article:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In ··· mmission

The railroad robber barons kissed the butts of their friends and stuck it to anyone else that annoyed them. Seems like Comcast has carried on the tradition of using their position in the industry to discriminate. Maybe they are to big to regulate!

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Neutrality or Competition Violation?

Same thing with CableCards...

Many cable companies won't let you get them for fear of you jumping from their cable box lease (free $ scheme).

Also, U-Verse doesn't allow you to purchase a 3rd party Gateway/Modem (partially because none exist), and forces you to pay $3/month for the gateway/modem lease.

HappyAnarchy
@iauq.com

HappyAnarchy

Anon

Re: Neutrality or Competition Violation?

This is the real thing. Not really a neutrality issue, just a competition issue. They would much rather you continue to pay them $5-15 a month per month for the life of the service, rather than have cheaper alternatives. They get the cost of the box back over and over and over and over again over the life of the service.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678 to Gbcue

Member

to Gbcue
IN Canada they have the same boxes and it like $250 to buy the main box and $100 for the ones at the other tv.

And ATT wants $7/m for a box that costs $100?

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: Neutrality or Competition Violation?

said by Joe12345678:

IN Canada they have the same boxes and it like $250 to buy the main box and $100 for the ones at the other tv.

It is? Where?

Not at Best Buy Canada:
»www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/cat ··· fb4cen01

Maybe double your prices.
Mordhem
Love it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD

Mordhem

Member

Re: Neutrality or Competition Violation?

holly dog crap $500????? for a cable box, you know the thing missing is they sell them for like $60 to cable companys right but anyways the one linked here also is a dvr..... so uh

vague dreams

Anon

Re: Neutrality or Competition Violation?

said by Mordhem:

$500????? for a cable box, you know the thing missing is they sell them for like $60 to cable companys right

Cable companies don't pay 60.00 for digital boxes. Just to give you a rough idea of the money involved, Time Warner Cable quarterly stb purchases dropped about 10% saving them approximately 26 million dollars.

At your price that would equal about 433,000 cable boxes not bought. so that means that TWC bought roughly 3.8 million boxes.

Consider that TWC gained about 44,000 digital cable subscribers in the same quarter. Now factor in that time Warner cable has approximately 9 million digital cable subscribers and you can see where the numbers are not adding up. They are not buying enough boxes to feed more then a 3rd of their subscriber base in a 3 month span of time.

A more realistic rate would be about triple what you think the cable company pays. also factor that the dvr boxes probably cost twice as much as a regular box.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Gbcue

Member

to Gbcue
the issue with T is they used to OWN their CPE company. 2Wire. but you can buy that modem from MOT directly if you want. The Mot Netopia will work just fine according to field techs and most actually recommend you use that if you're getting above 6megs anyway as the cheap 2wires aren't built for that speed.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: Neutrality or Competition Violation?

said by hottboiinnc4:

the issue with T is they used to OWN their CPE company. 2Wire. but you can buy that modem from MOT directly if you want. The Mot Netopia will work just fine according to field techs and most actually recommend you use that if you're getting above 6megs anyway as the cheap 2wires aren't built for that speed.

The Netopia doesn't work with U-Verse TV + U-Verse Internet.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Gbcue

Premium Member

to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:

Same thing with CableCards...

Many cable companies won't let you get them for fear of you jumping from their cable box lease (free $ scheme).

Also, U-Verse doesn't allow you to purchase a 3rd party Gateway/Modem (partially because none exist), and forces you to pay $3/month for the gateway/modem lease.

Thats their cash cow!
they don't want anyone wringing the golden gooses neck!

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako

Premium Member

What is this for?

Is it so Comcast itself buys the modem and rents it to their customers, or is it so that Comcast will allow that device on their network if purchased somewhere?

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: What is this for?

said by joako:

Is it so Comcast itself buys the modem and rents it to their customers, or is it so that Comcast will allow that device on their network if purchased somewhere?

If you read the actual complaint (PDF), it seems that the P&E testing is an additional Comcast certification requirement intended for modems that Comcast purchases, warehouses, and leases. That P&E testing was waived for the retail only modems Zoom wanted Comcast to allow, although the base Comcast certification (which is what caught the problematic sync after power failure issue on the Zoom DOCSIS 3 modem that CableLabs missed) is still needed.

Cthen
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI

Cthen

Premium Member

I can see why...

Comcast does do more testing than CableLabs.

If this the same Zoom DOCSIS 3 modem that's being referred to then yes, it should undergo more testing. It's a re-branded Hitron modem. The same company that supplied D-Link with the DOCSIS 2 modems for D-Link to brand their name on them, that caused a huge headache for Comcast and their customers to deal with.

Zoom should look at it this way. Comcast did them a huge favor by running it through more testing. Had Comcast did the same for the D2 D-Link modems, D-Link might not have got themselves such a bad rap for selling flaky modems. After that fiasco, let see a show of hands of who is willing to buy another D-Link cable modem.