Comments on: The FCC on Comcast: Confusion in spades

Good that the FCC found Comcast in the wrong over Web usage. But the FCC still doesn't know its own mind on the more fundamental question at stake here.

[dreweinhorn]

I am especially concerned about the possibility of an internet service provider that also provides VOIP dropping or delay voip packets for a competitor's service.

[VitaRoos]

Two other reasons why Comcast is a money-grubbing, anti-consumer company:

1) Limiting total monthly data traffic, while never revealing the user's usage, or even telling users what is Comcast's limit. There has been some press regarding this issue, but not nearly as much as the "throttling" issue.
I thought this was an exaggeration, until a friend told me he actually received several phone calls from Comcast "security" threatening to suspend him for a year unless he cut down his usage. But he was never told how much to cut back.

2) Comcast's increased compression of high-defintion broadcasts. In order to offer more channels, Comcast admits to squeezing three high-definition channels into the space of one standard analog cable channel. (They used to only compress two) They claim the deterioration isn't "visible" to their "expert" technicians. Well, I can tell you it's not visible--unless the images are moving! Then the picture breaks up into pixellated hash. Great to view on my big screen high-def TV.
Unfortunately, last year the FCC was going to require cable companies to pass through high-def channels without additional compression. But just a month later, the FCC relaxed the rules. Hmmmmm.
Thanks a lot to Comcast and the FCC. Looking out for everyone but the consumer.

[gdafilms]

I've dropped my Comcast account because based upon the previous comments I no longer trust the company. People who spy on us cannot be trusted, period.

[BrettGlass]

The problem with P2P is that in all cases it is either (a) being used to traffic in illegal copies of copyrighted works or (b) being used to shift bandwidth costs from the content distributor to the user's ISP (by setting up a server on the user's computer). So, either it's outright illegal or a breach of the user's contract with his or her ISP.

I'd be the last to say that Comcast was a saintly company. But in this case, they were doing what every responsible ISP does: throttling back P2P so that it doesn't threaten other users' quality of service. They were chosen as a whipping boy not because they were doing anything wrong or out of the ordinary, but because they are unpopular for other reasons.

[sulsa76]

This article is about Comcast's internet service, not their television service. Dish and Direct TV don't offer a comparable internet service, and so are not competitors in this industry.

Comcast's has a monopoly in many areas of the county I live in. Many area's we have no other broadband ISP to use, and Comcast knows this. Otherwise, people wouldn't stand for all the abuse. I know I would have switched ISP's years ago. I simply have no other broadband choice.

[CalBubba]

Nice article, Mr. Cooper. The FCC has shown that it's not the right agency to regulate the Internet by the way it's mangled the facts in this case. The FCC majority accepted uncritically the most idiotic claims and assertions of personal opinion - like David Reed's drivel - and made no effort to independently verify any of them. They're admitted they don't know what's happening on the Comcast network or why by demanding that Comcast submit management data at this late date. So we still don't know what Comcast does to BitTorrent traffic, or when, or why.

I've been a Comcast customer for several years, and I know a great deal about the structure of networks, network protocols, and network protocol analysis, and I was on the invited witnesses at the first hearing the FCC held on this subject.

I've been able to successfully download Linux distros, TV shows, and movies using BitTorrent clients such as Azurueus/Vuze, uTorrent, and BitTorrent throughout this whole debacle, and they've not been delayed. I have seen fairly consistent delays on BitTorrent seeding, however.

So the real issue is not that Comcast interferes with my access to content, it's that it interferes with other people's access to my content in one mode; Comcast provides web space to all of its Internet customers as part of the package, and there are no bandwidth limits on other people's access to this web space. The files used by the AP to test Comcast move just fine from my Comcast web space.

There is nothing in the Internet Policy Statement regarding any right to essentially operate a file server from inside your home, and this sort of thing is the target of Comcast's management. Since the FCC can't distinguish what's actually happening from the wild and irresponsible claims of the professional critics, there are serious doubts about its ability to enforce any new net neutrality laws.

The net result of the FCC's ham-fisted prohibition of traffic management will the metered pricing for Internet access. That's what network neutrality regulations have accomplished: higher prices for inferior service.

Thanks, Net Neutrality advocates, you've fattened the large ISPs' bottom lines at consumer expense.

[wveeser]

I live in Memphis and Comcast continues to block seeding with Bittorrents... as of yesterday anyway..
Doesn't seem that pressure is having the desired effect.

[MTGrizzly]

"When did we as a nation just decide to concede our rights and let the government trample on the constitution?"

When we voted George Bush into office and congress let him go nuts after 9/11. From there, it has all been down hill. Once we stopped holding him accountable, he went nuts and civil liberties went right out the window.

Don't expect the democrats to do anything about - governments never give up power once they get it, they only grab more....

[tjmac3]

For those that are rallying around the injustice of FCC ruling against comcast could you answer the following questions.
If it "legal" for Comcast to break connections you have establed on the internet for the purpose of network management, what s the limit to network management techniques? At what point do these techniques abridge my right to transfer information on the internet through them?
What are Comcast resposiblities in communicating those techniques to me? Is fine print in a AUP(acceptable use policy) acceptable or do they need to tell me directly when they are limiting my connection that I paid for?
Is it Comcast and the gov't responsibility to subsidize the users who are using a large percentage of bandwidth and are paying the same as everyone else?
My conclusion: Given we are a capitalist country that is managing a duopoly. Let everyone transmit what they want and pay for it. Therefore usage based billing. Very unpopular with crowd that is leveraging the all you can eat model. But I do not see a fair (to the taxpayers alternative. (See fallacy of the commons)

[sgtslappy]

"I'd be the last to say that Comcast was a saintly company. But in this case, they were doing what every responsible ISP does: throttling back P2P so that it doesn't threaten other users' quality of service"

Do wat?

Comcast shouldn't have to throttle. If a user pays for Xmbps, they should get it. If Comcast can't handle someone using their internet 24/7 (like some people who torrent and/or use it to surf the web) then they should not advertise it.

Pretty sure their network can handle it though, I mean. I just think their using it as a scapegoat is all.

[tjmac3]

Pretty sure the network can handle it? Based on what ? Port capacity on the cmts? Are you network certified cisco, juniper? Do you know what the standard oversubscription model is? Can you share the detail of how you came to this conclusion?

It takes money to build a network. unlimited money yes it can support it

[jef5623]

Comcast has to enter the 7th age of computing and they must take drastic measures for that entry now.

[benjaminstraight]

This will surely spark controversy.

[jamalystic]

I don't see anything wrong with this FCC decision. We are simply allowing net neutrality to devoid us of all our reasoning. We are simply trying to make life unbearable for the broadband providers. If you think net neutrality is for ordinary folks, then u are sorely mistaken. Net neutrality is all about helping the likes of Google, yahoo and others: The Net Neutrality Fearmongers Are At It Again(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=160628&F_src=flftwo)

[tjmac3]

If net neutrality (I do not work for google, yahoo ect. I work for cable) is false then Comcast/any ISP dictates what we are information we allowed to transfer on the internet? With no requirements or oversight on how they restrict oh I mean manage the connection?

Seems like an awful lot of responsiblity to give out. Especially as a careful restrictions cost more money. How do you motivate a captiol company to be just?