Comments on: Comcast to FCC: We block only 'excessive' traffic

In a response to criticisms about its P2P practices, the broadband provider tells the FCC that throttling BitTorrent transfers is absolutely necessary to keep its network functioning.

[flyinga2]

genetic engineering on a dinosaur=COMCAST

Let's settle this out of court...prevent gray hair and SWITCH TO VERIZON FIOS...state of the art baby: FIBER TO THE HOME...15/15 !!!

[savagesteve13]

What if AT&T slowed down your phone conversations?

If Comcast is concerned about bandwidth, then they need to stop overselling it based on the assumption that most folks will only use 10% of whats available to them.

[wright207]

No Concept

So should state be required to build roads that would support everybody at once. I mean they build the road knowing that not everybody will be on at the same time.. IT IS CALLED SMART and COST EFFECTIVE.

I think we are past teh assumpation stage here,, wew know most people use the internet a couple hours a day and then do family things with their families with family activities that the whole family enjoys as a family....

NOT ALL APPS ARE EQUAL.. voice is a priority.. do you want a 911 to be cached in a buffer until you finish downloading your favorite episode of all in teh family

[inachu]

Comcast also randomly kicks Warcraft players.

Grrrrr!!!!!!!

[Mister Winky]

Reality Check

How about some truth here? Yes, this is a bandwidth issue, but that masks the bigger issues.

-- Comcast, like other providers, oversells and overcommits their bandwidth so they can advertise one thing and deliver another. If all Comcast users actually made us of all the bandwidth that Comcast promises in their sales pitch, their network would be overloaded 5 times over.

-- Comcast has not kept up with the necessary capital upgrades to be competitive in a world where bandwidth intensive media files, P2P or otherwise, are taking up a higher percentage of available bandwidth. Comcast and other providers ignore this trend at their peril.

-- Comcast is blocking consumer-oriented traffic because they can. If Apple or Disney were to launch a media service which caused the same spike in bandwidth, Comcast wouldn't dare block or meter the traffic.

-- If the DMCA ever changes or is re-interpreted to include some form of ISP liability for illegal file sharing, Comcast can cover their ***** by tightening down P2P traffic even further or blocking it outright. The framework is now in place and being tested on paying Comcast cosnumers.

In reality, this is self-serving deception shrouded in the auspices of "necessary network management."

-Mister Winky

[WJeansonne]

It figures lawless liberal groups attack Comcast

As usual, they want something for free and could care less about intellectual property rights. In fact, that's the credo of Marxists--no such thing as private property. What a joke. I hope Comcast shuts them down for good, the rat bastards.

[bananadan]

liberals? further idiocy

another idiotic remark depending on labels rather than rational
thought. There are plenty of "conservative"-owned machines
illegally downloading material. Let's get to the heart of the matter.
Broadbrushing "liberals" is like blaming the entire problem on gay
whales.

[akayanni]

Obviously the Comcast network sux

P2P and the liberals aside... No one in my family all of whom are on AAPT can send an email to our cousin in the USA who is on Comcast. Even Facebook invites are blocked. I know of no other ISP who feels they need to block AAPT. You manage these issues with effective spam filters not whole scale blocking of network traffic.

All it means is that Comcast are greedy and have stuffed more customers into a network which is over-loaded. And rather than invest in the network they restrict access so they can stuff in even more customers. They are likely forced to implement such crap options because they don't have the IT staff and infrastructure to be better managers.

More than likely they are the next Enron.

http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=CMCSK

They have lost >1/3 of the company's value in 7 months. Anything less than an over throw of the board won't solve this problem. You can bet it's management screwing every buck out of the company they can and failing to invest.

If network traffic was managed by restrictions globally, the Internet would be a pretty slow place and customers would still be stuck with dial-up services.

If being an ISP or a Telco is there core business then that is where investment needs to go. You can't rip cash from than sector and invest in another without sacrificing real investment in the network.

Search the Internet and see what their customers say...

http://www.yelp.com/topic/menlo-park-comcast-sucks-big-time

"Comcast is run by gangsters, punks, and incompetents. They seem to have a monopoly everywhere I live, and their accounting and service practices are criminal. They should be indicted for fraud."

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Comcast_Throttles_BitTorrent_Traffic_Seeding_Impossible

"If Comcast wasn't a f###ing monopoly, and didn't buy out all local competitors, I would've left them by now. But unfortunately, they are all that is left, which I hear is the case in a lot of areas."

It all leads to one logical outcome. Dismiss the board.

Yani

[jdubow]

Network traffic isn't a zero sum game

Bandwidth in a network is a commodity. You need more you add another fiber or cable. Installing them now is cheap and will be made up for in increased fees. Information providers pay for pipes of the capacity needed to get their product to consumers. If they are too slow then their competitors will take notice and eat their lunch. Consumers pay for capacity by signing up for a cable. In theory their bandwidth is available 24/7, since that is what they are signing up for.

So what is this bit torrent madness. It is a way for the ISP's to get back to the glory days of price per bit, when the phone companies delayed implementation of the internet by a decade while they reaped monopoly profits. Users overseas, with smaller and less rich telcos/ISP's get ten times the bandwidth.

I support fairness but I hate manipulative shuck and jive. The FCC should fine Comcast to the maximum extent of the law.

[NetWild24k]

Comcast is Obsolete

Every 6 months data usage goes up 6mb - 12mb. The reason for this is that more people go online, web sites are upgrading to new technology (Flash, Web 2.0, Peer to Peer, FTP, etc), and the population is always increasing. Comcast is getting to the point where they are bottoming out. They are suppose to upgrade their networks every 6 months (depending on the demand). They are not doing this. Other protocols have surpassed Comcast Broadband internet. For example Verizon FiOS Internet - Fiber Optics at your door step = 30 Mbps downloads and 5 Mbps uploads (endless possibilities). Comcast is no way close to this. They are becoming obsolete.

[Kosmös]

Lets discuss from a reasonable perspective

Despite what feelings you may have on file sharing - this should not be a debate on that issue. Simply put, it's a question of services that you pay for vs. services provided. If a user hasn't done anything to tweak their bandwidth beyond the service that they are paying for, there's no reason why the service should ever be intentionally blocked other than having a legal reason to do so. If I'm paying for a certain upload and download speed, Comcast should be able to provide that without issue. Compared to what I'm paying for - my service has been very unsatisfactory. I'm not an engineer but I am an audio producer and I go down to the level of working with DSP chips so I think I can comfortably say that my computer that I assembled myself should not be running is not causing the issue with limited download speeds - and I'm connected through a wire so it's not a wireless issue. Argh anyways talking about Comcast makes me mad mostly because I don't have any options thanks to the monopoly they have over my apartment building. Despite the recent FCC decision to ban such monopolies, since we've made the communication system private it means everyone's using their own wiring so wires don't run up my way yet from other competitors. And the wiring of the complex can't even handle Verizon services.

[BMW228]

THIS IS WHY IM ANGRY

I CURRENTLY PAY FOR A SERVICE THAT IS ADVERTISED AS 2-10 MBIT PER SECOND, HOWEVER I HAVE YET TO GET DOWNLOAD SPEEDS MORE THAN 750KB PER SEC, FURTHERMORE I RARELY EVEN GET SPEEDS OF 750KB PER SEC. MOST TIMES IT IS AROUND 100KB PER SEC, AND IN THE EVENING IT GETS LESS THAN 56K DOWLOAD SPEEDS. WHERE ARE THESE ADVERTISED SPEEDS OF TEN TIMES MORE THAN DSL? 100KB PER SEC IS ONLY TWICE THE SPEED OF DIALUP. *** COMCAST. IF I AM PAYING FOR SPEEDS THAT IM NOT RECIEVING SHOULDNT I GET CREDIT BACK ON MY ACCOUNT FOR THE LOWER SPEEDS? THE ANSWER IS NO. AFTER DEALING WITH COMCAST FOR HOURS I HAVE GIVEN UP. I DONT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION FOR AN ISP AS COMCAST IS THE ONLY IN MY AREA AND THEY KNOW IT(THATS WHATS CALLED A MONOPOLY). IF THE SPEEDS WERE ADVERTISED CORRECTLY THEN I WOULDNT HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM PAYING MORE THAN $50 A MONTH FOR SERVICE NO BETTER THAN DSL. WHAT HAPPENED TO FALSE ADVERTISMENT LAWSUITS. WE SHOULD ALL BAND TOGETHER AND FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT SO BIG IT WILL MAKE THEIR HEAD SPIN. AND HERE IS AN IDEA, INSTEAD OF SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON ADVERTISING, HOW BOUT SPENDING IT ON UPGRADING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WHY DO THEY EVEN NEED TO ADVERTISE WHEN THEY ARE THE SOLE ISP OPTION FOR MOST OF THE EAST COAST? FURTHERMORE I BELIEVE COMCAST IS THE DEVIL