Slashdot Log In
P2P Fans Pound Comcast In FCC Comments
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jan 29, 2008 04:09 PM
from the do-not-fiddle-my-bits dept.
from the do-not-fiddle-my-bits dept.
Not Comcastic writes "Two weeks after officially opening proceedings on Comcast's BitTorrent throttling, angry users are bombarding the FCC with comments critical of the cable provider's practices. 'On numerous occasions, my access to legal BitTorrent files was cut off by Comcast,' a systems administrator based in Indianapolis wrote to the FCC shortly after the proceeding began. 'During this period, I managed to troubleshoot all other possible causes of this issue, and it was my conclusion (speaking as a competent IT administrator) that this could only be occurring due to direct action at the ISP (Comcast) level.' Another commenter writes 'I have experienced this throttling of bandwidth in sharing open-source software, e.g. Knoppix and Open Office. Also I see considerable differences in speed ftp sessions vs. html. They are obviously limiting speed in ftp as well.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: FCC To investigate Comcast Bittorrent Meddling 196 comments
An anonymous reader writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday that the commission will investigate complaints that Comcast actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online. A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency in November to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data and to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber. While known for months in tech circles, the issue wasn't given broad attention until an Associated Press report last year, in which reporters tested and verified the data blocking."
[+]
FCC Seeks Comment In Comcast P2P Investigation 82 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The FCC has officially opened proceedings investigating Comcast's use of Sandvine to send RST packets and 'throttle' P2P connections by disconnecting them. The petitioner, Vuze, Inc. is asking the FCC to rule that Comcast's measures do not constitute 'reasonable network management' per the FCC rules and to forbid Comcast from unreasonably discriminating against lawful Internet applications, content, and technologies. If you want to weigh in on these proceedings, you can use the Electronic Comment Filing System to comment on WC Docket no. 07-52 any time before February 13th."
Submission: Comcast gets beating from P2P fans in FCC comments by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Your Rights Online: Competitors Ally With Comcast In FCC P2P Filings 220 comments
crocoduck writes "Right before the deadline passed for filing comments in the FCC investigation of Comcast's traffic-management practices, telecoms and other cable companies submitted a slew of comments defending Comcast's actions to the FCC. 'Just about every big phone company has filed a statement challenging the FCC's authority to deal with this problem. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all submitted lengthy remarks on February 13th, the last day for comments on the proceeding (parties can still reply to comments through the 28th). "The Internet marketplace remains fundamentally healthy, and the purported 'cure' could only make it sick," AT&T's filing declared. "At best, the network-management restrictions proposed by Free Press and others would inflict wasteful costs on broadband providers in the form of expensive and needless capacity upgrades — costs that would ultimately be passed through to end users, raise broadband prices across the board, and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few."' P2P fans have also weighed in."
[+]
Comcast's Congestion Catch-22 177 comments
An anonymous reader sends us to Telephony Online for a story about Comcast's second attempt at traffic management (free registration may be required). After the heavy criticism they received from customers and the FCC about their first system, they've adopted a more even-handed "protocol agnostic" approach. Nevertheless, they're once again under scrutiny from the FCC, this time for the way their system interacts with VOIP traffic. By ignoring specific protocols, the occasional bandwidth limits on high-usage customers interferes with those customers' VOIP, yet Comcast's own Digital Voice is unaffected. Quoting:
"The shocking thing is just how big a Pandora's box the FCC has appeared to open — and it just keeps getting bigger. When the FCC first started addressing bandwidth usage and DPI issues, it quickly found itself up to its knees in network management minutia. Not long after that, it followed another logical path of the DPI question and asked service providers and Web companies about their use of DPI for behavioral targeting. Now it seemingly has opened up huge questions about what it means to be a voice carrier in the age of IP. It's not hard to imagine the next step: What about video? Telco IPTV services are delivered in roughly the same way as carrier VoIP services — via packets running on the same physical network but a prioritized logical signaling stream. Is that fair to over-the-top video service providers?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well, whatever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, whatever. (Score:4, Funny)
+++
Parent
fortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
As for myself, I plan to dump Comcast right away and switch to... oh wait, Comcast is my only option for Internet access. Well.
Perhaps I'll go dig out the ol' 2400 baud modem, maybe I can find a BBS to call.
Re:fortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
old monopolies don't die, they just find new ways to rip you off.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US, this is how AT&T got broken, and POTS is now better and cheaper than before. (Yes, VOIP may be even better and cheaper, but the telephone benefits predated that.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks to the 100M cable limit, Ethernet can't be used easily for that without going to fiber optic or something else... so much for the easy cost.
I'm trapped with Comcast too. AT&T says they are deploying U-Verse near me (they've been doing the digging) but I expect it will be at least 1 year or two late. I can't wait to move off.
There are a few options. You can use WiFi links over long distances with better antennas and a good line of sight... but this requires the other person to be able to get som
Re:fortunately (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
How to view submitted complaints (Score:5, Informative)
Go to this page [fcc.gov] and put "07-52" into the "Proceeding" field.
Comments are in PDF form, so turn off "View in Browser" in Acrobat.
Some Canadian ISPs are going a step further (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this apply to HTTP over SSL connections?
Of course, they simply cannot tell the difference between HTTP over SSL and... well, anything else over "SSL"...
And, of course, one could just run, say, bi
Make it Public (Score:4, Interesting)
This might be a little off-topic, but the common wisdom is that Comcast and other cable companies have monopolies on providing high-speed internet access in many areas. I realize they have competition from DirectTV (Satellite TV) and Broadcast Television for providing varying quality in Cable/TV entertainment, and that there is up-and-coming competition from Verizon to provide high-speed internet.
Is there any way to extend the "Public Broadcast TV" metaphor into the internet space? I could live with whatever downstream connection is required to watch YouTube videos... and upload streams that would pale in comparison to anybody running P2P services. Seriously, though, "light" internet users like me to subsidizing it for everybody else.
As for as throttling, Comcast is behaving unethically by stopping legitimate uses of P2P networks (sharing F/OSS distributions) and they should be heavily fined (I'm going to pull a RIAA-style gross sum of money from my ass), how about $500,000 per unethical P2P blockage? So divide the number of FCC complains in half, and then add the words "Millions" after it, and hand Comcast the bill.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there is a way to extend the "public infrastructure" metaphor into Internet service. UTOPIA [utopianet.org] is (what looks to be) an awesome project that's been rolled out in Utah. It's a fiber-to-the-premises network. The fiber is publicly owned, over which providers then sell services (Internet, phone, etc).
To me this looks like an absolutely genius plan. Service providers get free infrastructure (i.e. a bigger market to sell
FCC vs. CSR (Score:5, Interesting)
The key to solving this is to make unfettered P2P connections the least cost option for Comcast. That means increasing the costs of not providing those connections. FCC fines might do it (assuming the FCC acts), but high customer service cost certainly will.
Giant wake-up call for Comcast? (Score:3, Funny)
Only a problem when it is unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
I have specifically chosen an ISP who promise they don't use any kind of throttling. On the other hand I did'nt go with the cheapest ISP I could find. My ISP has a "true flatrate" policy. No maximum usage and no throttling. The price is accordingly a little higher.
Most of my family does not use P2P in any way, and rarely download anything at all. For them, a low price is more important. And lets face it: this kind of bandwidth throttling was only invented because 5% of the customers consume 90% of the ISPs backbone resources. If this wasn't an issue, nobody would have invented the damn thing.
I don't think throttling should be illegal. It should only be illegal to use throttling and not tell customers about it. Throttling keeps the price down for ISPs, and they should be perfectly allowed to implemented - as long as all their customers are aware of it. In that way, if you don't want an ISP/product with throttling you can simply choose another ISP/product.
Bandwidth costs money. Free competition dictates that all ISPs will be seeking ways to lower their costs and in that way offer the consumers lower prices. This is a good thing, as long as customers know what they are buying.
Therefore: Allow throttling, but force ISPs to clearly state which products are subject to throttling. In that way, customers can buy the product they find suitable for their needs, and the "heavy users" can pay a higher price for their actual usage.
It is no different than your (cell)phone bill: if you call people 24/7, of if you buy a true flatrate product, it will cost more than just calling your mom for 5 minutes twice a month. Just as it should.
- Jesper
Forgery, not throttling (Score:5, Insightful)
Strawman, but not your fault: I just realized the article summary makes the same mistake.
This isn't about throttling. Some people bitch about throttling, but what Comcast has been doing goes far beyond that. It's the RST packet forgery that has people super-pissed.
I see that you support throttling (if done openly and exposed to market forces), and your arguments seem reasonable. But what do you think of packet forgery?
Parent
ISP's aren't throttling...they're adding burst (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the Internet becoming useless? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've noticed that my P2P traffic seems to upload OK but downloads very slowly.
And I don't know where the problem is.
Knology, my ISP, claims they don't throttle. But how do I know someone somewhere along the way isn't throttling?
Even if I bothered to dig into the problem, I'm sure all I would get for my troubles would be a lot of finger pointing.
The bottom line is, if the internet quits working the way I want to use it, I'll quit paying for it, because it will have become useless to me.
Re:Failure of the natural monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Failure of the natural monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Here we come Verizon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
Say what you will, but they are the ONLY ISP who didn't roll over and provide their customers info to the RIAA. Theyd
fought for their customers right of privacy to the Supreme court and PREVAILED.
In this day and age... that means something.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, but it does. If you're worried about the NSA, you're... well, stuffed, really. Encrypt everything you can, and check for hardware keyloggers on the cable every morning before you log on.
Most of us, in practice, aren't worried about the NSA other than in the abstract. We're not organising political protests or anything. We're doing nothing to attract their attention. But we are worried about the MAFIAA, because a lot of us are... well, we are doing things to attract their attention. Gigabytes of things. Daily. An ISP that will stand up for its customers against those guys is golden.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
The mere fact that you can state you "aren't worried about the NSA" and in the same paragraph say "we're not organizing political protests or anything" is pretty depressing. And I don't know which part is worse -- thinking that you might actually have a reason to fear the NSA because of political protects (First Amendment, what??) or me being cynical enough to understand why you would draw that conclusion.
How far we have fallen.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
The phone companies didn't have to turn over anything "as required by law". The government made a request, and all the others gave them what they wanted when it WASN'T required by law. It wasn't a legal demand, because the government didn't have the legal right. Qwest basically said "show us the warrant and you can have any of the information it specifies". Seeing there never was any warrants, nothing was turned over by Qwest.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they were required by law to tell the NSA to go fuck themselves and get a FISA warrant. I mean, FISA is a rubberstamp secret court, but at least it keeps a trail and is there to prevent exactly the same sort of dragnet that they installed in the first place.
Is it really a Democrat or Republican thing whether the word of the Executive is law? Last I looked, martial law was not in effect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw some billboards around here (put up by Comcast) that said
"Three words: We're Not Verizon"
Which I thought was a funny ad campaign, since in my experience, they're so much worse than Verizon.
I mean, Verizon sucks too, but at least they're not Comcast.
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:4, Funny)
Please turn in your grammar-nazi badge at the door.
In traditional grammar, a contraction is the formation of a new word from one or more individual words. [wikipedia.org] -- This is the very first sentence in the referenced article by the way.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Trading one monopoly for another? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, from what I'm guessing, it you don't like your ISP providing the FIOS connection, you cannot get another ISP that can use that FIOS connection.
IOW: you are just locking yourself into another monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trading one monopoly for another? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if the power goes out and your FiOS backup battery dies....... at least POTS on copper is line powered.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:u didnt share that HBO show? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:u didnt share that HBO show? (Score:5, Insightful)
There! That'll fix it.
Parent
That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was quoted in the Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] article. Here is the text of my FCC comment.
Dear Commissioners,
As a longtime customer of the Comcast Corporation (CMCSA) I feel it is necessary for me to provide you with my views and opinions regarding their use of throttling bandwidth for point to point (P2P) users that access their network.
File sharing is a gray area with regards to the law. It can be used
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Y
Re:Bit Torrent has been hijacked by thieves (Score:5, Informative)
Overselling isn't the problem. Way, way overselling is. Some things can be oversold without a problem, including bandwidth.
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got Comcast at home, and lately anything over
I grabbed my laptop, hit the OpenVPN button to my server in a datacenter in Atlanta, and surprise! The pages loaded instantly.
Between P2P throttling and general crappy service, I sincerely hope that this suit changes things for the better.
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, Comcast may be really hurting themselves in the long run; if it gets bad enough, P2P software writers will switch to UDP, and manually do the in-order/reliable delivery stuff themselves. TCP has a lot of fancy congestion control, and I doubt that the P2P writers will bother with it...
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:4, Informative)
So, I can get like 3mbit upstream for a bit, but then it scales back to 1mbit/sec. If I stop the transfer and wait a bit, then start again, I'll get the fast speed again for a little bit. Same is true on downstream - I'll get ~24mbit/sec down for a bit, then it'll throttle back to the 8mbit I pay for.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* I know. Wasn't it a magical time when the internet was ALL porn and NO javascript??
Parent
Re:So about that witch hunt... (Score:5, Informative)
For example, there's a well documented incident where Comcast's RST injection is killing Lotus Notes sessions where moderate sized (>1MB) attachments are sent.
Parent
I'll color you wrong, thank you. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you prefer them watching their connectivity slow to a crawl because of the hundreds of thousands of YOUTUBE users. Oh guess what. If you have a favorite youtube video, there's no easy way to download it. You need to re-download it again and again and again.
Want to download your favorite videos? Download them