Slashdot Log In
Comcast Appeals FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling
Posted by
timothy
on Thursday September 04, @06:12PM
from the makes-one-long-for-tin-cans-and-string dept.
from the makes-one-long-for-tin-cans-and-string dept.
Ian Lamont writes "Comcast has filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling that says the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles. A Comcast VP said the FCC ruling is 'legally inappropriate,' but said it will abide by the order during the appeal while moving forward with its plan to cap data transfers at 250 GB per month."
Related Stories
[+]
Comcast To Cap Data Transfers At 250 GB In October 939 comments
JagsLive writes with this story from PC Magazine: "Comcast has confirmed that all residential customers will be subject to a 250 gigabyte per month data limit starting October 1. 'This is the same system we have in place today,' Comcast wrote in an amendment to its acceptable use policy. 'The only difference is that we will now provide a limit by which a customer may be contacted.' The cable provider insisted that 250 GB is "an extremely large amount of data, much more than a typical residential customer uses on a monthly basis. ... As part of our pre-existing policy, we will continue to contact the top users of our high-speed Internet service and ask them to curb their usage,' Comcast said Thursday. 'If a customer uses more than 250 GB and is one of the top users of our service, he or she may be contacted by Comcast to notify them of excessive use,' according to the AUP."
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.
D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch them win and maintain the 250gb cap.
Comcast subscribers = butt pwnt.
Reply to This
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
If consumers dislike a particular ISPs plan, they can voice their opinions and vote with their wallets. Yes, I understand this comment is probably going to generate dozens of "but I can't get another ISP!" replies, and I preemptively dispute the validity of most of them. I'm living on a Naval installation, and I could drop my current cable provider for a number of DSL providers. Would I have the the same download speeds? Probably not, but the option is still there.
We make tradeoffs when buying services from various vendors. With respect to ISPs, some offer higher speeds but have crappy terms of service. Other providers offer "business" level accounts that don't have any caps aside from throughput, and offer static IPs and unblocked ports. You get what you pay for, and the market as a whole decides what's worth offering.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know how bad internet connectivity is on/around Naval institutions.
Leaving that aside, your dismissal of others' claims because they don't happen to apply to you and thus everyone is the height of egocentric thinking.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Informative)
The cyberonic website asks for a phone number to determine availability, and instead of simply saying yes or no, they put up another form with address, phone number, and EMAIL address demands. Then, even with all the entries filled in, they respond with "all required entries must be filled in, please 'back' and try again."
Phishing for email addresses and phone numbers. Bah. A pox on them and their ilk.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
In my area I have a number of DSL ISPs..but they ALL go through the same TELCO, so there really isn't much of a market there is they all do what the telco tells them. If the telco puts a cap, that all do.
Fortunately I also have FIOS as an option. An option I readily use.
I have lived in communities with only one option.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Funny)
OMG. I just realized.
The real-estate market is just the most insidious Internet vendor lock-in ever devised.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Our township has a municipality which provides electric, sewer, cable, and (you guessed it!) Internet.
In order to "vote" against this municipality, you also need to go "off grid" because they jack up utilities to help monopolize the local Internet service.
Additionally, we're still 1954-style copper and so the only fiber loops are from: the municipality. Hauling a DS3 from the next-nearest site would be tens of thousands of dollars for the install (Verizon tenatively quoted us 56K$USD).
There was a big project called "Network Maryland" where the whole state was supposed to get fiber construction- but they stopped just a mere 25 miles away. We paid taxes, so that the rest of Maryland could get high-speed internet, and the freedom of choice, and we just got screwed out of it.
No other ISP can compete with them here- so we don't have any others.
Here: You have to vote with your vote, and that means going door-to-door, and convincing locals to vote for something that frankly, they just don't care very much about.
Please stop telling people how content you are. You're contributing to the controversy which helps companies like Comcast, and makes things much harder for people actually trying to "vote".
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you like to have the electricity cut off at your house when you go over some amount in a month?
Right now, that limit may very well be enough for you, but what will happen in a year or so?
Returning to the electricity analogy, the power company sets the limit to a value they determine in let's say September, at a house where two old people live.
Everything's fine but summer comes and you turn air conditioning on, or maybe you have a kid and the kid starts watching tv 6 hours a day. Or maybe you start working from home instead of working at the office.
Once you accept limits and restrictions, the only way it's towards more restrictions and limitations.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hate it when people start off with their typical captialistic ideology when it doesn't apply. In the case of communications, capitalism has never existed. It has always been about a company buying rights to install infrastructure from a local government with which they could exclusively have access to customers without competition. In some cases, deals have been [quietly] made that prevents competing technologies from existing simultaneously which explains why DSL will exist where Cable internet doesn't (while, oddly enough, cable TV exists so you would think that was a no-brainer..?) and vice versa, and of course FiOS doesn't yet reach.
With the paid-for lack of competition and regulation, they have seen fit to raise prices in areas without competition and lower them where there is competition. They dink with the quality of service instead of reinvesting their [enormous -- read their SEC filings] profits to keep up with the trends and future of the world-wide internet. They lie to customers, which is actually in violation of various consumer laws in fact and in spirit, by using words like "Unlimited" to describe their service and then charge people extra for actually believing them.
What we have here is anything BUT capitalism. Capitalism can't exist where monopolies are permitted to exist.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wow. That's ironic. An anti-capitalism whiner complaining about the ISP market.
Just to clarify, the ISP market sucks because local governments sell exclusive franchises and forbid competition. The problem is precisely the lack of competition, free markets and capitalism that you rail against in the linked to journal entry. If anybody is screwing the consumers in this case, it's the government, not the ISPs.
Spinning it as a failure of capitalism is either ignorant or just plain malicious. It's a perfect example of why too much government regulation is a bad thing.
Reply to This
Parent
FCC: Stop the forgery by Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Slowing or delaying p2p is one thing, but actively forging packets [eff.org], for any reason, should be punished severely.
Forging reset packets does not equal "throttling", even if it does reduce the load on the network.
Reply to This
Re:FCC: Stop the forgery by Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you are in favor of ISPs forging traffic to prevent people from using bandwidth they paid for?
p2p, like Bittorrent are frequently used to transfer large files legally.
Reply to This
Parent
Give them the finger and walk away. (Score:5, Insightful)
The download cap is a poorly disguised attempt to head-off video downloads via the internet.
And I'm referring to the legal ones - like iTunes+Apple TV and Netflix's Roku player.
You can get video and voice from many other companies. These services require bandwidth. Buy these services from companies other than your cable company, and you will find yourself potentially hitting the cap. Buy these services from the cable company (delivered digitally) and the caps disappear.
This is a classic case of monopoly abuse.
-ted
Reply to This
Better yet ask a court to throttle your payments.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or better yet file a case in court asking it to throttle your payments to comcast: If comcast throttles your connection speed to a lower level for 20 mins, you can throttle your payment to a lower rate calculated exclusively by you for 20 mins. (say 8Mbps DSL costs $100 a month unlimited; that works out to 2 cents a minute. If the speed drops down to 15Kbps for 20 mins each day for 30 days it amounts to 8/100*0.0015*(600).
State to small-claims court that comcast is violating a contract by "damaging" goods: so you want to pay only for correctly arrived goods. Comcast's high-powered lawyers can't do shit here.
Get a court order allowing you not to pay for damaged goods: then apply your own definition of damaged goods and send off a payment you calculate along with the court order: If comcast refuses to accept the same, they are in violation of a court order: in which case you can "demand" they fulfill their contract. If they accept, then you have set a precedent.
Either way you win.
Use ingenuity instead of anger: corporates do the same. Logical, emotionless, greedy: be like them. Play them at their own game with a home advantage=Small claims court.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Sounds like Comcast's death-knell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Sounds like Comcast's death-knell... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Sounds like Comcast's death-knell... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as Dad can browse CNN.com (or other, shall we say, less savory sites), Mom can check her email, and little Joey can play his flash games, there will be no mass uprising.
Again, I'm not trying the minimize the fact that voting with your wallet is a good answer, just reminding everyone that the number of wallets involved is statistically small.
Reply to This
Parent
To: MODS -- Comcast is NOT a common carrier! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mods, please wise up: Comcast is not a common carrier
(I'll probably be downmodded to hell for pointing out the truth here, but what the heck!)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:To: MODS -- Comcast is NOT a common carrier! (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:To: MODS -- Comcast is NOT a common carrier! (Score:5, Interesting)
Safe Harbor, not common carrier, is what protects Comcast as per the DMCA and the CDA.
Common carrier is a completely different concept that affects telcos, not cable companies.
Modifying TCP streams--however repugnant--does not automatically mean the ISP is liable for the content that traverses its network. That's the law, like it or not.
they have begun monitoring and demonstrating preference for and against certain content crossing their lines. That, under the DMCA, removes all safe harbor protections.
Where is the MAFIAA when you actually WANT them to sue someone?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:commiecast doesn't get the law (Score:5, Insightful)
... inserting forged protocol packets ...
I consider content the TCP stream that delivers my (X)HTML, CSS, binary data, etc. How, exactly, is inserting additional data into the stream not modifying the content?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:commiecast doesn't get the law (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that has me curious is why they haven't been taken to court over this.
It seems to me that forging packets is both a form of communication interception, and impersonation. Which should be landing them in hot water with a number of state and federal laws.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:look for a new isp (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a move to slow down P2P.
I disagree. The more likely option is that this is a move to discourage the use of Internet-based movie services. Such services directly affect Comcast's advertising and on-demand revenue in a negative manner.
Reply to This
Parent
absofuckinglutely right (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone that has read my comments for awhile will know that I tried to point this out months ago, and got flamed for it basically.
The problem with letting Comcast or any ISP that also provides content do anything to shape or filter traffic is that there is no oversight on how they will do this to their advantage. In this case, anything that limits your video usage/sharing in favor of using their video delivery systems is an unfair advantage. This is exactly why bundling 3 or more services together is a bad idea for the consumer... very bad idea.
If Comcast is allowed to mess with traffic on their ISP services, they WILL do so in a way that favors their other services and content. I don't believe there are any scientific studies on the probability of this happening, but you won't find many people (or rocks, walls, monkeys etc) that will tell you that it's unlikely that a big corporation will act unethically if given the chance to do so when nobody is watching.
As in the case of P2P forged packets, they will do whatever they can get away with. Comcast is, and has shown themselves to be an unethical company. period. They should not be trusted. Class actions suits should follow shortly.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:look for a new isp (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, boo hoo, here come the comments from Australians saying "I only get 1KBps download speed with a 2MB cap for $100 a month!"
We know your internet sucks. We feel for you, we really do.
Just because yours is worse doesn't mean we can't fight to make ours better.
Reply to This
Parent