Comcast Violates Internet Rules

[james ungehajer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_hi_te/internet_regulation

Interesting article about the FCC wants to punish Comcast for blocking Internet use.

Jim

 

[Ben Ruset]

Well, blocking the use of Bittorrent, at least.

The internet would be a much different place without network neutrality. I'm all for the FCC going after them. It won't go anywhere, but I'd like to see them try.

 

[bobpbx]

Comcast phoned me today---yes, little 'ol me. Asked me if I wanted to upgrade to 12 Mbps for $10 extra per month. They would not actually guarantee that though. Confuses me. I think the government should regulate this. None of us is better than anyone else. We share the bandwidth unless you are clearly a hog. Is that logical?

 

[Ben Ruset]

Well, they're apparently going after the application (Bittorrent) that hogs up the most bandwidth. That's good in principal, except that it open the door to Comcast prioritizing other types of traffic.

Lets say that Comcast partners with a video site. To stifle competition, they make less bandwidth available to the users that go visit YouTube. This hurts users because it takes away their choices, and it helps Comcast because theoretically it will drive users to the "fast" sites (that they partner with and probably share advertising revenue with.)

Bittorrent is used to pirate movies, videos, music, and software. It also is used to distribute legitimate software and music. A lot of legit companies are using the technology now. Comcast artificially limiting any traffic that looks like Bittorrent means that they're hurting the pirates as well as blocking legitimate traffic.

 

[Teegate]

I can see why the can't guarantee 12 Mbps. My service slows on certain days to the point there is no way 12 Mbps would be possible.

Guy

 

[Teegate]

Here is another article on it.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/148253/fcc_may_prohibit_comcast_traffic_management.html

Guy

 

[Ben Ruset]

I can see why the can't guarantee 12 Mbps. My service slows on certain days to the point there is no way 12 Mbps would be possible.

Guy

Guaranteeing 12Mbps for each user they have is probably way more bandwidth then is available in the USA.

 

[Boyd]

From today's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121737525991595145.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

"I'm pleased that a majority has agreed that the commission both has the authority to and in fact will stop broadband service providers when they block or interfere with subscribers' access," said Mr. Martin earlier this week. By "majority" he means himself and the two Democrats on the five-member panel. To that regulatory end, he would force Comcast to change its network management model to his liking.

To the extent that Comcast and BitTorrent have worked out their differences, Mr. Martin is forcing a solution in search of a problem. But the bigger concern is that the chairman is taking a huge step toward putting in place a regulatory regime that would give the FCC, rather than Internet service providers, unprecedented control over how consumers use the Web. Mr. Martin is also greasing the skids for a potential Barack Obama Administration to take an Internet industrial policy who knows where.

It's also not clear that the FCC even has the authority to enforce net neutrality, because Congress has never passed a law establishing such a policy. Mr. Martin claims that Comcast has violated a "set of principles" adopted by the commission in 2005. But whether a nonbinding policy statement gives five -- or even just three -- unelected regulators in Washington control of the Internet might be something for a court to decide.

Those who would use Comcast's actions to argue for more Internet regulation have misidentified the Big Brother problem. It's not the private sector they should be worried about. There's no evidence that Comcast was trying to suppress a political view or favor one of its own services. By all appearances, the company's policies were motivated by nothing more than making sure a tiny percentage of bandwidth hogs didn't slow down Internet traffic for everyone else on the network.

 

[MarkBNJ]

Guaranteeing 12Mbps for each user they have is probably way more bandwidth then is available in the USA.

You're probably right about that. I see peaks as high as 15-18 mbps, but I don't know what I really get. I do know that just recently I have begun seeing downloads at sustained speeds above 1 mbps for the first time ever. I had a sustained transfer over 2 mbps from Microsoft the other day. Whatever, it's always more than fast enough, and like every other user 99.99% of the time I'm waiting on the guy at the other end.

It would be interesting to know the history of telephone regulation. There's no question about their ability to charge more money for tiered services. But do they have a legal responsibility to connect their subscribers to any available Internet server that is not prohibited by law? Was the phone company obligated to connect every handset to every other?