ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney
Home / News & Blogs / Linux and Open Source

FCC starts Comcast cover-up on net neutrality

By | January 16, 2008, 6:41am PST

Summary: Once Comcast’s nonsense is approved by the FCC, the Bells will also be free to transform the Internet into something more akin to their mobile phone networks, where the network gets a cut of everything and controls what you can access.

FCC chair Kevin MartinThe Bush FCC has launched an “inquiry” which will likely kill net neutrality complaints by deeming throttling of BitTorrent traffic “reasonable.”

Having watched the FCC of Kevin Martin, and other Bush Administration agencies, transform Internet access from a highly competitive marketplace into a cable-Bell duopoly, I’m more than skeptical that anything will come out of the new proceeding.

You may disagree. I hope you’re right.

The FCC is responding to petitions from net neutrality proponents, seeking Comcast’s arguments before answering them. It has not launched any of its own investigations about violations of net neutrality.

As Broadband Reports notes, Comcast has been throttling BitTorrent, an open source file sharing protocol, for months. Its argument is that this is “network management,” when it is in fact the protection of its control over video delivery.

The business model of cable operators like Comcast is to charge both sides of every video transaction.

Cable networks are charged for reaching the consumer, sometimes in the form of ad minutes. Consumers are charged for having the programs available, whether or not they watch them.

Protocols like BitTorrent threaten this model by allowing Internet users to quickly-and-easily move the programs they want over the Internet. You can see just how threatening this is through open source programs like Miro.

Those sending the files save money by having the traffic load dispersed, which is why many other open source projects, like OpenOffice, use BitTorrent to deliver software.

The FCC is “going after” Comcast only because the Bells, which also oppose net neutrality, are its most favored ISPs. Comcast is cast as the bad guy, but its lawyers will argue they’re just “delaying traffic,” in the name of “protecting” their network.

This is a legal fiction. Peer-to-peer traffic does not threaten the integrity of the Internet. What it threatens is the integrity of Bell and cable business models, while delaying needed reform in content business models.

Once Comcast’s nonsense is approved by the FCC, the Bells will also be free to transform the Internet into something more akin to their mobile phone networks, where the network gets a cut of everything and controls what you can access.

The only good news is that this is 2008. Raise holy heck now, make this a political issue, and we might get some real action next year.

Meanwhile all I can do is be steamed.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Linux and Open Source”

Topics

FCC, BitTorrent, Network, Comcast Corp., Net Neutrality, Cable, News, Bush FCC, Federal Government, Internet, Government, Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
50
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

50%?
drobinow 14th Feb 2008
You'll never get 50% because only 2% of Comcast customers are "abusive". Comcast is acting in the interest of the majority of its customers. Most customers don't even know what this fight is about and wouldn't care if they did know.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
How about waiting for the decision ....
ShadeTree 16th Jan 2008
... before condeming it? Shouldn't you be posting for the Huffington Post or Moveon.Org instead of a tech site? That is where I expect to find the Liberal spin. Not here!
0 Votes
+ -
Liberal spin? DUH - Only liberals fight monopolies, those bad liberals! -NT
raycote 16th Jan 2008
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Daring to criticise corrupt corporate behavior ...
George Mitchell 16th Jan 2008
will get you branded as a Communist every time happy
0 Votes
+ -
Why wait?
BitTwiddler 16th Jan 2008
Because, especially when the government is involved, it is nearly impossible to stuff the crap back into the horse...
0 Votes
+ -
...said the Comcast employee. (nt)
el1jones 29th Jan 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
Explain to me...
Vesicant 16th Jan 2008
...How it's "neutral" to let bandwidth hogs like BitTorrent clog up the network to the exclusion of other apps and uses that have just as much right to be there? Do you subscribe to some kind of might makes right theory?
0 Votes
+ -
P2P network hogging
HooNoze 16th Jan 2008
BitTorrent is not that much of a network hog. It is a distributed distribution protocol, and as such it tends to spread the network load over a large area. The most likely point on the network that may see any congestion is near the end customer, and the customer is paying for the bandwidth.

What companies like Comcast are trying to do is create a revenue stream from data that they do not own. They are advertising and promoting themselves as an internet service providers, but they are attempting to act as a content provider and regulator.

It sounds like you're opposed to the "they advertise it, so I pay for it, so they should deliver it" theory.
0 Votes
+ -
Their prerogative is to charge heavy users extra not censor protocols - NT
raycote 16th Jan 2008
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, but no...
DanaBlankenhorn 16th Jan 2008
The test which proved this throttling was going on involved a fairly small file -- the Bible.

What you're claiming is anyone who uses this protocol is automatically a bandwidth hog, therefore this protocol can be throttled.

Which is nonsense.
0 Votes
+ -
In all fairness ...
George Mitchell 16th Jan 2008
He used the term "heavy users". That doesn't sound to me like he is singling out bittorrent users. Certainly any usage limits would have to be applied without regard to content. Singling out a particular protocol just because SOME who use it generate abusive amounts of traffic AND/OR SOME who use it violate copyright law is JUST WRONG.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, what about legit heavy users - like, oh, YouTube or Ti
drprodny 17th Jan 2008
We already HEARD the first time this came around how Comcast, Verizon and T-W sees them - and us - as no better than a bunch of "bandwidth thieves" stealing their precious bandwidth...that they want to sell you crap streams of AMMURIKAN IDOL on!

It figures that Shade Tree would be a MSFT-sucking Bushstepping little Big Corporatist Apologist, doesn't it? I wish him well of HIS fascist regime - I'd rather live in America, thank you all the same....
0 Votes
+ -
They already do & why cable is crying
devlin_X 17th Jan 2008
The ISP providers offer a range of speeds for a range of prices. The "heavy users" get the higher capacity bandwidth connections which cost more than those of us who have lower needs and so buy a lower bandwidth service.

Cable is just crying because their way of providing internet access to its users sucks in that everyone shares the line. e.g. If you lets say are on cable internet 5 miles from the provider at around 4pm and your happily downloading at 5mbps then around 5pm hits and people start comming home from work and getting online and you suddenly realize your 5mbps is now down around 1 or 2mbps...why? because everyone between you and your cable isp are on line now and each system in between is sucking some bandwidth away.

This is why I stuck with DSL. With DSL each DSL modem is a separate connection to the provider meaning if I was running at 3mbps I would not be affected by any of my neighbors between my house and my DSL provider there by not loosing transfer speed due to them getting online.

Currently I'm running 768kbps personally because I only do large dowloads (download 700MB or larger) at most once per month. If I needed to download larger volumes I'd get a higher speed connection and would obviously pay more for the ability to have a larger bandwidth at my convince.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't think they will stop at p2p traffic.
bjbrock 16th Jan 2008
They will throttle whatever they want to. And when they get around to throttling something you want to use, you will sing a different tune.
0 Votes
+ -
Shade Tree? NAWWW!
drprodny 17th Jan 2008
He's a BIG Corporate-Rethuglican Plus Quisling Lieberman Luvver, body and soul! Just the kind of Good German who will meekly submit to whatever outrage his Lords and Masters fling on him, and take out his impotent fury on his fellow citizens for perceived "treason" - just like all the pro-"War on Terror" phony flagwavers!
0 Votes
+ -
It's not bandwidth throttling ...
MisterMiester 16th Jan 2008
Comcast is doing something far more insidious then your usual run of the mill bandwidth throttling. Comcast is actually sending forged RST packets to users who are only seeding a torrent unless one of the leeches is also a Comcast user. These RST packets then drop the connection and attempts to reconnect are futile since as soon as you reconnect another RST is sent.

It gets worse, not only does Comcast send the forged RST packets to its users but to leeches outside of the Comcast subnet. What this means is Comcast is using a "man in the middle" attack, similar to a DOS, by injecting these forged packets into the torrent stream.

This is a plain violation of communications law since Comcast is injecting these packets assuming the identity of both the seeder and the leech. So this whole fiasco with Comcast goes way beyond just throttling service.
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent Point ...
George Mitchell 16th Jan 2008
This is VERY different than simply restricting bandwidth.
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent Point
drprodny 17th Jan 2008
Disgusting as bandwidth throttling is, it's not (currently) illegal. But what Comcast is doing is illegal, even in The Traitor Bush's Ammurika - well, until Bush unilaterally declares it "legal" b/c he needs Comcast not to flip on his traitorous activities regarding indiscriminately spying on all of us....
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent point.... thus it's illegal? (nt)
el1jones 29th Jan 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
Bittorrent actually DOSs the network.
osreinstall 16th Jan 2008
There is no limit to the number of nodes to go search for. This slows down the network overall so you can get a little more speed. The results are diminishing in return. This creates a packet blizzard that other traffic has to fight. I can download a linux distro in 18 minutes using the traditional way of downloading from a server. Bittorrent takes hours to do the same thing. It has always been this way on RR. Not only that, you get an email from RR suggesting RR Business Class. That tells me I was being a bandwidth hog.

Nothing wrong with throttling back any service a network believes is detrimental to their business. All they have to do is spell it out in the service agreement. I believe Comcast did not do this and are wrong for not disclosing it. So Comcast is sneaky and their customers are greedy for content. They deserve each other.
0 Votes
+ -
Greedy for content?
George Mitchell 16th Jan 2008
Comcast, like all the other providers barks loudly about their "speed". This is like advertising a 3000 sq ft rental home and when the tenant moves in, they find out they are only allowed to use 150 sq ft of the space. The way you see it, the tenant and landlord deserve each other since the landlord was sneaky in their advertising and the tenant is obviously greedy for space. That is truly an interesting way to look at the situation. But of course that is typically the way big corporations look at things these days. "Let them eat cake!"
0 Votes
+ -
Now you are getting it.
osreinstall 16th Jan 2008
Yes the are greedy for content. It is more like they want to build an addition on to that 3000 sq ft so they can use 6000 sq ft. But sometimes you can only use 1500 sq ft because your neighbor nodes will not stay within their 3000 sq ft. Of course if they don't like Comcast, switch to another provider. Like I said they deserve each other the way they like to inflict pain on each other.
0 Votes
+ -
What they should have done,
devlin_X 17th Jan 2008
is to have put a bandwidth limit set in their cable modems. That way no one customer could exceed what their cable ISP expected to be the limit their customers would utilize. If a customer wanted more capacity give them a modem with a higher bandwidth limit and charge accordingly.

Why didn't they do this in the first place? I believe they were either extremely short sighted (doubtful) or more realistically they wanted to be able to advertise a higher connection speed/bandwidth than the DSL/FiOS companies.
0 Votes
+ -
It is there but not advertised.
osreinstall 17th Jan 2008
All you have to do is exceed it and you get an email from RR stating you should go with RR Business class. However it should be spelled out on what that limit is. When I downloaded Vista RCx in a couple hours, which was about 3 gigs, I did not get a letter. But if you use Bittorrent you will if you download the same amount. That means it uses a lot more bandwidth due to its search for nodes. It also means it is an intermittent service.

I believe that the bandwidth speeds are an intermittent service and not continuously rated. You can have those speeds for a while on assigned IP addresses, but you must take turns with your neighbors. When they say "always on" that is misleading because that means around the clock. The service providers never invisioned a app like Bittorrent that would never take turns with anything else. So if you want continuous duty, you have to pay twice as much for RR Business Class.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: FCC starts Comcast cover-up on net neutrality
carlino 16th Jan 2008
Comcast advertises a speed to their high speed, high bandwidth customers of 12 mbs. If they are bandwidth throttling because they cannot deliver that speed then they are guilty of fraud. At the very least they are engaged in an organized practice of misrepresenting the capabilities of their network and then using possibly illegal methods to try and keep that deception from their customers.
0 Votes
+ -
This is just wrong.
Joe_Racer 16th Jan 2008
If my contract with Comcast says unlimited bandwidth then it's unlimited bandwidth.

What difference does it make if I want to download an ISO vis FTP or Torrent?

The reality here is Torrent users are labeled as "bad users" who have no respect for IP and copyrights. (Some rightfully so) And like the evil smoker, it's easy to condemn those people because they are almost always the minority.

If Comcast is so concerned about this, they need to put it in their contract that they will filter Torrents or charge for bandwidth over a certain level and then let the market decide what happens. But my guess is they loose lots of customers. So doing this behind the scenes and making these users out to be cheating the general public makes them look like they care. But all they care about is that you pay the bill.
0 Votes
+ -
No place to go ...
terry flores 16th Jan 2008
"But my guess is they loose lots of customers."

Lose to who? In my area you have exactly 2 choices, TW cable or ATT DSL. There is nowhere else to go for broadband service. Many areas only have ONE choice. That was a major point of the article; the telecom providers have government-sanctioned monopolies in their respective areas, so if they are not "neutral" there really isn't any alternative except to pay them whatever they ask.

This is a big show-stopper to MOIP (movies over IP). Bittorrent is actually pretty low throughput compared to downloading movies from media servers at Netflix and iTunes. YouTube and other video sharing sites have intentionally limited their service to short low-res formats because of the network bottlenecks. But for watchable movies in large-screen format, you need gigabyte-plus downloads, and all it takes is a few of those to get you marked as UNDESIRABLE by Time Warner or Comcast.

"The reality here is Torrent users are labeled as "bad users" who have no respect for IP and copyrights."

This is a key issue: Comcast is abusing people who are perceived to be unable to fight back. If you are downloading illegal content, then you can't very well complain to the authorities when your downloads don't work, right?

Finally, I agree with the writer that the FCC will completely subvert any consumer rights in their actions; they have an unbroken track record of selling out the very people they are supposed to serve. Abolishment of the FCC would serve us all better, since everyone would KNOW that we must protect ourselves, and that there is nobody "up there" in Washington to look out for us. That fairy tale is long past, but so many people still believe in it.
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds like an oppertunity to me
Joe_Racer 16th Jan 2008
"Lose to who? In my area you have exactly 2 choices, TW cable or ATT DSL. There is nowhere else to go for broadband service. Many areas only have ONE choice. That was a major point of the article; the telecom providers have government-sanctioned monopolies in their respective areas, so if they are not "neutral" there really isn't any alternative except to pay them whatever they ask."

Lining in rural New Mexico, I have no DSL, or Cable available to me. Yet there were two different wireless "high speed" providers available to me. It sounds like you could use some competition there to hold Comcast in line.
0 Votes
+ -
Just tell customers the truth...
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Jan 2008
Won't even get into the argument of BitTorrent and file "sharing", my issue is that ISPs SELL their services with promices of high speed, always available, broadband but then find ways to back away from the promices.

Users that do in fact use the bandwidth they were promiced are labled as "bandwidth hogs" and face having services stopped or be pushed into buying a more expensive plan.

All ISPs should be required to state in plain english exactly what the limitaitons are and at what point does using what was paid for become an issue.
0 Votes
+ -
Right on the mark ...
George Mitchell 16th Jan 2008
And they should be able to throttle it or even block it, but they should not be able to inject malicious data into ANY customer's data stream. But as you point out, it should all be up front and in the contract agreement. Certainly, another option would be to simply charge more for bittorrent service. A lot of people posting here would likely be unhappy with that option, but there has to come a time when the costs of providing Internet access are rationalized and those costs are not only driven by "speed", they are also, in the end, driven by overall usage. On the consumer side, everybody hates the term "metered" Internet service, but the reality is, the Internet service that initially resembled telephone service, is more and more resembling electric service with some users using vast amounts of resources and others merely wanting to be "connected". How this can ever be rationalized in a business sense without some form of metering or tiered thresholds is unclear to me. If someone else here has a solution, I'm all ears.
0 Votes
+ -
Shocked and amazed.....I'm agreeing w/ No_Axe!
devlin_X 17th Jan 2008
Never thought I'd see the day but I must say this is the first thing I think I've agreed with you on!

Have you ever seen WildBlue's terms they call Fair Access Policy? They are pretty direct in what they will allow and not allow.
0 Votes
+ -
I.... must.... agree... (kills me)
el1jones 29th Jan 2008
but you're dead on right. I purchased bandwidth and should be able to use it however I see fit. I don't even mind them charging a bit (that's a little bit) more to guarantee it, but don't punish people for using the promised bandwidth.
0 Votes
+ -
Death stroke for Movies over IP (MOIP)
terry flores 16th Jan 2008
If this is how the cable companies treat a relatively small subset of users with torrent, imagine how they will react if something like Apple's or Netflix's movie service takes off. Talk about using bandwidth! I will bet two things happen:

1) they will go to the content providers and demand additional surcharges to pay for the network usage;

2) they will raise rates on all users, AND create additional tiers of service based on traffic type. In other words, if you want to download videos from iTunes, you will be REQUIRED to buy the $90/month package from Comcast. If you don't, you will be prevented from accessing the server or the protocols needed to download the movie.

This gets back to the point the writer made about cable companies charging BOTH ends (provider and subscriber) to deliver the service.

Anybody want to bet money on it?
0 Votes
+ -
Time-Warner announces usage-based broadband pricing
terry flores 17th Jan 2008
Too bad nobody took my bet. Please note that NOBODY will see there broadband bill go down from this. EVERYBODY will see a price increase, but the most hideous price increases will be for those people who attempt to use broadband IP to access movies on demand, which is in direct competition to Time-Warner's cable services.

Steve Jobs thought he had a great deal sewn up with the Hollywood studios, now Time-Warner is going to prove exactly how wrong he was ...
0 Votes
+ -
Not a fan of MOIP
r1r1p1@... 17th Jan 2008
Everyone has their own thing. But, I for one don't agree with MOIP for two reasons. 1.) It uses excess bandwidth that further slows down the internet overall. 2.) I would rather give my money to a local video rental store owned by a local person than give it to some big company. The little guy likes to make a living also. Just my self preference. I'm a little person myself. (Own my own company) So I support the little guy all I can in hopes that it will return my way. The big companies will not help you at all. All they want is all your money. /b DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM!
0 Votes
+ -
Grab yer drawers, folks...
BitTwiddler 16th Jan 2008
Because the Government doesn't take it in the shorts. Big business doesn't take it in the shorts. Telecoms don't take it in the shorts.

Consumers are ALWAYS the one's to take it in the shorts, especially during the current anti-consumer administration.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Anti-consumer administration
devlin_X 17th Jan 2008
" Consumers are ALWAYS the one's to take it in the shorts, especially during the current anti-consumer administration."

How do you get an "anti-consumer administration"? Is it governments role to tell a business how to operate? No, it's the consumers role. If a business is crapping on you DON'T give them your business! Enough people do this and either the business changes how it deals with it's customers or it goes under. Why people think government should be the answer for everything that doesn't go as they think it should is beyond me. I guess it's just the laziness not to have to act themselves.

It's like the people that complain we import too much from China yet go shopping at Wal-Mart which pushed many US manufactures to close their plants and have their products made in China.
0 Votes
+ -
Hooray! Devlin_X
r1r1p1@... 17th Jan 2008
I've been telling people this for years, but no one will listen. The people are the government. If you don't like a product, or don't agree with a companies actions, take action yourself and don't buy from them. Put the squeeze on them and make them change.

Unfortunately people are to stupid and lazy to do this!
0 Votes
+ -
We WOULD - IF Comcast, T-W and Verizon didn't RUN Everything
drprodny 17th Jan 2008
You say, "You don't like it, shop elesewhere!"

I say, "Hmmm - easy to say...hard to do, when my choices are WalMart, Sam's Club, and - Oh! ANOTHER WalMart! Wonder where the competition is -

"Oh, THAT's right. All you 'free-market' types let the monopolistic Big Corporate Stores/Providers/Software Companies drive them out of business in some sick misreading of Ayn Rand, didn't you...?"
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe I should restate!
r1r1p1@... 17th Jan 2008
What I'm saying is, everyone needs to get together. If, (I know it would almost be impossible) you could get 50% of Comcast customers to all call in and tell them you want your accounts disconnected, where would that leave them. One word "Bankrupt". I can guarnatee you they would change their tune.
0 Votes
+ -
50%?
drobinow 14th Feb 2008
You'll never get 50% because only 2% of Comcast customers are "abusive". Comcast is acting in the interest of the majority of its customers. Most customers don't even know what this fight is about and wouldn't care if they did know.
0 Votes
+ -
They don't...
devlin_X 17th Jan 2008
You say, "You don't like it, shop elesewhere!"

I say, "Hmmm - easy to say...hard to do, when my choices are WalMart, Sam's Club, and - Oh! ANOTHER WalMart! Wonder where the competition is -


There are others such as Target, Kmart, Old Navy, Marshalls, Ocean State Job lot(yeah, this ones reaching)... There are alternatives. Yes, they may not be as cheap but they have the same basic assortment of products and if you really don't like Walmart put your money where your mouth is and DON'T shop there.
This is also possible with the internet for the most part. There is satellite Internet access...yes it costs more but you don't have to deal with Comcast or Verizon.


"Oh, THAT's right. All you 'free-market' types let the monopolistic Big Corporate Stores/Providers/Software Companies drive them out of business in some sick misreading of Ayn Rand, didn't you...?"


No... the consumer did that.... If the consumer didn't use their services, shop in their stores, or buy their software those big corporations wouldn't exist now would they? Or are you going to tell me a men in black suites comes to your house, puts a gun to your head and says "that better be Windows on that PC!", "You are only allowed to shop at Walmart or you will be tossed in to prison", "You have to use Verizon or Comcast for your internet you are not ALLOWED to use any other service". We as consumers GAVE them the power they now have and we can take it back but only if we are willing to take our business elsewhere (even if it means a higher cost) and can get others to do the same. Um...who the hell is Ayn Rand?

Personally as many here know I'm by no means a fan of Microsoft (the software monopoly of which you infer) and as such I took my stand and I deleted their products from all of the computers in my house. I don't like that Walmart pushed many US manufactures into sending their manufacturing jobs to China and throwing thousands onto the unemployment lines so... I don't do Wal-Mart (no not even for the linux based 199.99 PC) BTW I solved that delema turns out NewEgg carries the same system for the same price happy Hey Walmart kiss my ( | ) !

You can't put this on a government administration you can only put it on the shoulders of those who financially support those businesses by buying their products and/or services.
0 Votes
+ -
GOTCHA CAPITALISM is what it is...
ordaj@... 17th Jan 2008
Yes, governments job is to define and set limits, to police business. Otherwise, they would lie, cheat, and steal the public. Oh wait, they already do.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248143/
0 Votes
+ -
So do most politicians....Rep,/Dem./Ind (NT)
devlin_X 17th Jan 2008
(NT)
0 Votes
+ -
RE: FCC starts Comcast cover-up on net neutrality
jamesrenz@... 16th Jan 2008
This is BS. The Bush FCC? Does anyone think another president in charge will have a different outcome? Give me a effing break, the FCC is it's own entity and does not go to the Leader of the Free World for all of it's decisions... PLEASE!
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, the BUSH FCC!
drprodny 17th Jan 2008
The swing vote is Bush Appointee Kevin Martin - who thinks Janet Jackson's nipple is a dangerous threat to the Republic...but thinks Australian Faux Noize owner Rupert Murdoch owning half the media outlets in the U.S. (and rest of the English-speaking world!) is just peachy, thank you!
0 Votes
+ -
On its face this has nothing to do with the crime of "net neutrality"
Omch'Ar 16th Jan 2008
This is simply a mercantilist company trying to do its part to help the State bring neo-feudalism to America.

Sadly, people think they can address this dirty socialism by enacting other forms of dirty socialism like the vile "net neutrality." Like Hitler fighting Stalin, only the people would end up suffering.

Socialism is cancer; free markets are the answer. Make Comcast actually compete in a free market, and watch them go *poof* bankrupt.
0 Votes
+ -
You missed something - Comcast is a monopoly
terry flores 17th Jan 2008
"Socialism is cancer; free markets are the answer. Make Comcast actually compete in a free market, and watch them go *poof* bankrupt."

You forgot something: Comcast, Time-Warner, and ATT are sanctioned monopolies in most communities. In my area, there is exactly ONE cable company allowed by law: TWC. If Joe's Cable Company wants to compete, he can't. He's not allowed to run a cable to my house, he's not allowed to offer competing services, period.

It gets worse: Companies like Time-Warner and Comcast are funding lobbying against municipal Wi-Fi and WiMax operators in our area. So not only do they protect their established monopoly, they are also working to suppress any competition using new or different technologies.

If you want a "free market", then you have to overturn decades of of existing legislation granting monopolies to the incumbent companies. This is the most overlooked problem of all.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, acknowledging municipal monopolies DOES put a spanner in their
drprodny 17th Jan 2008
"free market" panacea, after all.... silly

It's not that I think Omch-Ar and others like him are even necessarily wrong, in principle - I just think they're studiously ignoring that a quarter century of Reagan Republican AND "Republican Lite" Clinton-Lieberman Democrat rule has tossed the game to Ayn Rand's "looters and moochers". When Big Telco has consistently whined that they need a 10-year monopoly to pay for all the wonderful goods&services they can offer, and after getting it delivers next to NONE of them - and STILL keep getting new monopolies after this is common knowledge? That's Rand's "Aristocracy of Pull" in action....
0 Votes
+ -
I don't understand your point
John Musbach 17th Jan 2008
I don't think you understand how bandwidth is paid for very well. You act like without BitTorrent people would be paying Comcast directly so that they can get their content delivered to Comcast customers. However this infact is not true, the alternative to p2p networks is the purchasing of a dedicated server in a datacenter. Customers of such a setup then pay the datacenter for their bandwidth and the datacenter pays their upstream providers with that money. Examples of such upstream providers are:



Fellow
**

Group: Super Moderators
Posts: 139
Joined: 16-July 03
From: Pepperell, MA
Member No.: 37,900




?? UUNet - GigE Connection (1000Mbps)

?? Level 3 - GigE Connection (1000Mbps)

?? Verio - GigE Connection (1000Mbps)

?? Time Warner - GigE Connection(1000Mbps)

?? Global Crossing - GigE Connection (1000Mbps)

?? Allegiance Telecom - GigE Connection (1000Mbps)

?? ATT - OC3 Connection (155Mbps)

... Comcast then pays to have a upstream connection to those providers so that Comcast customers can access servers that use those upstream providers to connect to the internet. So no matter what Comcast ends up spending money either way and in either situation Comcast receives no more money then they otherwise would.

The real issue at hand here is how bandwidth consumption affects other customers. Contrary to popular belief bandwidth is finite and does not flow at a infinitely growing rate. The way cable broadband (ala Comcast) works is that fiber is shared among neighborhood streets and thus if one neighbor uses a disproportionally large amount of bandwidth there's a potential that that neighbor's activity could adversely affect the other neighbors who also use Comcast for their internet access. This is where the 200gb monthly limit and BitTorrent throttling comes in, rather then do the right thing and expand the bandwidth available to neighborhoods Comcast has decided to take a cheaper approach and establish these hidden limits to attempt to curb bandwidth abuse. This would hardly be as big a issue as it currently is if Comcast stated that these actions occurred in their TOS...

- John Musbach
0 Votes
+ -
You skipped over the selective filtering part ...
terry flores 17th Jan 2008
and Comcast doing it subversively in a way that does not cause the program to report an error, but by spoofing it into suboptimal performance. This is both deceitful and discriminatory, because it assumes that a bittorrent user is "bad" for the network, even if their usage is light compared to a gamer or Apple TV user.

If Comcast had simply enforced a usage cap (whether it was hidden or publicly disclosed) then the process would have been simple: the user consumed his 6.66 GB a day then the lights went out until his quota was renewed tomorrow. But by selectively targeting a particular program and then concealing the affects of their interference, Comcast crossed the line.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix