FCC Boss Says Comcast Guilty, Should Be PunishedFCC will vote August 1 on how exactly to slap their wrist... 08:37AM Friday Jul 11 2008 by Karl Bodetags: fcc · business · cable · ComcastTipped by MrSpock29  Comcast worked so hard to get the FCC off their back for the company's throttling of P2P traffic, a practice first discovered in our forums in May of 2007. Comcast first denied they were doing anything out of the ordinary. They then argued that the throttling was perfectly reasonable -- as per the definition of reasonable in the FCC's network neutrality policy statement. They then issued a new new terms of service that used the word "reasonable" a lot, and issued an 80 page statement to the FCC that used the word reasonable forty times. That didn't work. Comcast then began publicly stating that the FCC lacked authority to punish them, suggesting they'd sue the FCC tried. It looks like their lawyers are going to get a workout, as late yesterday FCC boss Kevin Martin stated that Comcast did violate FCC's network neutrality principles and should be punished. We found that Comcasts actions in this instance violated our principles. -The FCC, shocking some by revealing they have principles |
"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet," Martin told The Associated Press late Thursday. "We found that Comcasts actions in this instance violated our principles." Martin will now circulate an order recommending Comcast be punished that will be voted on by fellow commissioners August 1. Martin says their investigation found that Comcast arbitrarily blocked Internet access, regardless of the level of congestion, then failed to disclose to consumers that they were doing so. No word yet on the severity of punishment planned. For their part, Comcast responded to the AP report by continuing to play semantic patty cake, stating that Comcast engages in "carefully limited" and "reasonable" measures to manage traffic. The company sent me this statement: Comcast does not block any Internet content, application, or service. The Commission has never before provided any guidance on what it means by reasonable network management. The carefully limited measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network are a reasonable part of Comcasts strategy to ensure a high-quality, reliable Internet experience for all Comcast High-Speed Internet customers and are used by many other ISPs around the world. Comcasts customer service agreements and policies have always informed Comcast customers that broadband capacity is not unlimited, and that the network is managed for the benefit of all customers. Our website offers detailed information on our network management practices." Earlier this year, pressure from the FCC investigation forced Comcast to announce they'd be replacing their current network management system (24/7 throttling of upstream P2P traffic using forged TCP packets) with one that's more transparent. As I first reported in May, that new plan may include clear 250GB caps and overage fees, increased DMCA letter enforcement, and the throttling of heavy users down to " above DSL" speeds. Related:- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- FCC Dismisses Valleywag Report
- Comcast Sues FCC Over 30% Cap
- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- Comcast VP: We've Admitted Nothing
- FCC Crackdown on Comcast Doesn’t Even Include Fine
- FCC Majority Plans To Punish Comcast For Throttling
- Small MSOs May Get Relief From Must Carry Rule
|
  Skeedatl Ah, push it - push it real good Premium join:2007-12-26 The Cloud
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox HSI
·MegaPath
·Cox VOIP
·Verizon west (ex G..
·ViaTalk
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit: July 11th, @10:20AM
| Good but only if it applies to everyone Don't single out Comcast. Both Cox and Time Warner Roadrunner traffic shape.
If the FCC is going to go after Comcast, they should have to go after everyone else too. And if they're going after traffic shaping, why not port blocking? It could certainly be argued that port 25 blocking for example is anticompetitive against other mail providers in violation of FCC item 4 below.
Before going after people...they need to make VERY CLEAR rules as to what they expect instead of this sort of "we know it when we see it" crap the FCC usually adheres to.
said by FCC : New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet Washington, D.C. The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet:
(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management.
Action by the Commission August 5, 2005, by Policy Statement (FCC 05-151). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Martin, Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein, with Chairman Martin issuing a statement.
That's about as vague as you can get. They need to clearly state the rules. And who gets to decide what network management is reasonable. We've seen what Comcast sees as reasonable and evidentially the FCC didn't agree. | |
|  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by Skeedatl :Don't single out Comcast. Both Cox and Time Warner traffic shape. If the FCC is going to go after Comcast, they should have to go after everyone else too. And if they're going after traffic shaping, why not port blocking? It could certainly be argued that port 25 blocking for example is anticompetitive against other mail providers in violation of FCC item 4 below. Before going after people...they need to make VERY CLEAR rules as to what they expect instead of this sort of "we know it when we see it" crap the FCC usually adheres to. That's about as vague as you can get. They need to clearly state the rules. And who gets to decide what network management is reasonable. We've seen what Comcast sees as reasonable and evidentially the FCC didn't agree. Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: July 11th, @09:44AM
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by funchords :said by TK Junk Mail :Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so. I'm just a tech guy, but I wondered the same thing as you until one of the lawyer's at Free Press listed more than half-a-dozen precedents that indicate the FCC already has the authority, enabled via that very Policy Statement. Have you looked at those arguments? They're quite strong and together they are unassailable. They've been listed in a recent FCC filing and can be read here: » www.freepress.net/node/41653 I'd be more impressed with their legal arguments if I thought Federal Circuit & Appeals Courts and the USSC actually based their decisions purely on the law. What they apparently do is decide what they think is right(based on their own personal & political views and on current popular political theory) and then DIG UP precedent to back their decision. They don't appear to work as most people believe - that is base the decision on the law alone. I had a sitting Federal judge as a teacher in graduate school and, off the record & after class, admit that is how many cases are decided. They make a decision and THEN research the law to back the way they want to rule on a case.
So, no matter what the LAW is, the D.C. circuit may very well rule as they have in the past where cable is concerned- against the FCC. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by TK Junk Mail :Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. ... I have a new theory about why Martin seems to carry water for the telcos:
before I begin, please note that Martin's wife worked in the office of the VP for Cheney.
Martin was told to make sure the telcos get whatever they want in the way of regulatory forbearance to make sure they would continue to implement the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
a little "tin foil hat", but isn't it fun to speculate? | |
|  |  |  |   TScheisskopf World News Trust
join:2005-02-13 Belvidere, NJ | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Entirely plausible, all things considered. | |
|  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20 | When it comes to Martin and the cable industry, period, its simply hard to take anything he says serious. It so incredibly clear that he's MORE than biased that he makes Fox news truly look fair and balanced in their reporting. | |
|  |  |   sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Netcong, NJ
| said by TK Junk Mail :[Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - huge amounts of lobbying dollars, hookers and vacations. Fixed. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   punker deleted by moderator Premium join:2004-06-21 Palmdale, CA clubs: edit: July 11th, @09:49AM
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone my avg upload speed out of 130Megabytes is 114Kbyte up (OR 914 KBITS/s)
no one reads em anyhow
why should i read an buch of crap | |
|  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone because chances are if you don't read them you'll be one of the many on here that cries about the way ISPs manage their network.
Read what you agree to. Its there for you to read. Other wise if you don't read it shut the hell up and take your business else where. I'm sure your ISP will be glad to get rid of you. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone RoadRunner does state in their's at help.rr.com what they do. You would know this if you went to read it. But since you don't feel like you should have to follow their guidelines you simply feel that the rules they have don't apply to you; the same as many others on here. | |
|  |  |  |   Hereyougo
@tds.net
| I call BS. Just becuase someone hides something in a TOS doesn't mean they get carte blanche on whatever they want to do. That does seem to be a very 'equal' contract when these companies do that kind of thing. Remember that that for a contract to be enforceable they need to be conscionable. Here's a little link about this kind of thing. It works in theory in the US like this as well. »www.fairtrading.act.gov.au/Pages···uct.html
Most of these TOS and AUP are pretty badly slanted towards the provider. Cell phone companies trie this crap too and it seems that the feds don't care too much as much as it has happen this past 8 years.: »lawprofessors.typepad.com/contra···bit.html | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Please explain how anything is "hidden" in an agreement. Are these terms written on white paper in white ink? Do you need a magic decode ring to decipher the encrypted symbols to turn them into English letters? Do they hide them behind bushes in the agreement? what?
The last time I checked the TOS agreement, every word was available for me, and everyone else *should they choose to bother to read*, to read every work.
My hang up with your comment is that something is being hidden. I think you need to change your comment because as it is stated, you simply show that the consumer is lazy and doesn't care what they sign which says NOTHING for the average consumer. And, who's fault is that for the consumer not taking time to read? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone No, I didn't say that. BUT, when it's updated, do you not get the notice from them stating they updated their TOS agreement?
Where I WILL damn them is if they make changes to the TOS and NOT notify people. I do not agree with those that update their TOS and do so quietly. I do NOT agree that it's up to the user to "review it periodically"... you and I are talking about the word "reasonable" in another thread. Here is a perfect clear example of what is not reasonable. It's NOT reasonable to expect a user to always look over their shoulder.
Just like any other chance, I believe they should have to notify consumer with a "reasonable" amount of time and using reasonable measures.. ie: registered email address, or by mail, or in the bill.
Paypal sends out updates regularly.. and, if the update is serious enough, I have to click to agree or I can't continue. That's fair. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit: July 12th, @04:04PM
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by fiberguy :No, I didn't say that. BUT, when it's updated, do you not get the notice from them stating they updated their TOS agreement? When Comcast last updated its agreements, it was a few days before an FCC filing where they defended their case by referring to the changed agreements!
I had software that was monitoring the changes.
They changed the TOS documents and told nobody for about 8-9 days. Nobody mentioned it anywhere in any of Comcast's online forums or on DSLReports. The changes were significant, and there is no way that such a change would go unmentioned by a user or the press.
After waiting to see if anyone picked up on it, I sent e-mail to a contact at FreePress.net telling them about what changed and giving them the diffs. That started a round of press where Comcast essentially called FreePress.net's lawyer a liar or trouble-maker by saying that the TOS was front-page news on Comcast.net (except that it wasn't front-page news, and Google cache confirmed that).
»Comcast Changes TOS In Response To Traffic Shaping Firestorm
»www.savetheinternet.com/blog/200···ination/
-- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|  |  |  |   Cheese Premium join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL clubs:
| said by hottboiinnc :TWC DOES NOT DO IT! RoadRunner does who is the actual ISP. Go read your TOS and AUPs from the help.rr.com site. You agree to both their AUPs as well as Time Warner's. RR has the right to do what they want to you since they "own" the network, TWC "leases" it according to the AUP and the TOS. The same with BH customers and anyone else who leases their lines to RoadRunner. TWC = Roadrunner I believe | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by funchords :Consider this:  Assume this is or becomes enforceable, would conflicting provisions in boilerplate TOS/AUP documents supersede it or be nullified by it? It all depends on how "reasonable" is defined. And Comcast isn't going to leave that up to the FCC. Off to court they go to define "reasonable". -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Fine. Do you know what? The FCC ought to just reissue the policy statement without that in there. Will that satisfy you? | |
|  |  Xizer
join:2004-02-05 Kenosha, WI | Time Warner Cable doesn't traffic shape. | |
|  |  |   Skeedatl Ah, push it - push it real good Premium join:2007-12-26 The Cloud
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox HSI
·MegaPath
·Cox VOIP
·Verizon west (ex G..
·ViaTalk
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit: July 11th, @01:54PM
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone Really?
»[TWC] TW Officially Announces Packet Shaping for All RR Users
said by From Time Warner's Help Desk : TIME WARNER ANNOUNCES INTRODUCTION OF PACKET SHAPING TECHNOLOGY NATIONWIDE
June 6, 2007 -- Time Warner today implemented a network management tool to improve the operation of the network for all subscribers. As a result, a small minority of users may experience slower speeds during peak hours when using certain applications that consume lots of bandwidth. You can address this situation by reducing your use of bandwidth-intensive applications during peak hours. "Peak hours" are generally in the evenings.
"Packet shaping" technology has been implemented for newsgroup applications, regardless of the provider, and all peer-to-peer networks and certain other high bandwidth applications not necessarily limited to audio, video, and voice over IP telephony. Road Runner reserves the right to implement network management tools for other applications in the future.
Customers are reminded of the terms of our Acceptable Use Policy at »help.rr.com/aup:
* The Road Runner service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with Road Runner's ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth.
* The Road Runner service may not be used to breach or attempt to breach the security, the computer, the software or the data of any person or entity, including Road Runner, to circumvent the user authentication features or security of any host, network or account, to use or distribute tools designed to compromise security, or to interfere with another's use of the Road Runner service through the posting or transmitting of a virus or other harmful item or to deliberately overload or flood that entity's system.
Customers are further advised that efforts designed to circumvent our network management tools may be in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy and may result in account suspension without warning.
And my 3rd party NNTP service was traffic shaped into the ground. Only after using encryption (on the same service, Giganews) did my speeds pick back up. Turn off encryption and they would over time fall again. | |
|  |  |  |  Xizer
join:2004-02-05 Kenosha, WI | Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone I downloaded over 500 gigs off of Usenet last month on my RR connection without experiencing throttling.
Sucks to be you, I guess. That little news announcement hasn't come to fruition for me. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   Morac
join:2001-08-30 Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Except Comcast went above and beyond traffic shaping. Traffic shaping gives certain packets priority over others and limits connection speeds. Comcast just decided to block certain packets completely and violated several Internet standards to do so. They did all this while refusing to acknowledge that they did so. --
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|  |  KnightAR
join:2004-04-22 San Marcos, CA
·Cox HSI
| Cox does throttle Bittorrent Traffic but it's only for Uploads, AND they ADMITTED they do ... and they have limits you actually know about. Comcast throttled both Download & Upload and said they did no such thing which was a obvious lie ... which I think is worse then actually doing it without admitting they are even when it was proved. | |
|  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit: July 11th, @06:20PM
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone said by KnightAR :Cox does throttle Bittorrent Traffic but it's only for Uploads, AND they ADMITTED they do ... and they have limits you actually know about. Comcast throttled both Download & Upload 1. Cox's day is coming 2. In P2P, everyone's upload is someone else's download 3. Admitting doing wrong doesn't make it right
and said they did no such thing which was a obvious lie ... which I think is worse then actually doing it without admitting they are even when it was proved. Right. On a technical and real level, Cox and Comcast did precisely and exactly the same thing.
On an investigative level, both kept it secret. But when directly confronted, only Comcast denied, deflected, diverted attention in order for people to get confused. Cox got a pass from the public's anger when it simply confirmed the allegation.
I haven't tested in a while, but it seems that both companies continue to do this, apparently. (I haven't heard otherwise.) -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|  |  |  |  KnightAR
join:2004-04-22 San Marcos, CA
·Cox HSI
| Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone That's what I'm trying to say tho, That is why Cox is getting a pass. I didn't say it made it right ... It just seems that it's better to admit what they are doing then to try to deny it and try to keep the truth a secret.
I mostly download from people on dedicated servers on Bittorrent ... so Cox's blocking doesn't bother me much ... eventually any isp doing this will get whats coming to them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
  funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit: July 11th, @09:16AM
| Thank you to BroadbandReports.com
I am the author of the piece at »Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections.
When Comcast bought up large systems to become the largest Cable MSO, it did not buy the Internet. It has no right to change how it works -- not one byte of it.
How the world-wide Internet works is defined by all of us, through our participation and trust in the Internet Society and the Internet Engineering Task Force. To ensure interoperability and access for all, changes must be carefully deliberated and standardized there. The responsibility of operating the Internet in accordance with those standards is entrusted to companies providing access to it. It's not Comcast's job to change how the Internet works nor can it decide who or what gets preference upon it.
In the year 1999, this website created a forum where people could come together and "demystify" DSL-based and cable-based Internet and learn about how to gain access to it. Quickly, those of us knowledgeable or interested in learning about the technology became members here. I was one of the latter, and members here have taught me a lot.
BroadbandReports.com has always been a system of people helping people, and when necessary, shedding light to those issues that would change the Internet or the industries it has created. I'm grateful that its users taught me so much through the years. It enabled me, and this outcome is a direct result of the coaching I have received here and the platform that this website provides to all of us.
I haven't seen anything other than the press reports about something to be circulated around the FCC. I am hopeful that when the details are released that it serves to preserve and protect the Internet from those who would abuse their power and change it. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|  |  See 17 replies to this post | |
 Sky King
join:2001-07-02 Naugatuck, CT | Comcast I have comcast so I am not worried about what they do to other net providers. I am for going after them all but I don't have a dog in that fight. | |
|  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: July 11th, @09:21AM
| Law of unintended consequences
The push to keep illegal P2P traffic flowing for the nets freeloaders will result in more drastic methods of network management. And they are already coming - caps; pay-by-byte tiers; overage fees; and higher costs. What will the next crusade be because the music thieves are unhappy their free music fix has been threatened? Price regulation by the government? Laws to prohibit caps? Nationalization of the communication industry? -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
|
|