FCC Lacks Firepower To Tackle Comcast Traffic ShapingOf course the FCC designed things this way, so...... 03:11PM Friday May 16 2008 by Karl Bodetags: legal · fcc · business · cable · net-neutralityTipped by TK Junk Mail  Comcast has been working overtime to get the FCC off their back for the company's throttling of P2P traffic. They first argued that the throttling was perfectly reasonable -- as per the definition of reasonable in the FCC's network neutrality policy statement. That involved using the word reasonable a lot in a new terms of service, and issuing an 80 page statement to the FCC that used the word reasonable forty times. Once that didn't work, they began exploring the idea of a clear 250GB month cap and over-use fees, as I first reported earlier this month. However, the cable giant has also been arguing that even if their traffic shaping does violate the FCC's policy statement, the FCC lacks the authority to do anything about it. They may be right. In a recent filing (pdf), Comcast Executive VP David Cohen hinted very strongly that they'll take legal action if the FCC attempts to fine the company. "The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," Cohen says. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority." I've been reminding you for years that the FCC's principles on network neutrality are not law, and a well-lobbied FCC has progressively deregulated this industry to the point where it's increasingly difficult to take a ruler to carrier knuckles. CNET reports that panelists attending an FTC discussion this week would tend to agree. Although the agency subsequently adopted four broadband "principles" that say consumers have the right to access the lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing and connect devices as they please, those aren't hard-and-fast rules that can be enforced, said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.
Combine that with a series of recent court decisions that knocked the FCC for overstepping its boundaries--including the one over the broadcast flag--and "there's a very high risk that the commission would be not found to have the jurisdiction to go forward and do something that would constrain wireless companies, cable companies, phone companies from managing their traffic." That's why if you read Martin's pontifications on the subject, he seems to be focusing primarily on Comcast's lack of transparency with users, not network neutrality. Comcast really can't be nailed for false advertising, because although they used to advertise their service as unlimited, they stopped doing so several years ago. While the FCC may be able to mandate ISP transparency, Comcast's move to clear 250GB caps takes the wind out of that action as well. So, as I predicted in January when the investigation was announced, you shouldn't expect many fireworks for your taxpayer dollar. If we're very lucky, we'll see a small fine and slightly more transparency in the industry. But that transparency may come at the cost of caps and overage fees. If you didn't know the two organizations can't stand each other, you might start to wonder if that was the plan all along.
Related:- Politicos Lay Out 2007 Broadband Agendas
- Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping
- Cable Takes Legal Aim At FCC
- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- Comcast Sues FCC Over 30% Cap
- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- Free Press: FCC Has Authority To Police Comcast
- Don't Fear The Bandwidth Apocalypse
|
 Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Looking on the bright side... At least the blow-up has had some good effects, even if the FCC has been revealed to be toothless.
1) Everybody seems to be buying into the idea of transparency, at least in theory. We may disagree with limits Comcast is considering for for their service, but (assuming Karl's source is accurate), at least they are out there for everyone to see.
In a truly free market that might even allow you to pick and choose your provider based on the plans offered 
2) The whole idea of forged TCP RST packets seems to have discredited, along with the idea of blocking (or "delaying") certain applications on the Internet. This was probably the first big fight in the net-neutrality war and the good guys appear to have won to a large extent.
Personally, I think the ultimate solution to the problem is opening up the ISP business as far as possible to competition. Long term, I'd like to see municipal FTTH service that allows any company that wants to sell their service over the fiber to do so.
Shorter term, I'd settle for Congress getting off it's behind and getting us local loop unbundling with the same for cable.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
|  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR | Re: Looking on the bright side... It would give a whole new meaning to "flushing the cache!" | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR | It been tried it turns into an expensive fiasco. I do not want government to do a Hugo Chavez on my internet. | |
| | | | Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Looking on the bright side... said by Richard B :It been tried it turns into an expensive fiasco. I do not want government to do a Hugo Chavez on my internet. This is a problem. Experiments in this area have not been too encouraging. Municipalities simply do not have the expertise to do this.
On the other hand, the people who do have the expertise are the very same folks who have an incentive to keep competitors out of the arena: the ILECs and the MSOs.
Maybe what's needed is another '80s style telecom breakup, except this time, instead of separating Long Distance from Local Service Providers, we separate companies into one entity that provides and maintains the local loop or the cable infrastructure (and is regulated and provides the same service to everyone) and another entity that provides the cable TV, ISP, phone services, etc. and would be unregulated.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | | | | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Looking on the bright side... I did 'till they got gobbled up by Covad who quickly ran them into the ground.
The good indy ISPs end up getting bought up. | |
| | | | 
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
 ·Vonage
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Looking on the bright side... said by Skeedatl :I did 'till they got gobbled up by Covad who quickly ran them into the ground. The good indy ISPs end up getting bought up. That's true, had two in my area that sold out to Comcast (customer base basically) and ended up with service that cost 3X as much for about the same speed. Customers were not happy about this, some of them came to us at least  | |
| | | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
edit:
May 16th, @04:55PM
| Re: Looking on the bright side... Our here Covad Wireless has been gobbling up the good wireless ISPs. One, Nextweb, offered great business service at a good price but within months of the buy out service went down hill while both cutting speeds and raising prices. | |
| | | port9
join:2006-07-15
Cordova, TN
| I love my local ISP becuase I dont have to deal with any of this stuff. I get x amount of bandwidth for x amount of cost. No cap, no throttle, just internet. They would never pull this crap that the big guys do.
The only reason I thought of changing was because they dont offer the higher spped that ATT does. and then i found out why..Att won't let them. Go figure. Better service and better price. Prolly shouldnt let them compete with the high speeds. | |
| | 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | Pay to the Order of _______________________ $ Sounds like the lobbyist haven't been paying out enough money. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by funchords :How many competitors there are is actually beside the point. They are selling High-Speed **INTERNET** Service. That word means something, just like the word Gasoline means something. Comcast owns the network but doesn't own the Internet. They're not allowed to do anything they want to it any more than your gas station can change the standard formula for its product. Morally, if not also legally, they should be shipping my bits without any concern for what is inside of them. Since they own the network, they can regulate what comes in and goes out of their network. Like it or not, its their right.
You are right, morally they shouldn't be doing it. If there are any morals behind regulating illegal P2P traffic, but thats beside the point. Legally however, they have the right to do it. Its the same thing when China ISPs regulate what you can view on the internet. When they block sites because of their political standing, I think its morally wrong, however the ISPs are government controlled.
Like it or not, these changes are coming and since you have all these different ISPs selling services, some will be better than others for reasons like this. | |
| | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by Nightfall :Since they own the network, they can regulate what comes in and goes out of their network. Like it or not, its their right. You may ignore the facts all you wish, but ignoring them doesn't change any of them.
They have the right to "Reasonable Network Management," which means that they have to now make a case that what they did was reasonable.
Someone whose actions are reasonable usually doesn't have to resort to hiding those actions, then denying them, then hiring seat-fillers pretending to have public support, then resorting to only half-truthful admissions about them.
Hell, even Comcast itself is abandoning these tactics by the end of the year -- so even they're not on your side in this argument!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by funchords :said by Nightfall :Since they own the network, they can regulate what comes in and goes out of their network. Like it or not, its their right. You may ignore the facts all you wish, but ignoring them doesn't change any of them. They have the right to "Reasonable Network Management," which means that they have to now make a case that what they did was reasonable. Someone whose actions are reasonable usually doesn't have to resort to hiding those actions, then denying them, then hiring seat-fillers pretending to have public support, then resorting to only half-truthful admissions about them. Hell, even Comcast itself is abandoning these tactics by the end of the year -- so even they're not on your side in this argument! Who says I am on their side? Because I disagree with you on some of your points?
I just said that they have a right to do with their service as they see fit. The consumer will determine if they want to use it or not. You can stop trying to get by that on moral grounds, because as you well know, businesses are not built of morals and what they should be doing.
As for hiding their actions, that I agree with. Everything should be spelled out down to the letter in the AUP and the TOS. | |
| | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by Nightfall :Who says I am on their side? Sorry that I presumed too much.
said by Nightfall :I just said that they have a right to do with their service as they see fit. Except that they don't. "As they see fit" is too broad. It's not entirely their network. They borrowed money from lenders, probably giving some indication and accepting certain restrictions as to what they planned to do with it in order to get a good interest rate. They sold stock, issuing similar statements to investors as to what businesses they were in and planned to go to. They installed their lines across public and private property, often drawing permits from public entities describing the public utility nature of their business. Going back, to get approval for certain acquisitions or to fend off even stricter regulation, they made assurances that they would not delay, degrade, or deny service. The FCC based its Broadband Policy Statement on these assurances and others. They sold these services to consumers, usually requiring payment in advance for them and promising delivery. In varying degrees of strength or weakness, these actions are now binding upon them.
In short, I believe there's a case to be made that others have an interest in their network. Within the bounds of "reasonable network management," they do have choices they can make.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by funchords :said by Nightfall :Who says I am on their side? Sorry that I presumed too much. said by Nightfall :I just said that they have a right to do with their service as they see fit. Except that they don't. "As they see fit" is too broad. It's not entirely their network. They borrowed money from lenders, probably giving some indication and accepting certain restrictions as to what they planned to do with it in order to get a good interest rate. They sold stock, issuing similar statements to investors as to what businesses they were in and planned to go to. They installed their lines across public and private property, often drawing permits from public entities describing the public utility nature of their business. Going back, to get approval for certain acquisitions or to fend off even stricter regulation, they made assurances that they would not delay, degrade, or deny service. The FCC based its Broadband Policy Statement on these assurances and others. They sold these services to consumers, usually requiring payment in advance for them and promising delivery. In varying degrees of strength or weakness, these actions are now binding upon them. In short, I believe there's a case to be made that others have an interest in their network. Within the bounds of "reasonable network management," they do have choices they can make. You bring up good point upon good point. There is a case to be made thats for sure. So why has no case been made? What about cases for people who have found their service terminated for using too much bandwidth? What about cases where cable and DSL companies apply speed caps to peoples lines who are heavy users?
All these ISPs do answer to someone, and thats the stockholders. They are abandoning these practices (so they say) at the end of the year. Time will tell if they do that.
However....
As I said before....
It's their network. Until things change, this is the way its going to be. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Do you think
@charter.com
| Re: Well, its very true three words.
"Common Carrier Regulations".
if they are shaping and deliberately controlling what goes on and off their network, it would seem to me that they would no longer be a common carrier, and then be liable for the content on their network, right? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by Do you think :
three words.
"Common Carrier Regulations".
if they are shaping and deliberately controlling what goes on and off their network, it would seem to me that they would no longer be a common carrier, and then be liable for the content on their network, right?
Surprisingly, they're not Common Carriers. They're classified as Information Services. That said, they still have some Common Carrier protections and responsibilities, but they no longer are regulated as Common Carriers.
This would be fine if there was sufficient competition. But the reason we are here is that neither regulation nor competition is keeping the industry in check.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| said by Nightfall :You bring up good point upon good point. There is a case to be made thats for sure. So why has no case been made? A case has been made. We've had two FCC hearings related to it. I was at one of them. There are also class-action suits in California and DC about it.
What about cases for people who have found their service terminated for using too much bandwidth? What about cases where cable and DSL companies apply speed caps to peoples lines who are heavy users? In Comcast's case, these limits weren't disclosed and that is part of the three cases mentioned above.
However, if the limits were clearly disclosed up front, what's wrong with that? (Answer: Most of us don't have other choices should we not like these policies.)
Until things change, this is the way its going to be. Deep thought.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
edit:
May 16th, @04:22PM
| said by funchords :said by Nightfall :Its their network after all. Comcast can shape what it wants. If customers don't like it, they can move to another provider. So, following that thinking, the Shell station can add a cup of water to every gallon of gasoline. After all, it's their station. If customers don't like it, they can just get gas elsewhere. There is a big difference. Adding water like that to gas will cause damage to your car or cause your car to not run very well. Thats beside the fact that if Shell published that info and everyone went into it knowing that they added that water, thats a different story as well. Read Comcast's AUP sometime.
I think it stinks as well, but its their network. They have a right to do with it what they want. Their customers can go find better service elsewhere. | |
| | | | jhigh420
join:2001-04-12
Atlanta, GA | Re: Well, its very true I'm not willing to leave comcast when they have the best broadband service in my area and a simple google search will get you around "traffic shaping." A LOT of ISPs are forging packets, not just comcast. | |
| | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Well, its very true said by jhigh420 :I'm not willing to leave comcast when they have the best broadband service in my area and a simple google search will get you around "traffic shaping." That's fine. Either am I.
said by jhigh420 :A LOT of ISPs are forging packets, not just comcast. This is actually not the case. The technology to do this has only been out for about two or three years. The technology to do this at such a large scale just came out within the year.
If we want the Internet to treat everyones traffic equally and to leave the contents of that traffic alone -- the way it has always been done -- we need to resist these changes. We need the ISPs to stop making backroom deals and to start shepherding any needed advancements through their participating in the RFC process managed by the Internet Engineering Task Force.
They didn't invent the Internet, they bought their way into it. But when they bought their way in, they also bought the responsibility to abide by the Standards and practices that define responsible operator behavior. If they want to change it, they have to follow the rules.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | |
Villa
@sbcglobal.net
| said by jhigh420 :I'm not willing to leave comcast when they have the best broadband service in my area and a simple google search will get you around "traffic shaping." A LOT of ISPs are forging packets, not just comcast. Please name "A LOT of ISPs" that are doing this.
Not according to this site.
»broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transpa···results/
"Both in the U.S. and in Singapore, all hosts that suffered BitTorrent blocking are located in cable ISPs. We did not see any blocking of BitTorrent transfers from DSL hosts in these countries." | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by Nightfall :Their customers can go find better service elsewhere. Just like customers can go elsewhere when their local electricity utility decides when and for how long you will have an unimpeded flow of electricity. Hey, it's their electricity, after all. Go get your electricity elsewhere. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Well, its very true said by Nightfall :There are governmental regulations around electricity. No, actually, there aren't anymore. Electricity was deregulated long ago, as in back in '98 or '99, which is why California had all the fun with the rolling blackouts and their providers gaming the market to ensure maximum consumer screwover. But then, I wouldn't expect you to remember that not being a resident of the State. | |
| | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
edit:
May 16th, @07:17PM
| Re: Well, its very true said by SilverSurfer :said by Nightfall :There are governmental regulations around electricity. No, actually, there aren't anymore. Electricity was deregulated long ago, as in back in '98 or '99, which is why California had all the fun with the rolling blackouts and their providers gaming the market to ensure maximum consumer screwover. But then, I wouldn't expect you to remember that not being a resident of the State. There are regulations as to what the condition of electricity is when it reaches your home. There are many regulations in place as to how regulation of the electricity gets monitored from the meters on your home all the way back to the company end on how the electricity is delivered. You talk about the blackouts in California, and there were specific steps taken to fix those problems by our government. I hope the state did something too, but I have no idea.
Thats where the comparison is that you made. Not on who can deliver it.
So, until the government steps forward and regulates how internet is delivered to everyones home, your argument is null and void. | |
| | | |
methinks
| just a thought This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. If there's anyone to blame, it's the end users. Just how often are you using torrents to download anything other than pirated movies, software, music and etc.?
It's like a domino effect. Sure, if you investigate thorougly enough you'll find something that doesn't seem to quite fit, and the company's operating methods are released to the public. But now the cat is out of the bag, of course Comcast is going to start handing out a download caps. Subsequently a hand full of subscribers are going to bitch about it again, and guess what? before you know it, all these ISP companies will be doing the same thing, and who knows, maybe they'll be working with the RIAA and other anti-piracy compaines and giving out your IPs to them willingly. because they know you're the ones hogging the bandwidth and that'll be the end to every mp3, dvd screeners u'll ever have.
so i say just shut up, and be happy with what you have. cuz you'd probabaly never even noticed your zip was down until someone pointed it out to you. | |
| | 
MemphisPCGuy
Senior Systems Engineer
Premium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN | Re: just a thought After p2p is finished how long do you think it will be befoer they start forging my xbox 360 packets after 4 hours online because its for my own good?
--
»www.memphispcguy.com | |
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: just a thought None because chances are MSFT would pay for them not touch the xBox traffic. | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: just a thought said by hottboiinnc :None because chances are MSFT would pay for them not touch the xBox traffic.
I'm glad you're so sure of that. If an ISP can arbitrarily cap/throttle/block traffic and use the network management excuse, then what, exactly, would make XBOX traffic so special? | |
| Dan888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE
| with their delaying Their methods of "delaying" involve forging packets without telling the other side that they messed with the packet. If they have the right to alter the packets you send for peer to peer, don't they then have the right to alter any data you send (including information about yours |
|
|
|
Re: Looking on the bright side...
One solution would be to allow any utility (Water, Power, Gas) to provide data/voice transport services. Incentives could be given to install fiber during the installation of any new underground services. Any utility could then provide the last mile of access from a central peering point to customers homes or businesses. Any company providing voice, data or video services could use the facilities to transport their services. Once the delivery of voice data services becomes competitive the incumbents attitude may change.
·
Listen to the audio podcast of the event at this link
·