Slashdot Mirror


Senators Call For Hearing On Carrier Content Blocking

HangingChad writes "Two Senators on Friday called for a congressional hearing to investigate reports that phone and cable companies are unfairly stifling communications over the Internet and on cell phones. Now that the Senate is getting into the act, Comcast will probably want to come up with some new talking points as their old ones were leaked."

6 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Regardless of the outcome by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fine by me. As long as Comcast and company are open and clear about what they're doing. That's the sort of industry regulation I'm in favor of -- require it to be very clear to consumers exactly what service they're buying, and require the provider to actually provide the service as advertised. If, with all parties aware of what's happening, Comcast wants to sell a bittorrent-limiting service, and customers want to buy it, then more power to them.

  2. Re:Whaaa!? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think somebody explained if they can turn off bittorrent, they can selectively limit (or spy on) anything they want to. Many congress critters might not understand internet, but they understand the idea of open communications and what it means even if companies are starting with "bad guy". This could go either way though. On one hand it could put a stop to things like private cell only SMS and web as well as blocking services on DSL or Cable like bittorrent. On the other hand, it could be the "foot in the door" for regulations... the RIAA could step in and get a regulation for dangerous pirates and then it quietly becomes 100% legal and consumers argue about the details. That's how these big companies work, they know how to get a small concession as law and parlay that into making what they want "official" mandate for whatever they want to do. If somebody explains "net neutrality" as "reading your email" while transferring it then congress might get the hint. Bittorrent is a bad choice to argue about because it's more like bait to allow filtering than fight it.

  3. Re:Regardless of the outcome by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether or not the public wants their internet and mobile communications blocked or censored?
    Market forces can decide for such things only in a truly open market.

    However, given barriers to entry (last-milers don't have to open their infrastructure to competition), it is far from being a free, open market.

  4. Re:it's not a truck by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the best part that no one seems to have mentioned, but ComCast is 100% telling the truth. Please read their WORDING.

    I read that Comcast is limiting customer access to BitTorrent. Is this true?

    Respond:
    No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent. We also respect our customers' privacy and don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

    Note that ComCast states that they "do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent" (emphasis mine). They do NOT at all answer the question of whether they are throttling or limiting BitTorrent traffic. And if that's their standard form response to everyone, it means they can tell the truth - by simply not answering the real question (and hoping they mislead the questioner into believing they have).

    It's much like the cheap hamburger patties that are made with 100% real beef - as opposed to the ones that are 100% real beef. One statement claims that the beef portion in the patties are 100% real, while the other states that the patties are 100% real beef.

    Semantics is/are a wonderful thing.

  5. Re:It probably won't make any difference. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Big corporations rule the U.S. these days, and there's no stopping it now. There's no way to, even including violent revolution. We're way past the point of no return. And it's not just the U.S., either, but most of the rest of the world as well.
    How about getting on a soap-box and start raising these issues? How about organising a group, dedicated to spreading the message far and wide? I'd probably donate.

    How about actually taking some responsibility for how your democratic republic has turned out? It is still democratic. You still vote. Other people still vote. You have a voice that you can use to convince others. The failing is yours that you have allowed your democracy to become so unrepresentative.

    Or is it? Perhaps people like the economic benefits of having a business-friendly government. Perhaps if it wasn't, you wouldn't have the internet connection you enjoy, or the income you enjoy, or the local infrastructure, etc, etc. Or are people not allowed to believe that, and any pro-business decisions have to be a result of corruption?
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  6. The fallocy of equivocation by salahx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may, in some sense, be literally true, but Cocmast's statement amount to little more than Equivocation.Keep in mind we impeached a President over the same kind of equivocation, for an issue far less material then Comcast's one.

    Which is part of the reason why everyone's so mad - Comcast has been caught with the cigar in the dame, its time for them to come clean (which they should have done even before they were caught).