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."
Comcast will probably want to come up with some new talking points as their old ones were leaked.
Well, leaks happen when your whole infrastructure is nothing but a series of tubes.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The Senate is going concerned about bitorrent? Im surprised they understand the implications, or care about them..
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
or not the public wants their internet and mobile
communications blocked or censored?
btw I know that in some areas carriers have a total
monopoly over internet access, but still...
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
The telco execs can lie to congress all day long and they won't get so much as a slap on the wrist for it.
For the same reason, congress ultimately won't do anything about the telcos and cable companies blocking content -- they're paid (bribed, in various forms, most of which are almost certainly not on the record) not to.
Not only are they paid not to by the telcos, they're paid not to by the RIAA, MPAA, and the media corporations. That latter is especially important because without the support of the media, you will not win an election campaign, period.
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.
Historically, totalitarianism of one form or another has been by far the preferred form of government, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the people who have ever lived have lived under it. The experiment with freedom in the world is tiny in comparison.
Well, it was nice while it lasted. I'm going to miss it.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
anyone calling himself HangingChad should know that no significant policy changes in telecommunications - or anything else, for that matter - are going to come out of Congress until after next year's Presidential elections.
I like to call Comcast, Fraudcast. When I had service with them I took me six months to get a bill that was for the service that I originally ordered. Each month I would explain that I didn't order/want/get/use the extra services they were charging me for (like digital cable). Each month they would assure me that they had fixed the billing problems and my next bill would be correct. Rinse and repeat for six months. To top it off, when I moved and switched to DSL (no problems with verizon billing in over a year) they send my account to a collection agency when they owed me money. I also seemed to have very frequent network outages too. Don't know if that was a first generation attempt to reduce peoples bandwidth usage. My own experience using Fraudcast is that they throttled anything I did that required any bandwidth what so ever. I would start with a very high download rate and about 30 sec in always get cut back to something stupid like 8 kbs. I wasn't even on Bit torrent when that happened. Just my 2 cents.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I think it is import to distinguish between what we just don't like and what is actually illegal- i.e. unconstitutional.
For example, I just posted something on Apple's support forums about distaste for the fact that they chose not to include Java 6 in Leopard. They deleted the entire thread. I don't like it and I think ti sucks. BUT- it isn't illegal. They own the support forum! They can delete whatever the hell they want. This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amedement doesn't grant you the right to speak freely in someone else's property. It doesn't even grant you the right to enter their property.
I believe content blocking/filtering/etc is the same type thing. Some ISP will pop up who uses this as marketing material. They'll market themselves as the ones who "don't block anything."
ISPs, fiber owners have built the lines with PUBLIC funding, on PUBLIC property. they DO NOT own the lines. it is totally illegal. they have no controlling rights as to public's usage. if they had built them with their OWN money on the land THEY owned, it would be legal. it is not as such.
Read radical news here
I call them Comcastaway, Comcastoff, or ComcastdownintothedepthsofHades ... in any event they're a schlock outfit. I used to have a 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection under @Home, and that was damn near ten years ago. Truly useful broadband, in fact. AT&T Broadband took it over and cut me back to 1.5 mbit/sec with a 30 kbit/sec backchannel. Things are much better though, under Comcast. Now I have an asymmetric connection with "no server" restrictions (hah! as if if 80 kbits/sec makes for much of a server), hidden bandwidth caps and now the bastards are deliberately forging TCP headers and corrupting legitimate traffic.
Pathetic.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Gees, talk about missing the obvious: Concast.
Maybe not
I have a business, we use Comcast at home. My business has 2 SMTP servers out on the net, but Comcast blocks outbound port 25 under the guise of limiting spammers. They encourage usage of their SMTP servers, but we routinely send pictures with our emails because we are in the construction business. Comcast simply times out sending large files (5-10Mb). Thus, my business is adversely affected. Complaints have been met with silence. I finally SSH tunneled out to a server to send email. I find that inappropriate at best, down right criminal at worst. Why does Comcast get to decide what SMTP I utilize? I pay for access, not filtered access, to the internet. Utilizing my paid for business servers should not be arbitrarily barred. Bit Torrent is just the tip of the iceberg. We have corporate masters that we must adhere to their version of the net. Please allow true competition in broad band. Comcast just stinks and they are my only option. No DSL or FIOS in my county because the county commissioners have a kickback arrangement with Comcast. Verizon won't touch Frederick County, MD.
My business has 2 SMTP servers out on the net, but Comcast blocks outbound port 25 under the guise of limiting spammers. They encourage usage of their SMTP servers, but we routinely send pictures with our emails because we are in the construction business. Comcast simply times out sending large files (5-10Mb). Thus, my business is adversely affected. Complaints have been met with silence.
I'm guessing since you have your own mail server, you can configure it to accept mail on the submission port, 587. Just a thought...
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).
I know in this case, they'd be completely against censorship of any form.
Freedom of Speech to the Founders meant "unconstrained" political debate among responsible adults --- but they could be prickly about the libels and slanders of their opposition.
It goes without saying that women and blacks were not invited to the party.
In those times, Freedom of Speech did not mean that Boston had to provide a stage for the sexual farces that entertained audiences in France.
The founding fathers are old and dead. They had a view of what democracy would be like, and I suppose it worked for a while. However, now times have changed. Their model simply doesn't fit any more. It main weakness is that it often blocks economic growth of the US, or security measures that the public want. This gradual shift from the constitution being the most important set of laws is the natural reaction to its slide into irrelevancy.
Dubya? Is that you posting as an anonymous coward?
You should be asking, "Have you stopped blocking BitTorrent?" (like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" question).
Have gnu, will travel.
This reply is not so much directed at you as the doctrine of free market. Many people bring forth the argument that the free market can solve all the problems the plague the economic interactions of humanity. However, one thing that most people don't pay attention to is that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is only possible when the buyer is fully aware of the product or service they are purchasing. Since big corporations tend to keep as much of their business behind closed doors as possible, and indeed often blatantly falsify their goods, then the buyer can not make a truly informed decision and thus the hand of big government must be put to use to ensure that the populace is not taken unfair advantage of. I am all for getting rid of big government, but only so long as any provider must be completely transparent with respect to their actions in providing me with services or goods.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
My question is this:
If Comcast is blocking, throttling, or in some other way denying traffic, don't they lose their common carrier status? And wouldn't this open them up to lawsuits? After all if they are able to slow X traffic, why can't they stop illegal music/movie/software/etc. downloads?
If you were a copyright holder, and you suspected that individuals were copying your works over the Comcast network - who is throttling specific traffic - wouldn't you sue to get them to stop the flow of traffic containing your works? Why doesn't this action open them up to legal action from the litigious-happy RIAA and others?
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
I did. They say they're not limiting customer access to BitTorrent, but they are. That's not 100-percent truth, in my book.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
So a government sanctioned monopoly ( or at least a monopoly the government doesn't hive a shit about trying to break up ) can be allowed to control communications, while simultaneously being obliged to provide information to the government under "National Security" concerns?
/. over and over. We've been told repeatedly that corporations have only one duty: to maximize their profit and thus payouts to shareholders. This is another way of saying that they aren't, and shouldn't be required to follow any laws (aka government regulation). And this argument is usually made in situations where what's being discussed would be illegal if a government agency did it.
...", so it clearly only limits the government. Private corporations are not so limited, and can legally enforce whatever rules they like limiting the information transferred via their hardware.
Yes, this is how things have been going in the US for some time now. You see, the folks in power have figured out something important: Those protections in the Constitution only apply to government organizations. The courts have upheld the idea that private corporations aren't required to obey the Constitution, because they're not government agencies, and the Constitution clearly only limits what government agencies can do.
The idea now is to "privatize" everything. That way, the Constitution's protections will be moot, because everything will be done by corporations, not government agencies, and when dealing with a corporation, you have no rights.
We've seen exactly this point argued here in
The current topic is a case of this. The government has First Amendment limits to how much it can control "speech", which to any rational reader would include information that people transfer electronically by any means, although when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as electronic transfer of information. You and I clearly have a legal right to download a torrent of an ISO of last week's release of the latest ubuntu. But the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law
So in the US, things like free speech and freedom of the press are essentially irrelevant now. The government can't limit them, but the government no longer much deals with them. It's more and more in the hands of unregulated corporations, and they have the right to do whatever they like with the data being trucked down their tubes. In particular, while the government may have no right to record your use of comm lines, the telecom companies do have this right, and they also have the right to hand over the information they gather to any government agencies that are interested. If they don't like us downloading those ISOs, they have the legal right to interfere with our downloads.
The only way out of this loophole is a constitutional amendment that extends the Bill of Rights to private corporations. This isn't likely to happen any time soon.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.