Comcast's FCC Filing Called Unfair, Not Good Enough

Shoemaker brings us a follow-up to Comcast's recent defense of its traffic management procedures. The companies involved in the original FCC investigation are not satisfied with Comcast's response. From Ars Technica: "Comcast made an aggressive defense of its policies, claiming that it only resets P2P uploads made during peak times and when no download is also in progress. Free Press, BitTorrent, and Vuze all say that's not good enough. In a conference call, Vuze's general counsel Jay Monahan drew the starkest analogy. What Comcast is really doing, he said, wasn't at all comparable to limiting the number of cars that enter a highway. Instead, it was more like a horse race where the cable company owns one of the horses and the racetrack itself. By slowing down the horse of a competitor like Vuze, even for a few seconds, Comcast makes it harder for that horse to compete. 'Which horse would you bet on in a race like that?' asked Monahan."

Comments

This made a rant during an economic radio show

[Culture20]

On my way home from work this evening, a radio host was finally talking about this in a way that regular joes would care about (and the show was for regular joes trying to invest). He said that Comcast is using its monopoly to limit competing content (non-comcast video and audio). I'm sure more than a few ears perked up.

Re:You'd do the same

[corsec67]

Except in this case it is much more than just blocking connections. Comcast was making forged reset packets, and sending it to both parties. Forgery != Blocking.
These reset packets were also targeted at VPN connections.

Re:It's paid for.

[Sangui5]

It isn't that there is overselling that is the problem, it's that there is *heavy* overselling. Comcast is promising gobs of bandwidth for very little money, yet they don't have the capacity to back it up. They probably based the amount they could oversell on estimates from pre-broadband usage patterns; it's not the customer's fault that Comcast made an incorrect assumption. If they've oversold so much that it is causing such bad problems, then advertise lower peak bandwidths, or stop accepting new customers. Cheating your existing customers is not a valid option.

As for the shortcomings of DOCSIS; the DSL specs allowed tuning which frequency bands are assigned to upstream vs. downstream. The phone company understood that traffic patterns can change, and that they need to be flexible. If the cable internet industry was incompetent/shortsighted when designing their specs, then they brought their troubles on themselves.

Shared co-ax has some advantages in that it does allow for very large peak bandwidth for individual users; it stinks in that it supports quite poor average bandwidth per user. For DSL, the expensive, super-high-speed links only have to go to the central offices; for cable internet, the whole loop has to operate fast. It was a good design for broadcasting TV; not so much for internet.

Re:More like a water bill

[micheas]

That includes the 120 TB of network traffic I accounted for last month on my DSL account. That's not BT traffic, that's mostly offsite backups of my business, but still, I know I'm in the "blood sucking leaches" category.

WTF You average 485.451852 megabytes per second on your home DSL line!!!

I WANT THAT DSL SERVICE!
120 GB of network traffic a month my dsl could do, but that's 500 times as fast as what I have.