Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Taking Action Against Comcast
Presto Vivace writes "According to CNet the Federal Communications Commission is considering taking action against cable operator Comcast modifying peer-to-peer traffic, a subject we've discussed here in the past. 'It looks like Chairman Martin, and by extension the commission, sees Comcast as going beyond simply managing its network. But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast. The principles are not agency regulation.'"
How about taking another action against comcast for being a monopoly to those that have absolutely no alternatives because of where they live.
The prior FCC's head. He said once, to the news, and I quote "I literally have no idea what the public interest is." unquote.
That pretty much sums up the FCC. So don't hold your breath, the FCC is there to mouth words that the the religious right wants to hear and to support the oligopolies that keep American telcom mired 10-15 years in the past.
The way Comcast's system works is, when Alice communicates with Bob, sending forged packets that impersonate Alice saying, "Bob, never mind - cancel the connection."
If I'm Alice, the Comcast customer, I would find it fraudulent to see a company sending forged packages as me. Why should it be hard to punish Comcast for impersonating me and disrupting my communication with someone else?
If Comcast is allowed to send forged IP messages, are they also allowed to forge emails from me that disrupt my communication with those people?
|/usr/games/fortune
But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast
If Comcast is messing with the content going over their cables, then they should no longer be allowed common carrier immunity for that content. This makes them liable for every bit of pirated media, kiddy porn, libel and spam sent over those cables.
A few lawsuits ought to wake them up, I'm sure Comcast has pockets deep enough to attract a few contingency lawyers.
-- Alastair
Comcast's business model largely depends on making deals with local governments to get a monopoly. Deliberately making their service unreliable, could be viewed as some sort of acting-in-bad-faith breach of contract.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I've posted about this before, but whenever we run a Bit Torrent client for the better half of a day, our route to the internet gets lost. Everything still says we're connected and says the status is fine, we just can't get anywhere until we power-cycle the cable modem.
Additionally I am a Vonage customer, and would be unable to place a 911 call because of this. It's just plain irresponsible corporate greed, seems to me.
This happens even when Bit Torrent traffic is at a minimum. It's like Comcast is taking the RIAA/MPAA's dirty work into their own hands, and saying it's to make sure bandwidth use is fair for all customers.
I wonder then why I've never been disconnected like this for using the bandwidth for any other purposes, like hosting a radio stream or FTP server with equal or more traffic.
I would boycott them if only I had other realistic options, but I don't.
Move all sig!
The FCC can issue regulations with out the existence of precise laws to back them up. For instance, there is no law (at least not that I am aware of) that specifically states that the words shit, fuck, cunt, tits, motherfucker, and cocksucker are barred from use in public broadcast, yet the FCC can yank your license for saying them. Yet pussy, twat, turd tapper, asshole, etc... are acceptable.
If Comcast is a common carrier, it is by definition serving the general public under the license and limitations of the FCC. The FCC can regulate them how ever they want. Hell, they could make 'Hawaiian Shirt Friday' a mandatory event for any organization that wishes to remain licensed as a common carrier.
The FCC's power is a bit like patents. It is only as strong as the lawsuit that would ensue. While most proactive leaders would use their power to push the boundaries of regulatory power forward, the regulatory powers under Bush's watch have largely abandoned their powers. Heck, it took a lawsuit from MA just to make the EPA to regulate green house gases in exhaust from cars.
So if someone sues the FCC, or any government regulatory body, the can use existing laws to force the body to change the regulations. They can lobby congress to pass laws that change the body's ability to regulate. But the specific regulations are up to the regulatory body.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The fact that they can say, "Its our network, we'll screw whoever we please when we please", *is* the problem. If we allowed roads to all be privately owned, we'd likewise be screwed. We need to nationalize the "tubes" ( ;-) hehehe ) and lease bandwidth back to any- and everybody who wants to be an ISP. Can you imagine if the telephone companies decided that too many people were dialing 800 numbers? If they started hanging up 1/2 of the 800 calls, people wouldn't be saying, "Well, they own the phone system, they can cut me off if I dial a number they don't like."
I haven't experienced any of this slow down or even ask other comments have suggested the "end packets" or whatever that mess up my downloads. Perhaps it happens to be the fact that I live in a smaller metropolitan area that the rest of the /.'ers?
Perhaps. But more likely it's just that you're not living in one of their test areas. You see, they knew quite well that their packet-forging "traffic management" technique would be controversial, and probably illegal. Before they extend it to the rest of the network, they first need to determine what sort of fines the FCC will impose. If the fines are low enough to qualify as a "business expense", you can expect their new, improved traffic management techniques to be introduced to your area some time in the next year. You'll be billed a minor surcharge for pleasure of this improved service.
We can also trust that the other ISPs are watching carefully to determine whether they should be introducing similar traffic management tools.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.