Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Says FCC Powerless to Stop P2P Blocking

Nanoboy writes "Even if the FCC finds that Comcast has violated its Internet Policy Statement, it's utterly powerless to do anything about it, according to a recent filing by the cable giant. Comcast argues that Congress has not given the FCC the authority to act, that the Internet Policy Statement doesn't give it the right to deal with the issue, and that any FCC action would violate the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. '"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," concludes Comcast VP David L. Cohen's thinly-veiled warning to the FCC, filed on March 11. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority."'"

9 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Just how STUPID IS Comcast? by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, I sympathize with Comcast. Many ISPs, not just Comcast, are disrupting P2P sessions, and these sessions are in clear violation of most ISP's Terms of Service. And P2P is horribly disruptive, a single user can easily transmit 20 GB of data in a day.

    Yet Comcast seems intent on making people WANT to regulate them. Its like they are deliberately behaving stupid?

    They aren't agressive at pointing out all the other ISPs, to get the heat off.

    They do stupid things like pack FCC hearing, say that the results won't matter, etc.

    Who's running that place?

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast? by bitbiter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They aren't stupid. This is the Standard MO of most US companies. Screw the customer, till you get caught and then say opps and pay a little fine.

      Don't you know by now that most companies in the US sit down and think this out. "Lets see, we can make this much money (A) while screwing the customer. It will take this long (B) to get caught. We will make this much (C = (A X B)). When we get caught it will cost us this much (D) in legal fees and fines. So if C > D then it's what they do."

      This is not going to change anytime soon. When the punishments never add up even close to what they make.
      Welcome to the Corporate United States Of America.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben
  2. Re:yea right by rootofevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if comcast can convince the FCC not to bring it before a judge, they most certainly get to interpret the law however they would like.

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  3. What bullshit by Coopjust · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I honestly can't believe the amount of crap coming from Comcast.

    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,"


    Yeah, right. Which is why US broadband penetration continues to rank lower and lower worldwide despite $200 Billion from the government. And people are protesting traffic filtering. And your company is so afraid of actual people sitting at an FCC public hearing that they pay people to hold seats for employees, busing the employees in, and locking the public out from the meeting.

    What Comcast is doing with the sandvine filtering is forging packets. That's fraud.
  4. Re:Comcast by AmaDaden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correct me if I'm wrong but could this work? 1)Start new ISP that does not filter 2)Get help from the FCC because they are a bit pissed at Comcast for their "nah nah nah You cant get us!" crap 3)When Comcast tries to buy you out/stomp you in to oblivion use antitrust laws to stay alive. 4)Grow to a reasonable size because you have some idea of how the internet works and will not be a dick to your customers. 5)???? 6)profit

  5. Re:Comcast by phizix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I for one like private companies owning the lines as it is one more barrier to improper spying by the government. Especially companies like AT&T...
  6. Re:Comcast by Fatal67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I were comcast, I would just completely block P2P uploading as it violates the TOS. Not a popular answer I know, but my terms do say that I cannot run a server on my residential connection. P2P seeding should qualify as a file server. Comcast made the mistake of letting customers do something that was against the TOS for far too long. Not that there is a time limit on enforcing TOS, but it is always harder to give someone something and then take it away than it is to not give them something to begin with.

  7. Re:Comcast by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    someone might do time for it

    Dream on. In America a rich powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there. The rule of law is worthless when legislators are bought and sold like cattle.

    For instance, how many Sony executives went to prison for the XCP rootkit? That's right, none. Nobody from Comcast will serve time either, and if they donated enough money to the campaigns of the "elected" officials and legislators they'll continue to be able to abuse their customers.

    And now for something completely different:

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  8. Re:Comcast by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, our country has the largest highway system in the world (by far) and it is widely regarded as a modern marvel of engineering. "There's already pointless speed limits when everyone wants to go much faster" is the stupidest argument I have ever heard and potholes happen - the fact that the US government successfully manages a transcontinental system of 45,400 km in length through some of the most varied terrain in the world speaks to its efficacy. If you want to argue about government monopolies, you should probably pick something less successful.