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."'"

21 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Call the *AA? by Lucan+Varo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Federal Communications Commission has made clear, Cohen writes, that cable service is not a common carrier and therefore is not subject to common carrier guidelines.

    So that means they're responsible for what passes over their lines, right? Gonna be interesting.

    1. Re:Call the *AA? by isaac · · Score: 5, Informative

      Incorrect.

      [snip]

      In other words Comcast's denial of common carrier status is a big mistake, because they are opening themselves to many, many lawsuits because their lines were used (by the customers) to conduct illegal activities.


      Christ, this is 100% wrong. ISPs in the USA ARE NOT COMMON CARRIERS!

      Please stop propagating this myth!

      ISP immunity for subscriber traffic/content comes from Section 230 CDA (yep, that CDA) and the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA. They don't need or want common carrier status.

      The FCC explicitly classified cable (in 2002) and DSL (in 2005) ISPs as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services" in order to remove any doubt that they were common carriers.

      -Isaac
      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
  2. Re:Comcast by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, this loophole they seem to crow about (which is horse feathers to me, since the FCC has regulatory authority when it comes to denial of services by a communications provider... phone or otherwise...) is most likely trumped by the recently passed Internet Security Fun and Excitement Act (I forgot the name off the top of my head) that makes this fakery they're doing, impersonating _you_ (your machine, specifically) illegal and possibly a felony. As I understand it from the other discussions on this subject... Comcast's guilty of "hacking".... ;) For lack of a better term, legal-wise.

    So, no, the FCC may not have the power to stop Comcast (but I suspect they can levy a fine, but that's another discussion entirely), but I'd suspect the FBI does... and someone might do time for it. ;) ...I know... wishful thinking...

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  3. 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:Just how STUPID IS Comcast? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 5, Funny

      "a single user can easily transmit 20 GB of data in a day."

      Only if he is freely provided with the bandwidth promised by the ISP. Now are you saying he should not be able to use this bandwidth? There are plenty of legal uses for P2P so your sweeping statements just come across as ridiculous and ignorant.

      The problem is simple: the company has made bandwidth promises to more people than it can handle on its lines. This is analogous to an airline promising everyone a seat on a plane in exchange for X dollars, but then when everyone who was promised a seat actually shows up for the flight (*gasp*), the airline kicks off the fat people, and tells everyone else to share seats. Now at this point any reasonable person would demand a refund and go to another airline. The problem in this situation is that there is no other airline. Your only option is to pick up and move to another location. Ask the government how this situation came about.

    3. Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast? by GweeDo · · Score: 5, Informative

      "so that you don't ever get the 4mbps that you are "promised" I get 750KB/s download and 125KB/s upload"

      You do know that 750KBps is 5.859375 Mbps right?

    4. Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast? by bensode · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let me be the first to say F*CK Comcast. I moved to southern PA recently only to get gouged with a $70 monthly internet bill. I don't have the option to switch to DSL/FIOS so my only other option is dial-up. No thank you. It's funny my neighbors (a lot of them) have a $24.99 monthly Comcast bill. The local ISP just before I moved in (SusCom) was bought out by Comcast http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6279636.html and they get grandfathered into the same price. Any "new" service REQUIRES cable TV + $50 a month internet, totaling $70 a month. I'm an avid DirectTV subscriber because the Comcast cable tv service is absolutely terrible here. So I have to pay for cable tv, internet and DirectTV.

      You know what Comcast told me when I complained about the price, lack of options and their crappy service? "Move". Isn't that wonderful customer service ...

      --
      "Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
  4. 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
  5. Re:Is there a lawyer in the house? by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comcast: "Hey, FCC, I know that you're generally not wanting to regulate us cable companies, so why not just let us go?"

    FCC: "Hmm, any chance of backing that up with a law somewhere?"

    Comcast: "How about this one? Just say we're being regulated by 'market forces'."

    FCC: "But you're a regulated monopoly! That'll never fly!"

    Comcast: "Weren't you going to run for office? Here's a 'donation' to your 'exploratory committee'."

    FCC: "Sounds good. The free market wins again!"

  6. Re:Is there a lawyer in the house? by CubeRootOf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The FCC has no standing to police what comcast does or does not do to its customers because congress has not given the FCC that power.

    Additionally, sometime during President Truman's last term, a statement was issued that essentially said 'We are not communists! See - we like the free market, and we will regulate as little as possible', which WAS approved by congress, and is currently active.

    Comcast is essentially telling the FCC to not bother, as whatever finding they come to, Comcast will believe it illigit and not comply unless congress gets involved and changes the laws, or issues a new guidance.

    Essentially - this is big political news, and if this goes forward we can expect to see a new set of good laws ( or bad) coming out of congress to address issues like this.

    My bet? Be prepared for congress to give the go head to throttle down P2P as a public service.

  7. 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.
  8. Challenge by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That sounds like a challenge to me. I'll be interested to see if the FCC accepts the challenge and shows Comcast that it's the government, not corporations that run things, despite what many (including Comcast, obviously) may think.

  9. Re:Comcast by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SUCH ARROGANCE BY COMCAST!

    In a different age and under a different president (Jimmy Carter), the FCC chairman could simply pick up his phone & ask his buddy in the white house to apply Antitrust Legislation to the Comcast monopoly..... thereby breaking apart the cable tv and internet arms into competing forces..... as was done with AT&T.

    Who knows. Perhaps the next president will do exactly that.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  10. 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

  11. Re:Comcast by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is exactly why all communications lines must be seized as property of the public. We have public roads, public water, public electricity, and it's time we have public ownership of data lines.

    I'm glad my city decided it wouldn't wait for Comcast or Verizon, and instead went and laid their own fiber network. Guess who has the best internet, phone and cable TV prices and service now?

  12. Re:Comcast by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I doubt that my local government (Lancaster PA) would allow me to set-up a second cable company. They've already made up their minds to only string ONE cable to the city homes, and therefore a new startup is blocked from entry.

    It's a regulated monopoly.

    And being a monopoly, Comcast can do whatever they want (like block access to Itunes) as long as Comcast keeps bribing the Lancaster politicians to keep quiet.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  13. 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...
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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.