Legal Trouble For Multiple ISPs

Ars Technica reports that Comcast has been hit with three new class-action lawsuits due to the company's traffic-shaping practices. "The lawsuits ... ask that Comcast be barred from continuing to violate various state laws, in addition to unspecified damages." Meanwhile, members of the US House Telecommunications Subcommittee have asked Charter Communications' president to stop testing a program which uses Deep Packet Inspection to track the habits of its customers. A number of privacy groups have voiced their support (PDF). As if that weren't enough, it seems the City of Los Angeles is suing Time Warner for fraud and deceptive business practices. The Daily News notes, "... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law as well as an additional $2,500 civil penalty for each violation described in the complaint perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons."

Comments

TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Anonymous Coward]

for the same reasons they are being sued by LA, I believe.

Now we have Crapcast and I'm paying $20 more per month for less service.
--Minneapolis dev.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which, contrary to carefully fudged "models", allows for (and in fact inevitably leads to) formation of large industry/geography-specific monopolies, even without any governmental interference whatsoever.

That is so simply because in the real world, unlike on paper, there are a number of physical, geographical, technological and other conditions which lead to an automatic formation of unsurmountable barriers to entry for competitors, especially after a local market consolidation by one market player. In this particular case it is simply the physical limitation of the cables themselves: no community can allow for 20 companies to dig up every road every which way to lay cables to any and all houses in that community, not to mention the fact that the upfront cost reduces the number of viable competitors to a mere handful nationally to begin with.

And in this particular case the only entity which can restore competition (and thus "free market") is ... the government. Municipally owned last mile cabling/fiber, bandwidth of which is then rented to any number of competitors who compete for the customers based on their service and price is of course the only sane way to deal with this. But it contradicts the Holy Theory Of Ultimate Greed which proclaims that everything in this world must be owned by some mogul, and therefore it will never come to be, at least in USA. A future of regional communication monopolies getting away with murder is the only alternative really, regardless how many silly lawsuits are filed. The only choice remaining under such market "freedom" being as to which one of the 3 or 4 mega-corporations will be given a strangle-hold on what community.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The telcos were actually forced to sell access to their lines at cost, but now they aren't. Or so I understand (FWIW.) I don't see why this isn't an acceptable solution.

Because it does not work. The whole idea is fundamentally silly, as the telco's "competitors" are forced to buy service from their main competitor. It leads to a situation where the dominant telco is able to pretend that it is selling access "at cost", while in fact obstructing those buying in many different ways, such as creating delays, purposeful technological incompatibilities and what not. In all the marketplaces in which it was tried the dominant telco always won resulting in these "competitors" withdrawing or ... irony ... being bought at bankruptcy prices by that very telco.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Instead of just changing it back and allowing them to go back to having a monopoly, why not just start giving pieces of the company to those who they wronged?

Because that solution depends on another point of systemic failure: litigation.

A system whereby the municipality owns the last mile (or conduits etc) requires no constant regulatory supervision as long as all competitors are given equal access. A system dependent on forcing an unwilling company, in whose best interest is to thwart all your attempts at forcing them to do this, requires constant monitoring, constant regulatory loophole fixing and as the final result endless litigation, all to questionable effects as all these measures are reactive and do not take effect for years after the harm to consumers was done.

One solution is simple, effective and has a few easily observable points where it could possibly go astray, the other is complex and depends on endless litigation and political maneuvering as primary mechanisms of control.

The only reason to prefer the complex, unwieldy and unreliable over simple and effective is ideological zealotry.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which Sorry, government interference *subsidized* the construction of cable fiber optic infrastructure. Your "free market" criticism is thus null and void. You also might want to check out the Austrian School of Economics being at the top of the food chain these days. Granted, other schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, London School, MIT, are a distant third tier from the Chicago School.

Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reality of observed actions of exchange. As someone who took classes from 5 Nobel Prize winning economists at the University of Chicago, there are certainly some flaws and valid methodological criticisms which can apply. But you haven't demonstrated any of them. And you yourself have never once walked into a single grocery store and traded money for food that did not by definition immediately simultaneously make you and the grocery store better off.

All voluntary trade whatsoever only occurs because that which is received in exchange is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If this was not necessarily always an irrefutable epistemological, scientific, economic law, then trade would never occur and the division of labor wouldn't exist.

You also make a fatal economic and epistemological assumption mistake in arbitrarily without substantiated basis assign benevolent angelic motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "government actors" while assigning bad devilish motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "business and corporation actors". How do corporations get power? How do they get chartered? By government laws interference in the free market granting special privileges. So you want more power which caused your original problem to be granted to solve the problem which was caused by that very same original granting of power? You mean after all those laws, regulations, and heavy taxation, government still isn't even close to solving your problems?

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Sorry, government interference *subsidized* the construction of cable fiber optic infrastructure.

Which has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling.

Your "free market" criticism is thus null and void.

Non-sequitur.

You also might want to check out the Austrian School of Economics being at the top of the food chain these days. Granted, other schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, London School, MIT, are a distant third tier from the Chicago School.

Yes, the "school" which rejects empirical evidence in favor of ideologically motivated "deductions". A fringe lunacy even amongst other fundamentalist capitalist lunacies.

Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reality of observed actions of exchange.

Oops. That would not be in line with the Austrian School's main premise that observation and empirical evidence takes a second seat to the priesthood's "deductions". Even you cannot keep these fruit-cakes straight.

As someone who took classes from 5 Nobel Prize winning economists at the University of Chicago, there are certainly some flaws and valid methodological criticisms which can apply

Nobel Prize in economics is like the Buttville Chicken Farmers' Award for the longest piss from the roof of Orville's farm. Except that the pissing farmhands cannot cause anywhere near the misery, suffering and death these Nobel "winners" did. Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. None, I repeat, none of the so-called "models" developed by any of these "schools" have been demonstrated to have even the slightest of predictive powers or most tenuous relationships to reality. Which of course never stops these frauds from pompous posturing and lecturing sanctimoniously.

The last time these Nobel "winners" have tried to apply their oh-so-superior understanding of economics to something practical we ended up with a wee little oopsie called the "Long Term Capital Management" hedge fund. Look it up.

But you haven't demonstrated any of them. And you yourself have never once walked into a single grocery store and traded money for food that did not by definition immediately simultaneously make you and the grocery store better off.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of telco monopolies.

All voluntary trade whatsoever only occurs because that which is received in exchange is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange.

LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence.

If this was not necessarily always an irrefutable epistemological, scientific, economic law, then trade would never occur and the division of labor wouldn't exist.

This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get.

You also make a fatal economic and epistemological assumption mistake in arbitrarily without substantiated basis assign benevolent angelic motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "government actors" while assigning bad devilish motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "business and corporation actors".

Say what?! Government is (at least in theor

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[ATMD]

Seems to work in the UK. BT operates nearly all the copper wire and local telephone exchanges in the country, and charges consumer ISPs to use them. BT is also a consumer ISP, and yet DSL competition is excellent, with very aggressive pricing between rival providers. The way this is acheived is careful regulation by OfCom to ensure that the wholesale arm of BT doesn't sneakily make things easier for the Home Broadband arm of BT.
Is that kind of regulation actually unconstitutional in the US, or are the powers that be just unwilling to do it?

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling They are directly related because subsidies cause the corporations to own the last mile rather than service the last mile.

Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. "Monetary Theory" is indeed one of the weakest spots. Only individuals act. I share your criticism of macroeconomic theory whether its Keynesianism or Chicago School.

Here is your fundamental error:

LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence. This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get. If what you traded was *equally* valued then why wouldn't you infinitely trade back and forth the exact same things in an infinite loop? That would be absurdity. This is precisely why trade only occurs because a strict mathematical greater than sign applies to the value of that being received and a strictly mathematical lesser than sign applies to the value of that which is being given away in trade. Trade occurs because both sides *prefer* what the other side has. And value is individually *subjective* and not constant. And of course nobody would voluntarily make herself worse off from any trade.

That's why my self taught economic analysis method always begins by examining the action of trade exchange. It clears away the garbage that clouds analysis.

Say what?! Government is (at least in theory) merely a representation of the will of the community which it governs Then by definition of will government interference is completely superfluous and only causing wasted energy and wasted resources to allegedly duplicate that will. But of course government only forces someone to do something they are not voluntarily willing to do, a clear violation of the alleged duplication of specific individual wills.

Its purposes have nothing to do with "benevolence" and are unrelated to purposes of companies and other market players whose only purpose is profit All individual action whatsoever only occurs because the actor desires to go to a state of lesser dissatisfaction from a state of greater dissatisfaction. There would be no purpose in acting otherwise, for then acting could only make one worse off from the unacting utopia they resided in. Thus, the purpose of all actions, the purpose of all individuals, is as you say, "profit".

Thus the government operates in a different work space than private entities. Sometimes the private entities are better suited to tackle some societal tasks, sometimes it is the government, depending on the task and the set of capabilities and strengths of each. We should aim to minimize violent compulsion, and maximize voluntary peaceful cooperation. This is the only way society can exist. Free trade is by definition voluntary peaceful cooperation.

Trade of any kind cannot exist without governance. Trade is by definition "self governing" precisely because no voluntary trade ever occurs unless that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange.

At the very bottom of it is the fact that an authority of some kind must exist to enforce contractual obligations between trading parties, such as for example value of IOUs (read: banknotes) etc and so on. In the absence of governance all trade must, by definition, become barter. All trade is strictly *barter* in spite of any government interference. Trade is a *voluntary* action by definition. If you are forced to do something against your will, the word "trade" ceases to apply. That's why taxation is called taxation and not charity contribution. That's why "subsidy" isn't called business trade transaction.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Excuse me, but it is an obvious non-sequitur to conclude that because natural monopolies exist, for which free market solutions are either not optimal or not possible, that free market is broken.

Free market is not "broken" (whatever that means). It is simply an imperfect, flawed economic system (one of possible many) which is applicable only to a particular subset of human activities, under specific conditions. My objections are not to the concept itself but to rampant and frankly quite maniacal attempts by various ideologues to apply it to pretty much everything with religious zeal, irrespective of its fitness to the task.

Nobody is forcing you to purchase cable television service. If you don't like the price or don't want the service then don't buy it (I don't). It really is that simple.

This silly "reasoning" can be extended to luxury food, then semi-luxury food, then all drinks other than tap water, then all clothes other then a converted potato sack, all shelter other than a cardboard box etc and so on.

The point being of course that if one removes all competition in one area and allows a complete monopoly to take charge then there is no reason not to allow the same process everywhere else, is there?

As for barriers to entry they are usually temporary and not as durable as people think.

Since in this particular case they involve geography, I think they will be with us for a while. Furthermore, allowing a monopoly to exist merely for a generation or two (a "temporary" affair from the point of view of history) is equivalent to allowing it to exist for the entire life span of some people, which for them, subjectively, is indistinguishable from "forever".

How did Google come out of a college research project to become a billion dollar corporation?

Apples and oranges. There are very little in a way of physical (or even technological) barriers to entry for Google's competitors. As time progresses that might change (with Google's expansion into mobile phones etc - causing hardware based lock in) but it is still on a wholly different scale when compared to communities being dug full of holes like by a rabid pack of prairie dogs which is what would happen in the case of unrestricted cable laying in most cities.

They were not the first search engine company and their competitors at the time had a stranglehold on the marketplace, but Google survived to surpass them because they brought a superior product to market. Markets can work if people are willing to let them.

Again, Internet is a place with one of the lowest (if not THE lowest) barriers to entry for any activity. Most barriers to Internet based businesses exist outside of it, in the "brick and mortar" world. You are again comparing apples to oranges.

Re:Yeah...

[ghostdancer]

Oh come on... Why mod me as troll?

Just an innocent first post. Of all my years at Slashdot, this is the first time I had the chance. Don't expect me to waste it.

wtf...

[jonaskoelker]

the lawsuits ... ask that Comcast be barred from continuing to violate various state laws Uhh... it should be made no longer legal for Comcast to do things that that are (already) illegal?

"I am above ze law!" <adds goop to hair>

Re:wtf...

[Gothmolly]

The point is that the state Attorneys General don't care - bigger fish to fry, golden goose, etc. They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?

This lawsuit will bring focus to the issue.

Re:wtf...

[Hassman]

The bandwidth shapers...the crack dealers will destroy themselves.

Is it more just to go after those who CHOOSE to break the law, or those that OPENLY do it because they are big business and feel they can do what they want when they want?

Re:wtf...

[x2A]

The bandwidth shapers of course. The crack dealers aren't rippin me off.

Re:wtf...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?"

The Bandwidth shapers, and of course the Crack dealers who are shorting their customers.

Re:wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

no. its to put the company on notice. it means they violate a court order the next time they do it and will be in a deep load of doo doo.
yes the same applies to sex offenders and the like - ever heard of the 3 strikes laws ?

Re:wtf...

[kosty]

Well, besides the fact that drug USE is, by and large, a victimless crime? I vote to go after the bandwidth shapers. Crack dealers have to compete for customers/victims; at least in Atlanta.

PS: I'd love to see crack-dealer-style competition of gunning each other down amongst the cable/internet pimps...

Re:wtf...

[drinkypoo]

They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?

I want them going after bandwidth shapers. They don't have jurisdiction over the CIA.

Re:wtf...

[Splab]

Crack dealers are easily solved. Just create fixing houses where users can get their fix in a controlled environment like in Holland and you are good to go. Of course that means that quite a lot of drug enforcement people are in a bit of a job trouble.

Perhaps they should be reallocated to BEA (B=bandwidth)?

Re:wtf...

[WillDraven]

More importantly, the crack dealers will replace themselves. Despite anything the government does, there will always be a demand for drugs. Considering the relative simplicity of manufacturing most drugs (especially those derived from natural sources such as heroin, cocaine and of course marijuana) it is no surprise that people are going to meet this demand while turning a nice hefty profit due to the illegality of the product.

The ISPs on the other hand, well they're spying on and interfering with the private communications of thousands of upstanding citizens. A bit more serious than Alice buying her crack from Bob instead of Charlie down the road who'll take over the business if Bob gets popped.

Re:wtf...

[zmollusc]

Ah! Alice deals in drugs! I have been wondering for years why she runs all that crypto. Now it all makes sense.

Re:wtf...

[Hubbell]

A huge portion of crime in this country is drug related. Gangs commit crimes over drug turf constantly. The only reason drugs are so expensive, leading people to resort to crime to do them, is because they are illegal which drives the cost up. IIRC cocaine cartels from south america allow (pretty much give to the authorities) one out of every seven ships transporting huge amounts of cocaine and simply write it off because of the insane amounts of money they make off of the other 6.

What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[jonwil]

All 3 ISPs are cable companies with heavy investment in distribution of content from the major media companies. Distribution that is threatened both by piracy and by "free" content being distributed on line.

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[AHuxley]

Or they do not want to spend cash upgrading suburbia.
Let it rot and demand the gov helps rolls out the "future".

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[Z00L00K]

So soon nobody will be able to watch YouTube if the bandwidth chopping continues.

You have to pay extra for access to YouTube, UDP traffic, images in HTML, Java Applets, Embedded Flash - and you must accept that we inject some commercials in the pages you visit.

A sign of distorted economics in the ISP industry?

[compumike]

Everyone loves unlimited bandwidth and being off-the-meter. But by selling bandwidth with zero incremental usage cost, they're really just having the light users subsidize the heavy users. That's what really causes problems like this. Sure, bandwidth is cheap, but the whole reason that they're having problems that require traffic shaping is that their bandwidth is NOT unlimited.

I know consumers (myself included) enjoy not having to think about bandwidth usage, but maybe there could be a better pricing model that more appropriately sets the costs of the bandwidth for heavy users.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics!

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[corsec67]

Too bad for you that the ISPs are a monopoly due to "control by government busy-bodies". Or are you suggesting that every single ISP/cable company/power company/water company/sewage company be required to run their own pipes to your house?

Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia.

If you run from injustice instead of fighting it, guess what, you are going to lose.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[poetmatt]

I disagree about limited bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is flexible, and cheap. If you don't buy enough that's no fault other than the ISP themselves.

You can always set up emergency tier 1 ISP lease plans where they lease you extra bandwidth so you don't end up short, although its less cost efficient than making an enormous profit off light users to subsidize the heavy ones.

The current way we deal with internet (consumer to corporation) is like charging X dollars/gallon for gas, but only if you buy less than 5 gallons a month....sure, the super light cars would live painfully, but the SUV owners (and other things that guzzle gas but are legit such as diesel, freight, airplanes) would be screaming out. For internet purposes replace diesel, freight, airplanes with fileservers, bittorrent, streaming video, and downloaders/gamers. Yes, at that extreme just like internet, people will stop using it as much, because at that point it becomes practically extortion (and in the case of gas, the oil industry would be kaputz/pay in blood for charging so much, however there is competition enough that if they all do that there are other gas options). When there are no options, this extortion has no retribution, thats where we're at now with internet.

This comparison isn't 100%, but it's the closest I could think of at the time.

Don't like comcast, time warner, etc? You have nowhere to go, and you're paying the 20$ no matter what you drive, even though they could be charging 2$ or 3$.

It's ridiculously cheap to make a fast wireless mesh network in a decent sized neighborhood even without subsidies....(say 600 people who can average comcast's download speed for upload as well ends up around 60$/month )kinda makes you wonder just how much is siphoned to CEO's, huh?

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[garcia]

Sure, bandwidth is cheap, but the whole reason that they're having problems that require traffic shaping is that their bandwidth is NOT unlimited.

We paid for their build out and have yet to see the benefits of that tax break. I call it even.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[vertinox]

I am against any sort of control by government busy-bodies. Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia.

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?

If they all did it or you only had one of them in your area then you don't have much of an alternative do you?

With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave.

Otherwise, one could only imagine they'd have no qualms encouraging the regular government giving them power to search your house without a warrant if it made them a quarterly profit.

BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel. So the next time you fill up your gas tank, thank those unregulated futures speculators.

I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[nebular]

I live in Canada and know the pain of throttled traffic. However I do agree that bandwidth is not free and the we can't continue to have unlimited. Right now my ISP has a cap of 200GB for 29.95. I find that reasonable. If I use too much bandwidth, I pay for it, but anyone using the internet reasonably is fine and will be fine for the next few years at least anyway.

I don't mind having to pay extra if I use an unreasonable amount of the network, but my definition of reasonable and most ISPs seem to differ

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[WK2]

That's exactly what they should do. They should charge per bandwidth. The problem is exactly that they aren't doing that. They advertise unlimited service, but then they go and snipe connections and disconnect users who use more than an unspecified amount. They need to be up front and honest about what they provide and how much it costs. Hopefully these lawsuits will make a dent in these crimes.

Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidth

[chabotc]

Living here in The Netherlands it's almost hard to imagine how it can be so bad over there in the US.

For me bandwidth has been un-metered, un-throttled, un-shaped, unlimited and un-restricted in all senses of the word for the last decade or so. And while i do pay 50 euro's (~ 75USD) a month, i get 20mbit with great service, a personal home page, spam filtering and all the other services you would expect from an ISP, plus they never blocked any ports so running your own http/smtp/imap/etc server from home is no problem either. (there are a lot of cheaper options, you could get 4mbit with no restrictions for about 12 euro's a month but then you would loose a bit in the service and quality department).

I guess my question is ... how the **** do you guys put up with it! It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all ... it sounds outragous!

"Vote with your wallet": Moving to a new house ...

[Jumperalex]

and took this as an opportunity to make the move to FIOS. Now granted the OTHER reason this is when I'm changing is because CUNTCAST was the ONLY available broadband at my current residence. Now that DSL and FIOS are available I made sure to tell COMCAST exactly why I was cancelling my service. Doubt they are smart enough to keep statistics that might clue them in, but I voted with my wallet and made sure they knew about it.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Coopjust]

It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all

That's about right. I have a choice between DSL and Cable for high speed internet (satellite is too high latency). Luckily my cable company treats me well (15mbps/2mbps for $55/mo) but the DSL service is horrible. If the cable company made changes like these I wouldn't have much of an alternative...

It's ridiculous. I hope somebody who actually has a brain gets in the FCC and forces the telcos to actually use the $200 Billion we've given them so far to improve the infrastructure...like we PAID them for with tax dollars.

Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Doug52392]

Here's some of the promises Comcast makes on their latest ad I just got in the mail. Let's see if theres fraud in it...

• "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
  Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.
• "McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."
  I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!
• And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
  So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...
  

So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Wister285]

• "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
  
  Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.

This is absurd. PowerBoost does in fact work, but I doubt that it is designed to be able to work in every circumstance. What if you connect to a slow server? How can it even work then? Are you going to sue because the server can't serve fast enough? BitTorrent is peer-to-peer and considering most connections are asymmetrical to begin with, expecting PowerBoost to let you download really fast to begin with is unreasonable.

"McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."

I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!

So you got a year's subscription for free. I'm sure there's fine print that says that exactly.

And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...


So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...

Quit being so sensationalist. Their claim is that they don't use the public internet for voice communications. This makes a man-in-the-middle attack that much harder as it would probably have to be an inside job. As for the NSA claim, it is purely conjecture. I'm also sure they don't claim that they secure their customers so much as to break the law by violating a court order.

Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!

Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.

No, they should not.

[plasmacutter]

I'm sorry but I'd rather have sniped connections and over-zealous QOS than take a giant step backwards and have internet billed like a cellphone service.

Any company that tries to meter me to "improve customer efficiency" will get a reminder that customers are supposed to get what THEY want. They will get my service cancellation call, regardless of any potential contractual penalties.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[mitgib]

Too bad for you that the ISPs are a monopoly due to "control by government busy-bodies". Or are you suggesting that every single ISP/cable company/power company/water company/sewage company be required to run their own pipes to your house?

And why doesn't it make sense that the pipes/wires/drainage belong to the people instead and then the service providers can all lease that from some management authority to gain access to the last mile and provide everyone service?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[baboo_jackal]

BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel?
Yeah. OPEC, and prohibitive taxes and restrictions on domestic drilling, plus increased fossil fuels demand from developing nations.

It is because speculative corporations...
No. Speculators perform a valuable function in the free market. You're only looking at one half of the picture (the half that allows you to demonize speculators).

Speculators buy a commodity in the hopes that the price will rise. In doing so, they decrease the supply, thereby further driving up prices. (this is the "bad part" that you've fixated on). However, by driving up prices, they decrease consumption (and *please* don't trot out the "but gas is price inelastic!" argument. It's not).

The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities. When a speculator guesses that scarcity is at its peak, they start selling. This increases the supply, and drives *down* price, and allowing consumption to increase.

A better way to look at speculation is this: Speculators act as "buffers" for supply and demand. They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand. Also, you left out the fact that speculation is *not* a risk-free enterprise. Speculators take considerable risks in storing commodities. If the price decreases, they've lost out! In addition, consider the fact that the rising price in oil incentivizes energy companies to develop alternate forms of energy, and maybe will even help politicians in the thrall of mindless environmentalist special interest groups see the folly of preventing domestic drilling for fossil fuels, and the development of a nuclear energy infrastructure.

If your opinion is that we ought to be consuming less fossil fuels, then speculators are doing you a favor! If your belief is that fossil fuels ought to be cheaper, so we'll use more energy, then why not just advocate for the development of nuclear power, or drilling in ANWR? Why not vocally denounce the unethical price-gouging behavior of OPEC nations? There are a lot more culprits to blame for this than speculators. In fact, they're the least of our worries.

But just because they happen to be making out like bandits right now, they're easy targets for ill-considered and thoughtless rhetoric.

Fines have gotten too low!

[wfstanle]

"... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law"

WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business.

Re:Fines have gotten too low!

[mitgib]

I'm pretty sure I understood the article to say per violation to mean $2,500 * xxx customers, that can get quite expensive quickly.

I found myself

[jsse]

woke up in the wrong universe. In my universe customers are sued all the time.

Hi there guys, I'm very new here.

Comcast lock in

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live in San Francisco bay area, there are three main ISPs - AT&T U-verse, Astound.net and Comcast. Unfortunately in my apartment, they do not allow anybody other than Comcast to make connections. Astound is not even allowed to enter the premises, while U-verse is not allowed to make connection from the apartment junction box to my unit. That makes Comcast the default monopoly.

What surprises me is that AT&T and Astoud.net is taking this lying down. I even went personally to Astound.net office and they say my apartment address is black listed in their database (essentially meaning they will not even try to make a connection here). At least AT&T technician from U-verse came here and argued with apartment manager with no success. I wrote a letter to AT&T U-verse and did not even get courtesy of a form letter reply. Yet U_verse is wasting their marketing dollars by sending me fliers almost everyday (and to everybody else in this complex) to sign-up with U-verse.

Comcast Internet connection is the pits these days. After a minute or two of good connectivity, it drops to almost 0 bytes per second. This creates havoc even in accessing gmail. My VOIP phone or chatting with my friends on iChat becomes impossible.

The whole situation makes "voting with our dollars" impossible. By the way, I found out that other apartment dwellers in SF bay area are in similar position.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Richard_at_work]

BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? Yeah. OPEC, and prohibitive taxes and restrictions on domestic drilling, plus increased fossil fuels demand from developing nations. That has a bit to do with it, but mainly its at $136 a barrel because the dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?

They already do charge by weight to make stuff easier and cheaper to deliver, you raving neo-Bolshevikite/Trotskyite anarcho-communo-crypto-statist Marxo-Marxite-Marxist retro-phyto-gangreno-Guevarite proto-postulo-pappado-vivido-pappado-pappado-vivido-Blarite/Brownite-Barakist/Clintonite unreconstructed loon.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[nine-times]

I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.

So in other words, you're in favor of a free market. The chief problems with the government running things is that it's an overly-powerful body that can exert undue influence, and they aren't subject to the normal market forces that would keep things running well. Monopolies have the same problems.

You can be in favor of the free market, with no qualifications, and then there's a separate question: What do we do with the markets that are run by monopolies, and therefore aren't free? Thinking the government should regulate those monopolies does not make you a communist. Particularly not when, as in the case of cable/telephone companies, the monopoly is enforced by the government.

How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[plasmacutter]

Seriously, how much are the telcoms paying you to make these posts?

There is no reason to get self-righteous about this. It's not as if people go to jail if they choose NOT to buy the service because they dont like the idea of subsidizing heavy users. They as light users don't see noticeable service degradation from heavy users, and they still choose to buy it. there is no "injustice" being perpetrated.

There is NO CREDIBLE REASON to charge for internet like cellphone service. What kind of stockholm syndrom do you have where you can defend this practice?

Does fedex charge by the mile? I contest that people who ship using flat-rate envelopes to the neighboring state are subsidizing people who ship using the same envelopes cross country. Do you see how stupid this sounds?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[ScrewMaster]

I think the big fiction is that there has to be a "last mile" monopoly in the first place. That made sense back when a. there was only one telecommunications provider and b. running that last mile was prohibitively expensive. The telcos have been milking that for all it's worth: maybe it is time to eliminate that monopoly and allow some serious competition.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[plasmacutter]

it's called a republican--corporations have a god given right to march over the "lazy" people who aren't rich--appointed FCC allowing local monopoly frachise agreements. In the majority of areas there are 2 choices, "the cable company" or "the dsl company", assuming both options exist.

telecom lobbies have exercised regulatory capture for at least a decade now, and, while their agendas are much less invasive than the RIAA, have considerably greater lobbying grip on our legislatures.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[rfunches]

Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel.

OT but I have to respond because the theory of speculation just doesn't work out. When people talk about oil in the U.S. they refer to light sweet crude, which is traded on NYMEX, a regulated futures market. (Another popular market, Intercontinental Exchange, is not regulated but only trades North Brent crude.) It's a delivery contract, meaning that when the contract expires (and all contracts have an expiration date), you must take physical delivery of 1,000 barrels per contract owned.

So if there are so many speculators able to push the price up, they have to sell the front-month contract to avoid taking delivery of oil -- they're in the contract to make money, not get oil, after all. So they should be selling the day before contract expiration, and all of the speculators trying to sell at once should cause the price to drop, right? If oil isn't selling off sharply right before expiration, then either the people who are holding contracts for delivery are keeping the price up or the speculators are taking delivery of oil. Unless you argue that people are lying about oil delivery on a regulated exchange (NYMEX) the argument of speculation just doesn't hold water.

It could add up even more quickly...

[Coopjust]

If you count every forged TCP RST packet as a violation, that would mean damages in the billions.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Ephemeriis]

I am against any sort of control by government busy-bodies. Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia. The problem is that without any sort of control by government busy-bodies companies will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits.

Without control by government busy-bodies you'd have companies using sawdust as filler in their sausages... Pressing chalk dust into tablets and calling it "aspirin"... Paying children $1/day to work in hazardous conditions... You get the idea.

And without control by government busy-bodies, as we're seeing now, companies will sell you 20 GB/month and call it "unlimited".

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Znork]

They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand.

While I agree with you in theory, if you add in leverage and valuation bubble driven lending I'm not so sure it works out that way. The game changes when lending creates money.

If the price decreases, they've lost out!

If the price decreases they go bust and the lender loses out, which apparently translates into the Fed and taxpayers bailing them out. Structured correctly over several deals, most of the speculative profit is retained anyway, and the losses get almost completely socialized.

Supporting the freedom of the market is one thing (and a good thing, IMO), but you also have to realize that certain segments of what we have today is nothing like a free market. The banking industry in combination with fractional reserve lending distorts the effects of what _should_ be rational (and market smoothing) speculation.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[kosty]

"The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities..."

That's not how the commodities market works. Read this: http://theroxylandr.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/how-commodity-speculation-works/

On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[goombah99]

Forget Shaping, how about active censorship of some websites.
here's the traceroute: ...snip...
  5 pos-5-0-0-ar01.albuquerque.nm.albuq.comcast.net
  6 te-0-7-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net
  7 te-0-0-0-0-cr01.stratford.tx.ibone.comcast.net
  8 comcast-ip-services-llc-los-angles.tengigabitethernet6-3.ar4.lax1.gblx.net
  9 tengigabitethernet6-3.ar4.lax1.gblx.net (64.211.110.153)
10 port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.arn1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102)
11 * *

As you can see it dies in comcasts network. I can still get to piratebay.org via anonymous proxy, so it's definitely a comcast issue.

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Your traceroute and your conclusion are nothing alike.

Looks to me more like comcast hands it off to globalcrossing, who then takes it through what is actually their edge, and then PirateBay.org does not respond to your UDP requests, likely due to a firewall.

This can be verified with a TCP SYN based traceroute to port 80(which you know they allow). Heres one I did from a server with comcast.

TTL LFT trace to thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146):80/tcp
** [firewall] the next gateway may statefully inspect packets
  1 [AS7016] [CABLE-1] 73.201.88.1 6.2/9.7ms
** [neglected] no reply packets received from TTLs 2 through 4
  5 [AS7922] [COMCAST-16] te-0-4-0-1-cr01.pittsburgh.pa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.129) 18.4/13.8ms
  6 [ASN?] [GBLX-13] Te6-4.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net (67.17.194.97) 14.6/25.3ms
  7 [AS3549] [GBLX-8] port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.ARN1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102) 140.7/139.9ms
  8 [AS16150] [83-RIPE] [target] thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146):80 143.3/142.9ms

Now the fact that it jumps about 110ms in one hop is a little odd, but that just shows GlobalCrossing isn't exactly top of the line.

And just for another datapoint, heres the (tail of) the same route using ICMP ECHO requests instead of UDP datagrams:

  5 te-0-4-0-1-cr01.pittsburgh.pa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.129) 13.598 ms 14.115 ms 13.300 ms
  6 Te6-4.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net (67.17.194.97) 14.536 ms 13.284 ms 16.724 ms
  7 port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.ARN1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102) 137.295 ms 135.119 ms 136.846 ms
  8 thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146) 135.577 ms 133.808 ms 131.285 ms

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

They only act as buffers when they buy low and sell high, as you would expect rational speculators to do.

When they take the "free" the money the Fed keeps printing and buy high, because they think the Fed is going to keep on printing "free" money and hence it's going to go higher still, they are not buffering. They doing the reverse, and making the peak higher, when the sell they'll make the low lower too - the opposite of smoothing things out.

But it's not their fault, they're being rational enough, it's simply Fed induced inflation at work. You'd be mad not to leverage as much as you can into positions that will do well in inflationary times (which is commodities...)

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you misunderstand how "futures" trading works. Traders (the ones you're calling speculators) do not actually buy and take delivery of commodities, thereby acting as pricing and supply buffers as you seem to think. The single thing that a futures trader never wants to do is to actually own the commodity they're trading. If this happens, they're screwed as these are guys with Park Avenue offices, summer homes in the Hamptons, and winter homes in Aspen - not warehouses or tank farms.

In the futures market, a trader simply says something like: "I'll sell you a million barrels of oil for $150 per barrel on the first of next month". He doesn't own oil wells or a million barrels of oil, he is simply offering to sell something (which is probably still deep in the earth somewhere in the world) at a particular price on a particular date in the future. If I think that oil is going to be selling for more than $150 on the first of next month, I accept his offer to sell and guarantee to give him $150 million on delivery of the million barrels. This is a contract between me and him. If, when the futures market opens for trading the next morning, I offer to sell my million barrels of July oil for $160 per barrel and find a third trader willing to pay, I simply sell my contract with the first trader to that third trader.

The first trader is still on the hook to deliver the million barrels for $150 million and the third trader is obligated to buy a million barrels for $160 million. I'm out of the deal completely. The oil is still in the ground somewhere. Nothing has actually moved from the possession of one individual to another. The $10 million difference is mine to keep.

The student who wishes more insight into futures trading might want to watch the classic 1983 film "Trading Places".

Hmmm, Fines Eh?

[BlueStrat]

Just calculate the total amount of these fines and judgments, divide by the number of residential customers, and you'll know how much your internet bill will be going up in a couple months.

This reminds me of the way a certain meat-packing plant a couple towns over operates. They employ (and underpay) illegal alien workers, they violate workplace safety codes blatantly, and they just pay the fines and judgments and go on as usual because the cost of compliance is more than the fines and judgments.

Until the financial penalties are a very significant percentage of their gross income, and/or CEOs and board-members are held personally financially and criminally liable, this kind of behavior will continue, and any costs imposed will be passed along to consumers.

The "corporate veil" of protections against personal civil and criminal liabilities of corporate heads and boards needs to be more easily pierced when it involves intentional abusive or illegal behavior on the part of corporations like the kinds of behaviors exhibited by Comcast and other cable ISPs, and corporations in the US as a whole.

If the people actually in charge of corporations knew that abusive and anti-competitive behavior by the corporations they head could land *them personally* square in the hotseat, much of the corporate bad-faith, "nothing counts but the bottom-line" behaviors so typical of the current corporate environment in the US would quickly undergo radical change.

Ah, to dream...

Strat

Most disturbing image...

[Jorophose]

This reminds me of possibly the most disturbing image I've ever seen on 4chan... And 4chan of all places! I don't have it saved but it really did make me crap a house, especially when I realised the poster wasn't kidding.

The image?

19.99$: Basic service: Access to MSN, Yahoo, (various other sites)
29.99$: Premium service! Access to MSN, Yahoo!, Facebook, CNet, (other sites)!
49.99$: Extreme service! Access to over 100 web sites! Even youtube! ... And I wouldn't put it past them even for a second.

Re:Most disturbing image...

[carambola5]

The image: http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting argument I've heard against domestic drilling is not environmental. There's a limited amount of oil available. How do we want to use it? Produce a plausible plan for oil usage over the next 50 years involving known domestic oil reserves plus imports. For almost any reasonable such plan, you'll discover we're using oil faster than we want to be. We should be saving it for later, by leaving it in the ground right now. It's far less painful to wean ourselves off it over an extended period of time than to extract it as fast as we can and then run out at a similar pace.

Sue comcast under anti-trust law or file FTC compl

[plasmacutter]

They are entering into contracts with that apartment complex to tie comcast to their rentals which is completely unrelated in order to further their market share.

this falls afoul of anti-trust law, and denies customers choice.

File a complaint with the FTC or sue comcast.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[paulmer2003]

If they did that then a large number of customers would defect to another company who does *not* go through their packages. Capitalism works.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Qzukk]

Well shit, I better revoke my shareholder proxy in time to show up at the next election and demand that they stop this tomfoolery at once!

Exactly what is happening.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!

No kidding, you would have expected to see at least two, maybe even three, class action suits by now.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[ch0knuti]

Funny since I am in Russia and writing this on a computer connected by broadband. True ADSL is more popular than cable here but still it is not dial up. Also I thought that France had one of the best broadband coverages in the world.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[maz2331]

It is NOT "their traffic" at all. This is bandwidth that's been SOLD to the customers. It's not like using, say, a school or corporate network where the owner who pays the cost can shape and set policies of use at will.

A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.

Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.

Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like Compuserve or AOL.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[foobsr]

the argument of speculation just doesn't hold water

Aha.

Quote: "A panel of experts told a Senate committee on Capitol Hill Tuesday that rising oil prices have a direct connection to manipulation of U.S. energy futures markets, and federal regulators failed in their responsibility to protect consumers.

Among the experts who testified were Michael Greenberger, JD, professor at the School of Law and a former director at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Greenberger argued that basic market fundamentals are only a piece of what explains the current cost of crude oil.

"I think the price is completely unmoored from supply-demand," said Greenberger."

CC.

Or maybe it's global crossing censoring websites?

[goombah99]

checking who owns the last stop on the traceroute:

whois 207.138.144.102

OrgName: Global Crossing
OrgID: GBLX
Address: 14605 South 50th Street
City: Phoenix
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85044-6471
Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.gblx.net:4321

NetRange: 207.138.0.0 - 207.138.255.255
CIDR: 207.138.0.0/16
NetName: GBLX-8
NetHandle: NET-207-138-0-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NAME.ROC.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.PHX.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.SNV.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.JFK1.GBLX.NET
Comment: THESE ADDRESSES ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 1996-05-20
Updated: 2005-03-02

RTechHandle: IA12-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: GBLX-IPADMIN
RTechPhone: +1-800-404-7714
RTechEmail: ipadmin@gblx.net

OrgAbuseHandle: GBLXA-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: GBLX-Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@gblx.net

OrgNOCHandle: GBLXN-ARIN
OrgNOCName: GBLX-NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgNOCEmail: gc-noc@gblx.net
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/08/1354257#
OrgTechHandle: IA12-ORG-ARIN
OrgTechName: GBLX-IPADMIN
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@gblx.net

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-07 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Addendum to previous comment

[Duncan Blackthorne]

..oh, and BTW boys and girls, according to results of the glasnost test run not more than 48 hours ago, Comcast is STILL inserting bogus TCP reset packets into BitTorrent streams; TFA says that Comcast had agreed to stop doing that. Big surprise! They're LYING.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[maxume]

In a supply and demand situation, scarcity doesn't mean just 'a limited supply' it also means 'a fixed supply'. The price of oil (and thus gasoline) certainly isn't being set purely by supply and demand, but a significant portion of the price is due to the relative amount of supply and demand, and it takes months and years to start producing new oil, so it is very difficult for producers to increase supply in response to higher prices, even when they want to.

There is probably a good argument to be made that (at similar volumes to today) whatever the lowest future price of oil is is reflective of the amount of demand built into the price of oil today. If we never see anything less than $80 (inflation adjusted) oil, then that is at least a starting place for how much of the market is being driven by actual consumers, rather than speculators.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[twotailakitsune]

The network with 5% in use cost the same as the network at 95%. It only starts to cost more when the network has demand over 100%. If your phone company set you up with frame relay, you pay for a QOS of some bandwidth (ex. 1mb/s, 5mb/s,...). They will let you use more then that but the packets get marked. If the network can't deal with anymore they start dropping the marked packets. You can even get a QOS of 0mb/s vary cheap.

Deep packet scanning would put more load on the network, than if they just send the packet.
There is 2 resows they do the scanning.
1.) Outside of network uses. The Cable co. have to pay for the bandwidth to the internet.
2.) Cable co. wants you to pay them for movies, and music. They hate youTube, and any other ways that you can see movies (copyrighted or not). Even if they block other things while blocking copyrighted things.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Renraku]

Everything is elastic. When people can no longer afford gas, they won't be buying it.

They'll be stealing it.

They'll be getting fired for not being able to make it to work anymore. They'll be living off of welfare/food stamps because they can't afford to move closer to the jobs.

The demand is going to go down from all of these people not being able to afford it. But the price drop will not be immediate. By the time the price starts to drop, output and refinery capacity will be reduced to compensate for the decreased demand. Speculators will still be playing the "..it could rise sharply at any time!" game.

Speculators hope that the price rises like they've been betting on so that they'll make more money.

Speculators fail to realize that if they trigger an economic depression that their money won't be worth a whole lot anymore. Inflation will more than make up for any gains they have made off of the market.

In the end? Everyone loses.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[infinite8s]

That's what happens when you live in a socialist country like the Netherlands. Here in the good 'ole USA, we have capitalism to make sure there is good competition to keep prices low. Wait, what?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

This is correct. The Federal Reserve creates bubble after bubble by counterfeiting the money supply, even if it's hidden by grossly manipulating official inflation measurement indexes such as the CPI, and removing the M3 total money supply number from official Fed reports. The late '90s internet bubble, the housing bubble, and now the commodities bubble. It's exactly like stepping on bumps in a rug; one bump deflates while another bump pops up elsewhere underneath the rug. Newly printed money and credit is going to be spent, rigorously in economic terms *traded*, for other specific goods first as opposed to the goods where that new money is not traded first.

Oil is a *futures* driven market. If the market fears the USA is going to attack Iran and lead to supply problems in the future, prices of futures contracts will reflect that in the present pricing of futures contracts. Absolutely every single good and service is priced *subjectively*, incorporating fears, dreams, beliefs, fashion, fads, you name it. Map out the price of oil over decades, hell map it out for the last century, and you'll see that price corresponds extremely closely to the devaluation of fiat currency, even in spite of a huge increase in demand and supply.

If the supply and demand remain constant, but you double the supply of money, what you expect to happen? That's right, the same amount of oil will trade for double the amount of money. Read the Creature from Jekyll Island which has a review on this site.

http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1432203

Here's an e-book about government interference manipulation of the supply and price of oil. It's far from a free market if private companies can't drill in Alaska.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[drinkypoo]

In a supply and demand situation, scarcity doesn't mean just 'a limited supply' it also means 'a fixed supply'.

I understand what you're saying. However, the various oil companies are invested in biofuels and could conceivably be producing them in quantity, so they could probably make more. I can only assume that they're not doing this for one of two reasons based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation: either they're trying to milk the dino juice as long as possible because you don't change horses in mid-stream, or they're concerned about the OPEC response to anything that fucks with their monopoly on oil.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Tacobowl8]

(anyone in IT in the US getting whatever they need to do their jobs without any hassles, let me know where you work) You might want to try with the big oil companies such as Shell and Exxon. For them, figuring out what needs to happen and getting things in place in a timely manner is extremely important. Any delay will delay the entire folding out of a new oil well or pumping operation. Now, this mainly stems from the fact that the oil business is something that has huge startup costs for any new production (means of getting the oil), and the profits gained from it are spread out over many years. Toss in inflation, and you begin to see why they care so much about timely results. My father used to work IT for Amaco, and they often got the latest equipment so they could do their job just one day faster than they used to.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

Sorry, but inflation solely occurs by government counterfeiting of the money supply. The exact same goods which exist before every trade exist after every trade occurs. Money is just another good which is itself subject to supply and demand subjective valuations. But only morons would think fiat paper which can easily be manipulated into an infinite supply is a good sound monetary policy.

The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops. Say hello to the new gold, say hello to the new money. It's called oil.

Who thinks it's a good idea to save your money at 2% interest rate as the Federal Reserve counterfeits so much money that your saved money is worth 10% less next year than it was last year? That's precisely why people took on debt to speculate on houses (even if it meant buying a bigger house than you otherwise might have bought) to avoid having their savings stored in rapidly devaluing fiat currency. Now that we have ran out of new suckers to pay the highest prices for houses, it's a better bet to convert savings into commodities.

So you wrongly demonize speculators, and give government interference in the free market a free pass? No voluntary willing trade occurs between any two people unless by definition that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If both parties to the trade didn't simultaneously profit in strict economic terms, the trade would not occur. Demonizing speculators makes about as much sense as some third party making your computer hardware and software purchases for you without your consent.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

The government tends to "set up" monopolies first rather than outright enforce them. When you are a giant corporate telecommunications infrastructure player and get *billions* in subsidies for laying your network, new competition isn't going to get those same subsidies. So if you want to compete against Comcast, your business plan needs to be billions of dollars more efficient than Comcast's business plan since you won't be getting network infrastructure subsidies.

And "loosely" enforcing (aiding and abetting more accurately) monopolies ensures campaign contributions, ensures nice jobs for your friends and family, and ensures future lobbying work for yourself in the future when your political career is over.

Strict regulations also make it too expensive for new competition to gain a foothold.

Re:if oil price is 'cause of speculation...

[monxrtr]

So where are the oil inventories? Locked in the ground.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Controlling energy prices controls movement and controls people. The government thanks you for your dependency on water, food, and oil.

Pharmaceutical companies push a lot of drugs by marketing. How much marketing is involved in the diamond industry, from engagement and wedding rings to jewelry for special occasions? Gotta have those bling bling rims spinners around the fingers and hanging from necks and ears. Otherwise what's the status of karats if your 50,000 album record collection can be "pirated" by just any old peon by clicking a mouse button?

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[cdrguru]

I don't understand how anyone trying to operate a business can operate over a cable modem. You can't upload anything. Sure, you can download at 12-20Mb but upload speeds are often 128K or even less. And then when the school children get home, your service drops to nothing.

If you had a T1 you would get 1.5MB both up and down with dedicated bandwith that nobody can interfere with, no matter what they are doing in your neighborhood.

Yes, it is more expensive than cable, but you get RELIABLE bandwidth and RELIABLE performance. What I have seen from cable is a burst at 12Mb and then a long, long time at 1Mb, if that. If you know it is going to take 30 minutes to upload a web site to a server then you can plan for it. If it might take 5 minutes or it might take 4 hours what sort of planning can you do?

How can anyone seriously use a cable modem for business purposes?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[gmack]

You can just spin the company controlling the last mile off into a corporation that can only break even. Then order them to give the same rates to all of the CLECS.

Problem solved.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[rfunches]

I read Greenberger's testimony, and here's the important part of what he said:

ICE, [unlike NYMEX,] operates with no regulatory oversight, no obligation to ensure its products are traded in a fair and orderly manner, and no obligation to prevent excessive speculation. [...] As a result, NYMEX's instructions to Amaranth did nothing to reduce Amaranth's size, but simply caused Amaranth's trading to move from a regulated market to an unregulated one.

So in a market where there are no CFTC rules or government oversight, there is speculation. Surprise surprise. But ICE is not where oil is physically settled. ICE WTI (West Texas Intermediate) is cash settled against the prevailing market price for US light sweet crude (what's traded on NYMEX). If the speculators are fleeing to ICE because they can't get their way on NYMEX, then my point still holds: the price of NYMEX light sweet crude (LSC) should decline right before front-month expiration because the speculators have to sell to avoid taking delivery (which they don't have to worry about on ICE), and the price between NYMEX and unregulated, OTC crude prices should decouple. NYMEX crude should be priced on pure supply-demand on the expiration day, so either real buyers are supporting the price or the speculators are somehow dodging delivery.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[crunchy_one]

The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops.

Wow. Three cliches in one!

Good point, BTW.