Slashdot Mirror


FCC Votes To Punish Comcast

MaineCoasts brings news that three out of the five FCC commissioners have voted in favor of punishing Comcast for their P2P throttling practices. The investigation of Comcast has been underway since January, and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin made clear their conclusion a couple weeks ago. Ars Technica has coverage as well, noting: "The initial report on the vote said nothing about which way Republican commissioners McDowell and Tate might lean. FCC watchers wouldn't be at all surprised to see both vote against the order; the really interesting moment could come if they support it. Having four or even five commissioners support the order would send a strong bipartisan signal to ISPs that they need to take great care with any sort of discriminatory throttling based on anything more specific than a user's total bandwidth."

9 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Comcast's likely reaction to any FCC "punishment": by base3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ow, my wrist!

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  2. Comcast by mark72005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comcast will be along shortly to check any negative posts against their outgoing traffic logs.

  3. "Throttling" by AsnFkr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yea, when I am running torrents what Comcast does to me is make it so I drop like 30-80% of all (not just torrent) of my packets every 5-10 minutes, then it comes back up (tested via pings). My torrents are still blazing fast when I actually have a connection. All I do is spoof my router's MAC to a random number, release and renew my IP (to chick they give me a new one) and my internet works PERFECT for 2 days until they start the process over again. Annoying, but it's amazing they are so stupid they won't associate my IP with my MODEMS MAC instead of the router/PC. BTW, If I shut off my torrents after getting a new IP, I *never* need to reset the MAC as they never force me to drop packets.

  4. Re:Finally!!! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not what this is about. Comcast was found by the FCC to be interfering in the traffic of specific application types, violating principles established by the FCC to allow customers open access to the Internet. The customers were not charged for the bits that were blocked, so it had nothing to do with bandwidth caps.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  5. Re:The Republicans are correct by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a legislative arm. It has broad legislated enforcement mandates from Congress, going back to the early-mid 1930s on communications policy and enforcement. It is IN FACT an enforcement arm, upheld by SCOTUS. The US President, as in theexecutive branch appoints the commisioners.

    That said, I don't agree with a lot of what they do, and they do have considerable power, but power that's not unlike that of the EPA, the military, and so on.

    So is the Comcast pending fine a good idea? You bet. Once the pandora's box of stepping on protocols to favor another is open, it can't be shut. This sends a great signal to carriers that they'd best not fool with consumer access. Be a good carrier; don't mess with protocols to favor your own perceived traffic. Controversial no doubt; a good one this time, IMHO.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  6. Re:The Republicans are correct by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not at all a stretch.. thats' why they call them "Forged Packets"
    They *very clearly* do not come from the source that compcast pretends they come from.

  7. Re:The Republicans are correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, I've heard that theory, but it's a huge, if not ridiculous, stretch to claim that forged packets are some sort of illegal impersonation.

    Is it not at least an equally huge, if not ridiculous, stretch to claim that it is "absolutely legal?"

    Packet forging is rightly named---Comcast sends them as if they originated from me, when they did not. They do not advertise that they do it & I did not sign any document authorizing them to do it on my behalf. In fact, many AUPs prohibit forging and spoofing from their users & ISPs should be held to an even higher standard.

  8. Re:It looks good, but its not. by Corbets · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The government would never do anything to hurt a corporation."

    Um, AT&T, Standard Oil, and a few other examples come to mind... plus, if you run a small business and have ever dealt with OSHA, you'll have plenty of other more modern examples ready.

    While it's certainly true that the government supports corporate interests from time to time, it would behoove you to understand why it happens instead of making blanket assumptions.

  9. This ruling will never stand by Skapare · · Score: 5, Funny

    All Comcast needs to do to get this overturned is find a judge that isn't a Comcast customer.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars