Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Appeals FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling
Ian Lamont writes "Comcast has filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling that says the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles. A Comcast VP said the FCC ruling is 'legally inappropriate,' but said it will abide by the order during the appeal while moving forward with its plan to cap data transfers at 250 GB per month."
Comcast has filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling that says the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles.
I read:
Comcast filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling. The appeal says that the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles.
I then thought:
WTF?! They are trying to bolster net neutrality? Did I just see a pig fly by?
The FCC decision leaves small broadband providers wondering what kind of network management is allowed
The kind of management that doesn't discriminate based on protocol, application, destination or source. Google, Yahoo and MSN don't get special access not available to Bob's Web Search because they have deeper pockets.
Hope that helps.
I don't think there is a slashdot reader who would willingly choose Comcast over anything other than dial-up or abstinence. Most Comcast users just don't have any other choice. THAT is the problem...
No matter how hot a girl is - some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
They can't be nailed because of provisions in the DMCA (or other laws, I am not sure which). Those provisions don't require them to act like a common carrier.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Safe Harbor, not common carrier, is what protects Comcast as per the DMCA and the CDA. Common carrier is a completely different concept that affects telcos, not cable companies. Modifying TCP streams--however repugnant--does not automatically mean the ISP is liable for the content that traverses its network. That's the law, like it or not.
That's the answer a lot companies would like to sell the government on, that there is a "free" market for people to choose the provider they wish.
Yet out of the other side of their mouth, they go back to the government and ask for monopolies in the areas they service so they can recoup their cost of building out infrastructure. Hell, they've even resorted to suing municipalities to prevent them from building out their own.
Truth is, for many people in the US, there is no competitive market. There is one provider in their area, and that's it.
Much as Comcast may boohoo about the FCC and whatnot, here's the schtick: You want to be a monopoly, you get regulated. End of story. Don't want that? Then don't ask for government handouts in the form of monopolies or suing competition.
This is actually incorrect in most cases. The TELCO is supplying a direct line to the ISP that is designed for 100% full time usage of all the lines connected through that equipment. It's your ISP that creates the cap because their upstream is not equal to the sum of all their customer's line bandwidth.
Thats why DSL is better.
The cyberonic website asks for a phone number to determine availability, and instead of simply saying yes or no, they put up another form with address, phone number, and EMAIL address demands. Then, even with all the entries filled in, they respond with "all required entries must be filled in, please 'back' and try again."
Phishing for email addresses and phone numbers. Bah. A pox on them and their ilk.
ISPs have always demonstrated preference for content. Inbound port 80 traffic and excessive SMTP traffic are just two examples of commonly restricted types of traffic. Besides, even websites like YouTube actively remove videos with explicit scenes. Does that mean YouTube is liable every time somebody posts an infringing video, even if YouTube isn't actually aware of it?
Really? Like this case, where Verizon wanted to provide FiOS, but the city wouldn't let them? What an incentive!!
I don't think you understand the concept of an ISP franchise. In a nutshell, it's when a city says "Company X is giving us $XX million, in exchange for being the sole ISP in the city, provided they sell at least Y mbit/s with at least a certain level of availability." Yes, most governments are really that stupid.
How can you even get more strict than that?
Sigh. The error I see is that some don't know WTF they're talking about. From the dictionary:
Any entity with exclusive control over something has a monopoly on that something. It doesn't matter if it's a government, private citizen, or giant mega-corporation. It has nothing to do with representation.
And you expect to regulate the problem away? What exactly do you plan on telling the ISPs? "Provide us internet service because our law, which doesn't apply to you because you don't do business here, says you have to?"
Instead of expecting somebody else to lose a bunch of money on the deal, why not get your group of ten cities to pay for the infrastructure and provide you with internet service?
Maybe not