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."

Comments

D'oh!

[Skye16]

Watch them win and maintain the 250gb cap.

Comcast subscribers = butt pwnt.

Re:D'oh!

[palegray.net]

I have no problem with the 250 GB cap. I'd much prefer ISPs clearly state their actual usage limits, as opposed to the current widespread practice of selling "unlimited" bandwidth plans that are anything but unlimited.

If consumers dislike a particular ISPs plan, they can voice their opinions and vote with their wallets. Yes, I understand this comment is probably going to generate dozens of "but I can't get another ISP!" replies, and I preemptively dispute the validity of most of them. I'm living on a Naval installation, and I could drop my current cable provider for a number of DSL providers. Would I have the the same download speeds? Probably not, but the option is still there.

We make tradeoffs when buying services from various vendors. With respect to ISPs, some offer higher speeds but have crappy terms of service. Other providers offer "business" level accounts that don't have any caps aside from throughput, and offer static IPs and unblocked ports. You get what you pay for, and the market as a whole decides what's worth offering.

Re:D'oh!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I'm living on a Naval installation, and I could drop my current cable provider for a number of DSL providers.

We all know how bad internet connectivity is on/around Naval institutions.

Leaving that aside, your dismissal of others' claims because they don't happen to apply to you and thus everyone is the height of egocentric thinking.

Re:D'oh!

[geekoid]

In my area I have a number of DSL ISPs..but they ALL go through the same TELCO, so there really isn't much of a market there is they all do what the telco tells them. If the telco puts a cap, that all do.

Fortunately I also have FIOS as an option. An option I readily use.

I have lived in communities with only one option.

Re:D'oh!

[mrsbrisby]

Our township has a municipality which provides electric, sewer, cable, and (you guessed it!) Internet.

In order to "vote" against this municipality, you also need to go "off grid" because they jack up utilities to help monopolize the local Internet service.

Additionally, we're still 1954-style copper and so the only fiber loops are from: the municipality. Hauling a DS3 from the next-nearest site would be tens of thousands of dollars for the install (Verizon tenatively quoted us 56K$USD).

There was a big project called "Network Maryland" where the whole state was supposed to get fiber construction- but they stopped just a mere 25 miles away. We paid taxes, so that the rest of Maryland could get high-speed internet, and the freedom of choice, and we just got screwed out of it.

No other ISP can compete with them here- so we don't have any others.

Here: You have to vote with your vote, and that means going door-to-door, and convincing locals to vote for something that frankly, they just don't care very much about.

Please stop telling people how content you are. You're contributing to the controversy which helps companies like Comcast, and makes things much harder for people actually trying to "vote".

Re:D'oh!

[erroneus]

I really hate it when people start off with their typical captialistic ideology when it doesn't apply. In the case of communications, capitalism has never existed. It has always been about a company buying rights to install infrastructure from a local government with which they could exclusively have access to customers without competition. In some cases, deals have been [quietly] made that prevents competing technologies from existing simultaneously which explains why DSL will exist where Cable internet doesn't (while, oddly enough, cable TV exists so you would think that was a no-brainer..?) and vice versa, and of course FiOS doesn't yet reach.

With the paid-for lack of competition and regulation, they have seen fit to raise prices in areas without competition and lower them where there is competition. They dink with the quality of service instead of reinvesting their [enormous -- read their SEC filings] profits to keep up with the trends and future of the world-wide internet. They lie to customers, which is actually in violation of various consumer laws in fact and in spirit, by using words like "Unlimited" to describe their service and then charge people extra for actually believing them.

What we have here is anything BUT capitalism. Capitalism can't exist where monopolies are permitted to exist.

Re:D'oh!

[jlarocco]

Oh wow. That's ironic. An anti-capitalism whiner complaining about the ISP market.

Just to clarify, the ISP market sucks because local governments sell exclusive franchises and forbid competition. The problem is precisely the lack of competition, free markets and capitalism that you rail against in the linked to journal entry. If anybody is screwing the consumers in this case, it's the government, not the ISPs.

Spinning it as a failure of capitalism is either ignorant or just plain malicious. It's a perfect example of why too much government regulation is a bad thing.

FCC: Stop the forgery by Comcast

[corsec67]

Slowing or delaying p2p is one thing, but actively forging packets, for any reason, should be punished severely.

Forging reset packets does not equal "throttling", even if it does reduce the load on the network.

Re:FCC: Stop the forgery by Comcast

[corsec67]

So, you are in favor of ISPs forging traffic to prevent people from using bandwidth they paid for?

p2p, like Bittorrent are frequently used to transfer large files legally.

Re:Sounds like Comcast's death-knell...

[MorderVonAllem]

I'm so sick of this argument. There is no valid alternative where a lot of people live. Where I live we are too far away for DSL. Satellite is *not* an option and FIOS isn't even a gleam in someone's eye. As for TV I don't watch TV anymore so that doesn't affect me.

Re:commiecast doesn't get the law

[palegray.net]

... inserting forged protocol packets ...

I consider content the TCP stream that delivers my (X)HTML, CSS, binary data, etc. How, exactly, is inserting additional data into the stream not modifying the content?

To: MODS -- Comcast is NOT a common carrier!

[whoever57]

they have gone past the 1949 definition of a cable company as a protected common carrier..

Mods, please wise up: Comcast is not a common carrier

(I'll probably be downmodded to hell for pointing out the truth here, but what the heck!)

Re:Sounds like Comcast's death-knell...

[palegray.net]

I don't disagree with you in principle. However, the practical truth of the matter is that Comcast's customer base is largly comprised of people that wouldn't know a TCP/IP packet from a hand grenade, and largely don't care about these issues.

As long as Dad can browse CNN.com (or other, shall we say, less savory sites), Mom can check her email, and little Joey can play his flash games, there will be no mass uprising.

Again, I'm not trying the minimize the fact that voting with your wallet is a good answer, just reminding everyone that the number of wallets involved is statistically small.

Re:look for a new isp

[palegray.net]

This is a move to slow down P2P.

I disagree. The more likely option is that this is a move to discourage the use of Internet-based movie services. Such services directly affect Comcast's advertising and on-demand revenue in a negative manner.

Re:look for a new isp

[AeroIllini]

Oh, boo hoo, here come the comments from Australians saying "I only get 1KBps download speed with a 2MB cap for $100 a month!"

We know your internet sucks. We feel for you, we really do.

Just because yours is worse doesn't mean we can't fight to make ours better.

Give them the finger and walk away.

[zerofoo]

The download cap is a poorly disguised attempt to head-off video downloads via the internet.

And I'm referring to the legal ones - like iTunes+Apple TV and Netflix's Roku player.

You can get video and voice from many other companies. These services require bandwidth. Buy these services from companies other than your cable company, and you will find yourself potentially hitting the cap. Buy these services from the cable company (delivered digitally) and the caps disappear.

This is a classic case of monopoly abuse.

-ted