Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Finally Files Suit Against FCC Over Traffic Shaping
Following up on their threat last year to sue the FCC over sanctions imposed, Comcast has finally filed suit, stating that there are no statutes or regulations that support the FCC's authority to stop traffic shaping procedures. "First, let's recap: After months of proceedings, hearings, and investigations, the FCC concluded on August 1, 2008 that Comcast was discriminating against certain P2P applications using deep packet inspection techniques. These methods thwarted the ability of users to share video and other files via BitTorrent. 'Comcast was delaying subscribers' downloads and blocking their uploads,' declared then FCC Chair Kevin Martin. 'It was doing so 24/7, regardless of the amount of congestion on the network or how small the file might be. Even worse, Comcast was hiding that fact by making [affected] users think there was a problem with their Internet connection or the application.'"
Do you need any more proof that the government needs strong regulative powers?
Following up on their threat last year to sue the FCC over sanctions imposed, Comcast has finally filed suit, stating that there are no statutes or regulations that support the FCC's authority to stop traffic shaping procedures.
Traffic shaping is writing rules like "give ssh and http packets priority over ftp-data". This is good and something almost all ISP that care about good customer service already do. What Comcast was doing, aka packet forgery, was a deliberate attempt to disrupt certain types of transfer. NO good ISP does this, by definition.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Then tell them to shut up! The FCC makes the rules.
While they are at it, the FCC needs to forbid commercial content on cable from being or appearing louder than the program content.
Also, I already know what channel I am watching,they also need to forbid banners and advertisements from being displayed on my screen, interfering with my program viewing.
Hey, let's go back to the days of NO Commercials at all. I am paying for content already. Infomercials need BANNED too.
by RUSSIAN criminals
Please give me some credit for NOT using the Fox term "hackers".
Yours In Satan,
Kilgore Trout
Comcast could be free to throttle. Except that the initial cost of building the "Comcast owned" networks was paid for by tax payers. Also, because they acted dubiously, and pretended that it wasn't them that was throttling, but instead some connection problem, or other problem with the application. Throttling is ok, provided you have a choice of choosing another provider (internet providers usually have a monopoly, or at best, duopoly, in most areas) and that they make it completely clear to the customer what they are throttling. Throttling all instances of a specific type of traffic, even when there is no congestion going on, is really not what anybody wants.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The only reason Comcast gets my money is because they were granted a monopoly for Cable in my area. IMHO, we really need to start talking about taking away cable and in some places fiber monopolies.
On another note it would be way cool to be able to have whichever company's box has the broadcast channels on it that you associate with your home town, in my case New York and San Francisco. Do particular broadcast company stations have monopolies as well for geographic areas? I'm pretty damn sick of monopolies, we need to go antitrust hopefully with this administration before its too late.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Dear Comcast:
FUCK YOU.
- a former customer
Regional Monopolies are either utilities subject to intense regulation, or are subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Where's your Attorney General now? Seriously....where is he/she??
Comcast is currently looking for lots of content to buy. They will then need to be able to cut WAY back on competing companies to force those companies to pay Comcast as well as their ISP. Now, lets see what the dems will do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In a perfect world the FCC will rip Comcast apart. Seriously. When Comcast is looking to buy a content provider like Vivendi or Disney, rather than investing money into infrastructure improvements, then something is entirely, completely off kilter and needs to be corrected. First, while I know that big companies are in business to make money, Comcast should not be in a financial situation to buy a company the size of Disney nor Vivendi. Second, and more importantly, if they are going to operate as a service provider, they should invest profits into ensuring they are able to be the best service provider they can. But, of course, they don't have to because they don't really compete with anyone so they can be a sub-par service provider who over charge for their service and make stupid amounts of money.
With luck, the FCC will get pissed and make an example of Comcast. I know it won't happen, but I can hope.
Doesn't this go back to the telco's being granted common carrier status, by their claim that they don't know what's going over their lines, therefore they aren't responsible for things like people using the telephone to commit crimes, or other things like child porn, etc? Kind of like how the gun makers provide a means of harm being done, but are free from the actions the individual takes? So, if they are shaping traffic, they obviously know something about what's on their lines, therefore they should not allowed to have common carrier status anymore, right? I'm sure if the FCC threatened to revoke their common carrier status, Comcast et al would pipe down quicker than you could blink an eye.
Comcast is still screwing with P2P traffic. When I use a P2P client to download a torrent, invariably it reaches a point where my internet connection slows to a crawl, then stops. Then nothing connects, neither my browser, email or P2P client. I have to toggle the power on the cable modem, and after it reboots and reconnects, everything is peachy for a few hours until it happens again. This doesn't happen with any other internet activity, even when I stream large video files for an extended time. Just with P2P downloads, even small ones.
Go FCC, snuff out Comcast.
... a Republican is a Democrat is a Politician ... they're all the same
Lack of government regulation can be bad. Some government regulation is good. Massive amounts of government regulation is bad.
who here disagrees?
They don't.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
That might be viable, except that Comcast has never had common-carrier status.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I know net neutrality is still being messed around with in courts, and in this scenario Comcast has grounds to do what they are doing. However, what about the Federal Wire Tap Act? They are intercepting and modifying data without the user's consent. Although, I have a feeling that some place in the jungle of the Comcast TOS, there is legalese that lets them do this, but is it still right?
Just goes to prove that EVERYONE needs to be critical of their ISPs TOS and practices. Buyer Beware!
Comcast's case must not be so great if it has taken them this long to file it. One would think that their case will also be much weaker under the current administration than the last one. What Comcast seems to fail to realize is that they are an effective monopoly in much of the area that they serve and monopolists aren't allowed to just go out and do as they please.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Comcast is doing this for one reason: so it can continue to vastly oversell it's network. "Unlimited" = "Unlimited because we hope you're all grannies who check their email once in awhile."
Consider that the only thing keeping hordes of State regulators from insisting on much stricter requirements (and even open access to that "last mile") is Federal preemption. If the FCC doesn't have the authority to do it, the States do.
Biting the hand that shields you. Smooth move, Comcast!
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
>stating that there are no statutes or regulations that support the FCC's authority to stop traffic shaping procedures
But there are... It's called "common carrier status." The FCC should say "Fine, go ahead. Now you no longer have common carrier status."
The FCC doesn't regulate the internet... not yet anyway. However, the problem described does seem to illustrate some very deceptive business practices on Comcast's part. So perhaps the FTC or the Justice Department are more appropriate government entities to address the problem.
It's Comcast's hard earned money, they should be able to expand their monopoly as far as they can without government interference.
The proper response to this news is not to push for regulation. It's Comcast's network they can do what they like with the data so long as what they are doing is part of the customer agreement the user signed up for. The proper response to this news is to push for anti-trust prosecution against Comcast, Time Warner, et al who are running monopolies in their markets and force competition. Whether that is in the form of forcing them to allow unrestricted usage of their network (for a fee of course) by competitors a la the power grid or some other form. It is not data shaping that is really the issue. It is lack of competitive choice for customers.
Fred
That's all fine and dandy, except what Comcast was doing wasn't packet shaping. What they were doing was actively manipulating traffic (inserting reset flags onto P2P packets to disrupt connectivity). That's a big no-no that they should suffer for dearly.
I have Comcast :( What do I do?
Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution
Although the prose is a bit dated, this is some remarkably "back to basics" thinking that could do some people a lot of good. I quote:
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer
More
'Unless you re-write the laws to make cable a "utility" you can't govern the way they provide service.'
Actually, I believe the time has come to re-categorize internet providers as utilities. Most ISPs operate as either a monopoly or duopoly, have municipal districts and are considered to be an essential service for both business and home. All of these are common traits for a utility. It's time to start treating them as such.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Comcast claims that it's method of traffic shaping using fraudulent reasons is legal?
If a judge does anything but laugh this out of court he should be given shock therapy.
... Second, and more importantly, if they are going to operate as a service provider, they should invest profits into ensuring they are able to be the best service provider they can. But, of course, they don't have to because they don't really compete with anyone so they can be a sub-par service provider who over charge for their service and make stupid amounts of money. ...
"I believe, Sir, that I may with safety take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad."
Comcast is doing nothing to disprove his theory.
Aside from the title troll (Cheney? WTF?), your faith in the current administration is almost touching in its naivete.
Think I'm wrong? It's entirely possible. But consider this - Comcast waited until a change of administration to fight a ruling that went against them. Sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft.
Everyone here bitched about MS getting off with a slap on the wrist because of the change in administration, replete with details about campaign contributions, etc. Think maybe lightning will strike twice?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I feel as though many home broadband connections and business connections are really at the mercy of these shenanigans because there are no SLAs or anything like that, everything is "best effort" delivery. The ISP is promising to try to bring you network connectivity, but they are not promising much beyond that.
I've also been a little afraid of where net neutrality could go. I agree with it 100% in principal, but if congress says that the ISPs cannot essentially shape or prioritize traffic without the approval of the federal government (lets not kid ourselves, that's what it would really end up doing) we could just end up giving the lobbyists even more power over what kinds of content get to our doorsteps. I think the expansion in power behind something like a properly functioning net neutrality law would open the door to the federal government direct restricting the use of things like P2P networks.
They may well qualify -- but in the USA, common-carrier status (at least for telecommunications) isn't automatic. The company has to apply and be granted CC status (which is not without liabilities). Comcast never has.
And, no, IANAL and can't give you a source.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
One could also make the counter-argument -- that it's the very involvement of government that gives Comcast their monopoly in the first place. Ever ask yourself why you can't just find some investors and start up a cable company to compete with them?
And the answer is found in Econ 101 - significant barriers to entry (massive infrastructure requirement) and the inefficiency of duplicating expensive infrastructure. It's the same reason that you don't find duplicate toll roads paralleling each other. This type of system naturally gravitates to a monopoly - whoever gets there first has a huge advantage over latecomers, and can drive them out of business by undercutting their prices, after which "hello monopoly pricing!"
Partisan politics doesn't enter into it until you get one group of people who have as their religion "free market always bad" facing off against another group whose religion is "free market always good". The truth of the matter is that it varies from business to business, product to product. Adjust policy accordingly - if the system has high barriers to entry or increasing returns to scale, regulate it to level the playing field and/or protect consumers. If it has low barriers to entry and decreasing returns to scale, let competitors duke it out in the free market.
As a law student who is taking a communications law class fall semester, I must say...
I think I found a good topic for the required paper...
To be fair, most Slashdot moderators are retarded.
Way Off topic, the previous posters signature, but this is a pet peeve. The 10%, for god, people always talk about is but ONE of the THREE tithes in the bible, so three tithes at 10% == 30%. so maybe the government has it right and some people should study their biblical history more. Regards, Yeah Yeah.. I'm a chicken...
Comcast was actively snooping traffic and munging it up. denying it. and conspiring with other companies to block net neutrality. that is racketeering and corruption and organization. RICO. like the mob.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Since it is so completely incorrect and misleading. Comcast doesn't do traffic shaping. They send tcpip reset packets.
AccountKiller
It seems to me that if the ISP has the right to shape traffic/ force resets etc, the customer should have the right to shape payments.
If I sign up for 'up to' 10 Mb broadband, I should be paying 'up to' £Amount per month with the actual amount paid decided by me based on my own criteria, just like the amount of bytes i get is decided by the ISP based on their criteria.
Let the ISP ring MY 'customer support' (during hours I decide to provide it) to cry about how I have shaped their monetary stream down by 90% from what they signed up for.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
This is similar to going to each person's house, looking over their shoulder while they are looking at their morning paper over coffee (does anyone do this anymore), and crossing out articles they don't like with a black marker. Then they turn around and blame the newspaper for it's horrible printing methodology. Censorship is censorship by any definition. The RIAA has already gotten a bunch of people to court by IP address obtained through legal means. There is no need for an ISP to be censoring data in any way, shape or form. Comcast, just stop trying to screw your customer base over. PLEASE! This goes for you, TIME WARNER, as well. AND YOU Verizon. A little for Cox Communications, although they are WAY better than the previous three mooks. I have said it before, but cable companies need regulation like electric, water, and garbage companies. This is what having a virtual monopoly does for your freedoms. The government actually got it right for once. Republican, Democrat, who cares?!?!?! JUST GET IT RIGHT!
The answer to problems created by government regulation is not more regulation.
And how do you propose the problem get solved? I see two options: a) Remove the monopolies granted to the cable and other ISPs (I presume your solution) or b) Set up a better system of rules the providers have to play by and actually enforce them. Neither is perfect, but both require government intervention and regulation. There is no way around it.
In option (a) the government must interfere (again) to "open" up the playing field so to speak. However, it is unclear what that even means. There is only so much pipe to go around (unfortunately). Are you going to let every Tom, Dick and Harry dig holes all over the roads so that every start-up company can own their own infrastructure, so that we can really have a true market place? If not how are you going to allocate the resources? By letting the companies do it? The ones that already took tax payer dollars and would rather buy Disney than spend it on infrastructure improvements? If so what price do they get to sell it for (market value? what's that if they already own all of it?). Leading to the question of why would they even sell it to anyone else? Presumably some rules would need to be set for all these things (who would do that?).
At least in option (b) the rules are set up front. Theoretically they are more transparent because it's an explicit statement of, "these are the rules", and we would potentially get a say in the process. If politicians say one thing about the rules but do something else at least you can not vote for them in the future. I realize this is a small consolation, but the other alternative is a monopolistic company (again how do you get rid of the monopolies without government intervention?) with control and then you don't even have that option.
Either way some kind of government regulation, like it or not, would have to be in place, even for a "deregulated" ISP market.
And the answer is found in Econ 101 - significant barriers to entry (massive infrastructure requirement) and the inefficiency of duplicating expensive infrastructure.
Neither one of which has stopped the wireless industry from rolling out no less than four different networks across large portions of the United States. That's not even counting the regional players either. Am I supposed to believe that T-Mobile can find it profitable to roll their own network to compete with AT&T and Verizon but some upstart couldn't do the same with cable in my community if the local government would let him try?
whoever gets there first has a huge advantage over latecomers, and can drive them out of business by undercutting their prices
What makes you think it's all about price? Verizon has come out and said that they don't intend to compete on price with regards to FIOS. And they don't have too -- many people are perfectly willing to pay the money they are asking for the service they are offering. You wouldn't do business with an ISP that promised not to mess with your traffic and have hours of downtime just because they cost a few bucks more than Comcast?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What Comcast was doing is not, and never has been, "traffic shaping."
What Comcast did was fraud, the equivalent of stealing the mail out of someone's mailbox or a Fedex/UPS employee walking off with your package.
Neither one of which has stopped the wireless industry from rolling out no less than four different networks across large portions of the United States.
Yeah, remember that part where he said you have to view different businesses differently?
Wireless is very different than cable. Smacking oneself in the face with the obvious relevant ways is left as an exercise for the reader.
The enemies of Democracy are
My immediate thought was to the customer service reps that had to field the calls on this from irate customers, some of whom are probably pretty IP savvy. I used to work for a guy in an IT department that used to tell us to traffic shape (i.e., allow only every third packet) to sites that were somehow threatening to his position. The most glaring example of this little general in action was blocking a site that other departments in our company used to process work orders. Having had to take the calls from level one and two support techs that had troubleshot the issue and had people who said it worked fine from their home connection, while KNOWING that this was being done purposely. . . it was extremely sad. The complicity from level three engineers that willingly participated in this immature and unilateral idiocy was astonishing. But since they didn't have to field the calls from users, it was all just a big joke to them.
I wonder how much customer support reps knew about this? In either case, how much time was wasted taking people through troubleshooting steps because of something that was done on purpose?
I got it recently. Yes, it's more expensive (16 Mbps up and 2.5 Mbps down, 5 static ips is $100/mo), but it's much faster than the advertised speed. I get 6 Mbps up, and I have no trouble seeding my torrents.
no less than four different networks across large portions of the United States.
They duplicated infrastructure in densely populated areas because it was financially worth it and capacity was needed. For telecom considerations, wireless has a pretty low infrastructure requirement. In less populated areas, there is a lot of transparent roaming going on. So there isn't really 4 networks across large portions of the US.
What makes you think it's all about price?
That wasn't his larger point. A rational incumbent economic actor in a high cap industry will dramatically reduce prices if an interloper tries to deploy a similar product. People will be less inclined to switch and the expected profitability and customer penetration can't be met for the interloper, forcing their withdraw. And for the record, I'd love to pay more for FIOS, or Uverse, or any other high speed option to cable. No company seems particularly interested in serving my neighborhood.
No, that is not the argument, that is the consequence of the argument.
Public utilities of all kinds oversell their capacity: telephone companies, ISPs, the power company, the roads, water service, etc. Why? Because, as GP said, given that most people aren't using it all the time, the most efficient use of resources is to build just enough infrastructure to provide decent service most of the time.
Are you adequate?
For telecom considerations, wireless has a pretty low infrastructure requirement.
And? The cable company doesn't have to write a check with nine zeros on it to the US Treasury in order to establish themselves. Not having worked for the accounting department at AT&T or Comcast I can't attest as to which one is more expensive but I'd wager that whatever money the wireless carrier saves by not having to string wires is offset by the amount of money that they had to pay to obtain licenses for the frequencies that they operate on.
So I would again ask why it's necessary for local Governments to guarantee a monopoly to the likes of Comcast and Time Warner? If the barrier to entry is as high as you say it is then why do the cable companies willingly operate under such a system? Do they enjoy paying franchise fees or do they get something out of the arrangement?
A rational incumbent economic actor in a high cap industry will dramatically reduce prices if an interloper tries to deploy a similar product.
Such behavior may very well be illegal and would seem to be easier to address than the clusterfuck that we have now. In any event that doesn't directly answer the question -- why is government complacent with the cable monopoly? They don't (at least in my area) franchise the power company or the telephone company. Only the cable company is singled out for this treatment. Why?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So I would again ask why it's necessary for local Governments to guarantee a monopoly to the likes of Comcast and Time Warner? If the barrier to entry is as high as you say it is then why do the cable companies willingly operate under such a system? Do they enjoy paying franchise fees or do they get something out of the arrangement?
I don't agree with the local monopoly of cable companies, but I understand how it came about. It was considered the same as a utility. At the time building distribution infrastructure was one of the most capital intensive industries out there. Now maybe wireless licensing is more expensive than stringing cable overhead. But I think you answer your own question. They know the approximate rate of cable adoption, and they can manage the costs of buildout and franchise fees, in exchange for the monopoly market. Companies don't like it when you move their cheese, unless they feel like you are replacing it with something cheesier.
why is government complacent with the cable monopoly? They don't (at least in my area) franchise the power company or the telephone company. Only the cable company is singled out for this treatment. Why?
Well until recently electrical companies had monopolies in TX, and until not terribly long ago local landlines did too, in a state with a raging pro-market Republican/Libertarian bent. I'd say it is probably just a matter of more effective lobbying by the cable company to your local government.
What do you mean by "more proof?" Maybe you will find proof some day and convince me. But Government regulation (cable franchises) caused this problem. I understand you're saying that government can solve the problems that it created (I'm skeptical that it can solve it, but let's assume you're right), but I think that if you don't use government to create the problem in the first place, then you don't need government to solve it.
Without government, this problem doesn't exist. Do we get some other problem, which then makes us go begging government to solve that too? Maybe. But nobody has shown that.
And yes, the Republicans and Democrats love to give us the worst of both worlds: have government create a problem and then don't solve it. I understand your anger. I think you are right to flame Republicans (though why you left that other party out of your flame, I'm not sure). So star voting against them for a change! Voting beats internet flames every time. The Clinton/Bush/Obama years can end, if we choose, but people have fucking got to start voting. McCain and Obama totally dominated the last presidential election, and that reflects very poorly on people's pretenses of unhappiness. When push came to shove, everyone agreed: 4 more years of the same, please.
ROLFMAO! You know I worked for an ISP when the Net Neutrality bill was introduced. I tried to get as many people knowledged in the facts and what it would do. Now that Net Neutrality didn't pass it was only a matter of time before something like this came up. Oh and BTW Comcast will win this. The Net Neutrality bill did not pass, and would never have passed based on the Bill that it was sneakly pushed into. I can not find a link to the original bill though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Nations are exactly the same. Whoever gets a technology edge first can gain total control and keep other nations in poverty forever. The New World was a huge store house of natural resources and the second great advantage was a low population count. Given that edge we could kick other nations around for a couple of centuries. But now the great store house i not full, the population is way too large, and worse yet we no longer have the habits that cause great scholars to prosper. Other nations now have greater wealth, high quality scholars and worse yet are used to suffering a bit to get the job done. We are in deep trouble.
a) Remove the monopolies granted to the cable and other ISPs (I presume your solution) or b) Set up a better system of rules the providers have to play by and actually enforce them.
What makes you think the new, expanded rules will be better, they will just concentrate more power in the hands of the people who screwed it up in the first place.
In option (a) the government must interfere (again) to "open" up the playing field so to speak.
No, all the government has to do is allow competitors in. If you want to put in wires or cable or fiber optics, you need to get permission from whoever owns the land. If the incumbent has wires or cables or fiber optic in public right of way, you can put wires or... there too. If you need to dig, you need to put things back the way they were when you started.
At least in option (b) the rules are set up front. Theoretically they are more transparent because it's an explicit statement of, "these are the rules", and we would potentially get a say in the process.
You mean like those bills in Congress that it is "unreasonable" to expect Congressmen to read and understand before they vote on them?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But I think you answer your own question. They know the approximate rate of cable adoption, and they can manage the costs of buildout and franchise fees, in exchange for the monopoly market.
And you don't think that cable network would still be expanded even without the benefit of the monopoly? In the modern era where people want high speed internet access and 200 channels to zone out with? Somehow I suspect someone would be there to service that market even without the promise of a Governmental monopoly. Whatever arguments could have been made for it in the past don't really seem to apply to the modern world.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, all the government has to do is allow competitors in.
That is called government regulation. There is a limited amount of resources. Who are they going to let in? How much do they get to buy in for? How are they going to take away the bandwidth/infrastructure that the current ISPs already have? What are the new rules that they all play by now? No rules? Who's going to stop the richest player from buying everything up and become an even worse monopoly?
you need to get permission from whoever owns the land
In most cases this is the government. In the cases it's not, what happens when one individual or small group owns a critical piece of land and only allows Big Monopoly with lots of money through?
If you need to dig, you need to put things back the way they were when you started.
And what about all the major roads and public areas that laying these cables will displace while they are being put in? Are you just going to allow them to be torn up any time a new competitor wants in? How will people get to work?
You mean like those bills in Congress that it is "unreasonable" to expect Congressmen to read and understand before they vote on them?
What's your point? Regardless of whether a member of Congress understands what he/she votes for is irrelevant. If you don't like what they propose or vote for you can cast your own vote to replace them. While most of your options may not be appealing you at least have the option, unlike under corporate control. Have you tried voting Comcast out of your neighbourhood lately?
Cable just isn't the type of thing you can have a "free" market on. Large portions of the cable must be placed on public property and the inconvenience to everyday activities is too great to allow anyone access to tear up the land whenever they want. The government has to be involved. Sticking your head in the sand and wishing it would go away won't solve the problem.
And you don't think that cable network would still be expanded even without the benefit of the monopoly?
No, they would. After a sufficient period of having a hissy fit, stopping all investment, threating that their service would degrade because they couldn't possibly eek out a profit with competition, once they decided the local politicians weren't going to give in, and they would have to compete for customers, they would start expanding again. Perhaps even faster once real competition shows up on the scene.
You will need some regulation to prevent companies from coming in and abusing the public right of way. Perhaps both legacy and newcomers will need to pay right of way fees to keep it under control.
You will need some regulation to prevent companies from coming in and abusing the public right of way. Perhaps both legacy and newcomers will need to pay right of way fees to keep it under control.
Hey, I've never said that some regulation isn't required. You just have to be weary of regulatory capture that results in companies like AT&T abusing the right of way with the full force of the law backing them up. To me the ideal balance would be somewhere between "you must negotiate with each landowner over the placement of each utility pole" and "we can put whatever we want on your property and your only choice is to bend over and take it"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
their service will suck and customers will flee.
Not if that's the only choice for broadband. In most places people do not have a choice whom thy get broadband from. They either get it from a monopoly or they don't get broadband.
If they go over 10%, though, they're throwing money down the drain.
You're missing a key word here, specifically an adjective. That adjective being "taxpayer", which modifies "money". Taxpayers gave cable and phone companies $200 Billion in subsidies to build out broadband. But all these businesses did was pad their bottom lines, line their pockets.
Either they deliver what they were paid for, or they return the money and get out of the way of those who will provide what they refuse to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Personally I would like the local government be required to obtain and maintain right of way poles and underground ducts, and they have authority to approve right of way use, and police abuse of the right of way between landowners and utilities. Approving use can be required to be done in a fair and non exclusionary way.
I sure don't want non essential utilities able to have any en-masse control of right of way acquisition. There's virtually no way to prevent abuse.
IMHO, we really need to start talking about taking away cable and in some places fiber monopolies.
The Economist, a pro-free-market newsmagazine, proposed something like that recently:
Thanks for the link, I missed that issue.
The "Economist" is a Free market, and liberal (libertarian in the US), publication which is why they may propose that. Cable, and fiber, owned by the same company that offers the service it is capable of is a monopoly and opposes free markets.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
really
Really they do. Where I live channel 9 is a Fox station and I can not broadcast on that frequency. Or any other frequency for TVs, without paying millions of dollars to buy a license, if anyone will sell me theirs.
Since they have to get their broadcast feeds from the networks, it's hard to imagine the networks granting more than one station franchise
That does not matter. I couldn't start broadcasting even if I wanted to make my own shows. Since I used trains and model railroads before I will again. If as a model railroad enthusiast I wanted to start a model railroad channel and broadcast it, I could not legally without a license. Forget the equipment, that's pretty cheap, the cost is in the license. And the scarcity is an artificially imposed one [pdf].
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You mixed up and down. (so you know)
Also, the reason you're getting more is because 1 to 3 weeks ago (depending on your area) comcast upgraded the entire countries speed tiers. The normal 8/1 is now 16/2 (basic home internet) at $45 a month. They also added a cheaper tier which is like 1/384 or something of that nature. The top tier is now 50/10. So if you where paying for 16/2 then you're probably now paying for approx 24/5 but I do not have the exact speeds memorized.
If I was you I'd switch from the business line to the 50/10 for the same price. The only difference between retail and business is 1) business has better tech support on the phone and 2) static IPs. Business users are also suppose to get priority above home users but the truth is the type of modem you have decides priority in the end so someone currently paying for 50/10 which requires a docsis 3.0 modem will have higher priority than a business 24/5 user with a docsis 2.0 modem. If you switched to a docsis 3.0 modem for your business line then your priority would be same or greater than the 50/10 user. However, even in the most congested of areas with the new docsis 3.0 network changes you should never see a slowdown currently.
In every other country with a single payer system, you just go to a doctor and get treatment. In most countries you don't even have to fill out any paperwork. And they pay about half of what we do, and have the same life expectancy.
And there is rationing as well as waiting periods. "When Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach needed breast cancer surgery herself in 2007, she went to a California hospital and paid cash." "When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it."
If Canada's health care is so great why are Canadian members of government coming to the US for surgery?
Meanwhile here in the US I as a student with no insurance had an accident and was Medivaced by helicopter from the accident scene to the hospital. I spent about a month in the hospital, some of that tyme in a coma. I was then transfered to a rehab house where I lived several more weeks. Afterwards I went to the hospital I was originally taken to for therapy twice a week for several more weeks. All together my medical bills, which none of the medical personnel or facilities were guarantied to be paid for, came to more than $120,000. Despite not being able to pay I got all that medical care anyway.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
All I want is unlimited, unrestricted, fast, and reasonably priced internet. Why can't any of these ISPs just give that to me and then leave me be so I can use the internet in peace? Why must my ISPs continually screw me until year/s later when the contract is finally over?
They are assholes yadda yadda....
What I want to know is assuming they get away with screwing me and mine on the whole, is there a way to choose which of my tabs are taking up my bandwidth how much in what priority? Is there a way to cap bandwidth locally on my machine for a browser or a a torrent client? Nothing to hoity toity just trying to let my "perfectly legal" streaming content get brought to my machine slowly whilst my browser is other places.
I have DOCSIS 2.0. 3.0 is not in my area yet. Will be by the end of the year. I already checked with several people, including the install guy.
If your inability to broadcast on channel 9 means that your local Fox station has a monopoly, then the butcher shop at 108 W. Main has a monopoly since I can't open my own butcher shop at that address.
Your inability to afford a license to broadcast is perhaps a valid criticism of the regulation framework that exists, but it does not mean that there is a monopoly on broadcast television any more than the barriers to entry for pharmacy, including licensing, mean that the place across from my office has a monopoly in the field.
You really aren't describing a monopoly at all, is the point. You're describing things that may be worth complaining about, but nothing truly exclusive.
I contacted the local Comcast office about going with a commercial account back when I telecommuted. I figured I'd get the Business account and get better speed, since the best of the Residential accounts is limited to an advertised 256K up which is really closer to 120K in reality.
I could have really used the speed for telecommuting. Even with a traffic-shaping-capable router, trying to upload a >1MB file while on my Vonage line took upwards of a half hour, and sharing my desktop was pretty much impossible even if I dedicated my Internet connection to it.
Comcast told me they wouldn't sell me the contract because I'm in a residential-zoned area. Customers in residential areas are limited to residential accounts.
I'm currently on their $50 3MB plan. I could spend an extra $15 a month to go with 5MB download, or an extra $25 to go to 7MB, but I've still got the same anemic upload speed and the 250GB/month cap. So I fail to see the point of those plans - 3MB down is really more than I need even when watching YouTube.
DOCSIS 1.1 is the only standard they technically support unless you rent one of their cable modems ($10 a month). You can GET a DOCSIS 2.0 modem on your own, but they won't recommend any brands that work with their Axxis gear, and they won't state whether even the major brands will negotiate a DOCSIS 2 connection with them.
I'd go with a competitor, but Comcast has none, or at least I've not been able to get a clear answer out of FairPoint as to whether DSL is available here (they seem to be imploding after purchasing all the landlines up here, and asking them a question is almost as productive and pleasant as using a Magic 8 ball while being pummeled with a baseball bat).
Having said all that, Comcast has been really great here about maintaining really good latency. Their predecessor, SusCom, obviously built out a good backbone. And I understand that to some extent the fact that their bandwidth sucks contributes to the fact that they can keep latency low.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Right then lets put it like this
How many pissed off users of Comcast are SHAREHOLDERS of said company quite a few i would wager then the answer is rather simple
Withdraw your stake in the company ie drop the shares flog them back to Comcast for MORE than you paid if enough people do it the effect will be felt in the required places
any hospital with a legal or compliance department would be ensuring that any data that would be covered under HIPA would be sujbect to that laws data security standards
"FTP Today considers its services "HIPAA Ready," and proper use of the tools we provide should meet your needs of HIPAA compliance, however you should consult your own attorney in that regard."
xTy Technology: "When enabled, the encryption strength of our products meets (exceeds) the HIPAA data encryption requirement.
"FTP Voyager Secure is a fully HIPAA compliant FTP client."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If your inability to broadcast on channel 9 means that your local Fox station has a monopoly, then the butcher shop at 108 W. Main has a monopoly since I can't open my own butcher shop at that address.
OK, so can I broadcast on another frequency? Without spending millions of dollars to buy a license? I can't, not without the FCC unleashing agents to shutdown the broadcast. The incumbents have a monopoly on broadcasting.
Your inability to afford a license to broadcast is perhaps a valid criticism of the regulation framework that exists, but it does not mean that there is a monopoly on broadcast television any more than the barriers to entry for pharmacy, including licensing, mean that the place across from my office has a monopoly in the field.
There are no regulations, or laws that I know of, that prevents 10 different people from opening pharmacies in a cluster next to each other. But the FCC will not allow 5 radio or tv stations to broadcast next to each other. Heck the FCC shuts down pirate radio stations even though they do not interfere or bother others. I can broadcast with a 5 watt transmitter and not cause any problems, yet if I continue I'll have a visit by the police if not the FCC.
You really aren't describing a monopoly at all, is the point. You're describing things that may be worth complaining about, but nothing truly exclusive.
They are exclusive. A fox radio station has an exclusive license to broadcast on a given frequency, and only so many broadcasters are allowed within a give area. But by your definition even though courts have ruled MS is a monopoly it is not because there are alternatives to MS software.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?