Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Proves Need For Net Neutrality By Trying To Censor Advocacy Website (fightforthefuture.org)
Reader mrchaotica writes: As most Slashdot readers are probably aware, the FCC, under the direction of Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai, is trying to undo its 2015 decision to protect Net Neutrality (PDF) by classifying ISPs as common carriers. During the recent public comment period, the FCC's website was flooded with pro-Net-Neutrality comments from actual people (especially those who heeded John Oliver's call to arms) as well as anti-Net-Neutrality comments posted by bots using the names and addresses of people without their consent. The fake comments use boilerplate identical to that used in a 2010 press release by the conservative lobbying group Center for Individual Freedom (which is funded by Comcast, among other entities), but beyond that, the entities who perpetrated and funded the criminal acts have not been conclusively identified. In response to this brazen attempt to undermine the democratic process, the Internet freedom advocacy group Fight for the Future (FFTF) created the website Comcastroturf.com to call attention to the fraud and allow people to see if their identity had been misappropriated. Comcast, in a stunning display of its tone-deaf attitude towards free speech, has sent a cease-and-desist order to FFTF, claiming that Comcastroturf.com violates its "valuable intellectual property[sic]." According to the precedent set in Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer , websites created for the purpose of criticizing an organization can not be considered trademark infringement. As such, FFTF reportedly has no intention of taking down the site.
"This is exactly why we need Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, "If Ajit Pai's plan is enacted, there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like Comcastroturf.com that are critical of their corporate policies," she added. "It also makes you wonder what Comcast is so afraid of? Are their lobbying dollars funding the astroturfing effort flooding the FCC with fake comments that we are encouraging Internet users to investigate?"
Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?
Can there be a better example? How about if they had actually blocked the site on their network? This is just a knee jerk take-down letter. Yawn.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The story really has nothing to do with the network neutrality debate. It's standard corporate shotgun trademark protection; most anyone else using the Comcast name in their site like that would get the same response.
If these guys change their name to something a little different, they'd have zero problems from Comcast I'd suspect. In short what we have here are a bunch of attention whores who are willing to conflate a trademark enforcement action to censorship. Has comcast even blocked this website? Oh they haven't. Go away attention whores.
As you say, the real point of outrage would be if no Comcast customers would be able to access the site. But they have not done that, they have issued a legal request which they would have issued with ANY amount of network neutrality rules in place.
So then what does it matter if those rues are gone? This is exactly the problem with NN proponents; they have NO REAL IDEA what the rules are they are calling to stay in effect, and imagining they have all kinds of benefits that do not actually exist.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If he's not been paid off somehow, then there's a deal in place for when he leaves the FCC for some nice, well paid, well heeled position with some ISP megacorp.
He's made it clear that he's not having any counter argument to the point of holding his hands against his head and screaming "LALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!" as he runs from interviews with journalists. Later, when they catch him going to lunch he'll have his goonish bodyguards pin the stray ones against the wall so they can't ask questions.
No. Needs to go to the FTC, because Comcast undoubtedly needs to be reigned in on other fronts.
I have a wife and I have fucked her in every position imaginable. Prior to being married I fucked some hot girlfriends, who were cool people.
Pics, or it didn't happen.
-=[Beau]=-
Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?
Well, throttling my non-Comcast VoIP provider would be one. Especially for cellphones that can use WiFi instead of the cell phone network in areas with lousy reception.
I certainly don't want them degrading a VoIP call to 911 or another emergency service (poison control, etc.), and in spite of the minuscule amount of bandwidth VoIP takes, Comcast has been happy in the past to throttle it to uselessness.
And what are my other options? DSL from my local telephone company? Satellite internet via AT&T's DirecTV? They also have a vested interest in making sure only their voice service works.
So, yeah... let's start with 911 service, and go from there.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Net Neutrality is a huge misdirection... it's getting people to accept that we are stuck with incumbent providers and have to get big brother to come save the day with regulations. If people demanded competition, we'd actually stop seeing a game of cat and mouse and none of us would care if Comcast decided to blackhole Netflix or put a 10G data cap on customers. The people paid for the last mile infrastructure with endless rounds of broadband initiative grants and corporate welfare, it's time the last mile is opened up to competition. Countries like the UK and Japan have competitive marketplaces with twisted pair copper or fiber plants and many ISPs have jumped at the opportunity to provide Internet connectivity to residential customers with lower rates and higher speeds. The moment ISP X decides to act against the interest of their customers, those very customers would have the choice to move to ISP A, B, or C... it's that simple.
We don't feel the need to tell Kroger or Publix that they have to carry Heinz ketchup and can't forbid Hunts from selling in their stores... if they don't carry the brands we want, we simply go elsewhere. It doesn't have to be complicated.
They're trying to trying intimidate an organization with less money and legal resources with the threat of ligation hoping they'll cave before a judge throws it out as frivolous. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. If they had some how interfered when their customers tried to access the page or assessed an additional fee for accessing the page that would be a net neutrality issue.
I'm pretty certain there is very little interest in throttling sub 64Kbit/s VoIP streams. If they're going to throttle anything, it's going to be the 75Mbit/s 4K video stream.
Did you ever stop to think that it might be bandwidth hogging neighbors that caused your VoIP stream to go to shit? I wonder how you might solve that sort of problem...hmm..throttling maybe? Oh wait...
If you want reliable 911 service, get a POTS line. Anything short of that is asking to die.
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount. They could make it take forever to reach any site which said anything bad about the company or provided any competing services.
If you do not think this would ever happen, just look at what happened to Netflix for Comcast users in February 2014.
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority (minus a few exceptions which are not related at all to the provider's ability to make more money). ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet. Or just internet websites that give the ISP's more of a financial benefit.
Yeah I'm right there with you. I'd love to feast my eyes on that beautiful source code. Give us the pics!
Unless they're throttling traffic to/from the web site or hijacking DNS to redirect it to their own server, I don't think it's a demonstration of the need for net neutrality. They are taking legal action on the issue, but that does not mean they're abusing their powers as an ISP.
HUH?!??
In my opinion, the are 2 separate debates going on depending on who you're listening to.
Tech oriented people like us hear one side:
- Companies like Comcast have no business choosing which websites are going to be quick and which are going to be slow. They should provide a fair pipe for all websites and internet services. And really it's ridiculous to argue against such a position because the position makes too much sense.
What I gather the people opposed are against "net neutrality" is something else - namely: classifying ISPs under title 2 of the communications act.
- They are afraid that this new classification gives the government (through the FCC) to regulate the contents of the internet in the future in the same manner the "fairness doctrine" once required any political opinion on the radio to be balanced out with the opposite opinion. Obviously, this is undesirable too (Just imagine taking an "internet fairness doctrine" to the logical extreme - any case pro war would have to be balanced out with equal exposure to pro ISIS videos.
Giving an un-elected group the power to pass such laws should give anyone pause).
Speaking for myself, I don't much care whether ISPs are classified under section 1, 2 or 97 of some act or another - what I want is non-discriminatory handling of packet data, and end to things like Verizon's blackmailing of Netflix, and a prohibition on ISPs banning websites they don't approve of. Thus, the most logical thing, would be to allow ISPs to be classified as whatever they currently are/want to be, and pass a new separate law banning the behavior we don't want them to do. That ought to make everyone happy, right? As for those that aren't happy, we'll at least see where the liars are (i.e. "free packet" types being actually "I want power to regulate" types, or "anti-title 2 types" being "I'll do whatever the telcos pay me to do" types).
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount.
Hi. Reality here. If Comcast could do that they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comcast took my line, attached it to a POS router.
What the hell is the FCC doing voting on something like this with only three members (two unfilled vacancies)? Would we want a Supreme Court with only 60% of its seats filled (let alone only three people) making choices of this magnitude? This has the potential of being the FCC's Roe V. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.? No way in hell... And that's exactly what the FCC is doing here.
And two of the three members were the ones that voted against it in 2015 are still members. We all know Ajit Pai lives in his own world on this issue and wouldn't change his mind if God himself told him to, and listen to what Michael O'Reilly (an Obama appointee, BTW) said in 2015:
"Commissioner Michael O’Reilly criticized the proposal to reverse Title II: “I see no need for net neutrality rules. I am far more troubled the commission is charting for Title II.” He continued, calling the move a “monumental and unlawful power grab.”
O’Reilly then called the forbearance of certain Title II provisions “fauxbearance.”
If you read those statements, you can see that this was over before it began.
LOL. Your 64kbps VoIP stream is infringing on Comcast's right to force you to upgrade to their "triple play" package. They make way more profit on their 64kbps VoIP then they ever would on Vonage's VoIP stream.
You mean like one of them copper lines Verizon ripped out?
Fucking retarded. You start an ISP, and show us how it's done, you stupid corporate whore. Your argument for free speech is about as fucked as your head and I feel sorry for anyone that ever talks to you.
Small technical note: Comcast's DOCSIS rigging means that when world+dog gets home at night, your speeds and latency in the burbs are typically going to go to shit, so it might not quite be intentional malfeasance on Comcast's part...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And if you documented /actual cases of that occurring and creating a widespread problem/ (and being standard practice), and it continued even after customer complaints and publicity, then I'd be right with you in proposing a regulation that prohibits them from doing that specifically.
As it stands, you're just blowing smoke and spouting an unprovable anecdote about "throttling it to uselessness" when you've presented zero evidence. It's just as likely that your provider is poor, and/or bandwidth issues existed on either end or anywhere between even without explicit throttling (maybe you were torrenting while trying to make a call?), and/or your equipment sucks, and/or you turned on the microwave while trying to link to your cell with wifi, and/or your neighbor's wifi is stomping all over yours, or any number of other possibilities.
This one shows why net neutrality is NOT needed.
Hi, Comcast? If you're going to post here, you really should do it under your own name.
Buddy, we have net neutrality rules in place now and have since 2015. They are not free to do so now, but they were free when they did that to netflix, hence exhibiting the necessity. Some ISPs are now trying to put up walled garden plans at a steep discount, with the eventual goal of phasing out open access to the internet outside of a small number of whitelisted websites. That is the end of freedom of speech as we know it in the modern world.
Anti-net neutrality advocates are the most existentially dangerous people in human history.
Way to actually address ANY of the points made in the post, which sound fairly well reasoned to me (and I'm not the same AC so I have no idea if they work for Comcast or any of its partners, but I definitely do not).
I can see how it might be possible for ISPs to do nasty things. However... I haven't actually seen them do any of those things, and I suspect they will continue to refrain from such, as it's not even good for business anyway. I honestly don't understand the huge urgency there has been to constantly shove through more regulation to solve problems that may not even exist, and which have other implications that may well be just as negative as the behaviors such regulations intend to prevent.
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
That only works if there are viable alternatives or when the market isn't one of a natural monopoly. But neither one of those things need to have been said, since you were citing reality to begin with.
It is the fact that we are dealing with natural monopolies that make this a big deal and one which requires the utmost scrutiny.
And they already have. Part of the big Network Neutrality push came when Comcast slowed speeds to Netflix down and threatened to slow it down more if Netflix didn't pay up.
Why should I pay extra for Netflix to be as speedy as possible? I pay for Internet access and all sites should be as fast as they can be. Obviously, server speed, network issues, etc. will affect site speed, but a site speed factor shouldn't be my ISP deciding that SITE X should go slow unless someone (me or Site X) pays for speedy delivery.
This assumes a healthy market. The ISP market is NOT a health market. It's a realm of monopolies. I currently have Internet access from Charter (Spectrum, previously Time Warner Cable). They are my only option in the area I live in. Suppose Charter told me that I'd need to pay an additional $5 a month for Netflix data to flow at a reasonable speed - otherwise it would slow down to the point that the service would be useless. What would my options be? Pay Charter and suddenly using Netflix is $5 more expensive a month (through no fault of Netflix's)? Don't pay and stop using Netflix (possibly paying for Charter's cable TV package which we subscribe to now)? How do I vote with my wallet?
And what if Charter decides to do this with groups of websites? Want to use social media? $5 a month. Online video? $5 a month per site. News sites? $5 a month.
What - beyond Net Neutrality rules - would prevent an ISP from doing this if they are the only ISP in the area?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I agree that prioritizing traffic based on sheer amount of data is a different form of Net Neutrality violation than doing it based on content. But both cases are bad.
Controlling access based on content is self-explanatory - pure censorship.
Controlling access based on quantity of data makes sense financially, I suppose. But that's best handled by charging the end-user a higher price based on their usage. That way, they decide what they download - not the ISP. And Netflix has the same 'barrier to entry' as YouTube, some new startup - or Comcast's own content.
Now, if low enough data caps had been in place when Netflix streaming took off, it may never have happened. And apparently, ISP's do have enough available bandwidth to support a really high cap. So the only reak issue I see is that Comcast's own video on demand offerings are essentially the same thing as Netflix streaming - except they're not technically coming over the internet, and so may not be covered even by Net Neutrality rules. That's a hole that may or may not need to be plugged - depending on whether you think cable TV companies should be allowed to cordon off some bandwidth for VOD - which after all used to be a function of cable TV. Ideally, VOD should compete on price - not bandwidth. It could be a low-cost addon to your cable package, leaving you free to decide whether to forego a Netflix subscription in favor of a VOD option that costs less...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Fear-monger much! Are you mentally handicapped?
"The end of freedom of speech" my ass. If my ISP did that I'd find another one. If I couldn't find another one, I'd found one. If upstream providers wouldn't link to me, I'd link to other like-minded folks and the movement would grow until it became impossible to ignore. In truth, little to none of that is ever going to happen anyway, even without additional regulations. You think you're the only free-speech advocate that exists in the world or something?
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
That may be your highly desirable goal. My goal is not to allow Netflix to have anymore traffic priority then Hulu, or HBO, or XFinity. The internet is what it is because newcomers were able to come and play with a minimum barrier to entry, to me protecting that is of the utmost importance. This is not analogous to the war on drugs. This is more like complaining that a law against price gouging is curtailing the price gougers freedoms.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
I would argue that it doesn't have to be this way, but it should be as long as most people have only one choice of broadband provider. You want this world where people have choices. Then we need some form of line sharing agreement so that I actually have a choice to make.
Also, this version of the internet has been tried before. It's what AOL was doing, and people left it in droves as soon as they could.
"under the direction of Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai"
That's misleading. Obama appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC. Trump just made him chairman.
And furthermore, NN was struck down because it was an overreach from a department that had no authority to regulate it.
And of course, everyone complains about the loss of NN, but no one ever proposes a new rule, properly vetted and from the correct department (FTC, not FCC) that would solve these issues.
No senator, no representative, no department head has ever proposed the common-sense solution of fixing the problem with a proper law.
They'd rather wail and moan about how bad everything is, rather than fix things.
To quote a famous politician, "Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic".
Stop 'yer bitching and start fixing things. Demand that your congress people start fixing things.
It's not that hard, and much more effective than false "car alarm" rhetoric.
We don't collect any information on our customers. The same can't be said for our upstream providers though.
Netflix needed to pay the bill for their connectivity (and Netflix makes a ton of money from subscriptions they monetize by sending a huge amount of traffic to end-user networks).
In the end, Netflix paid for the enhanced connectivity, and the Comcast Netflix end-user speeds went up. No "net neutrality" required.
If Comcast could [slow down sites to an unreasonable amount] they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
If that's what the current rules allow (and I've no idea how to prove they do or don't, at least in the energy I plan to put into responding to you) then the rules shouldn't be that way. AND, being allowed to do something legally doesn't mean a corporation will choose to do so when a pivotal related vote or political change is coming, so as not to sully things.
[Giving all traffic the same priority] is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Because the flexibility to do so can so easily be abused.
Why [should ISPs provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet]?
So that we're able to see more than advertisements and right-wing propagada, and able to send more than credit card numbers.
./ badge.
You have a low slashdot id, but it sure sounds like it's been bought/sold. If not, hang your head in shame, you need to turn in your
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
No, it does not say all internet traffic is to be given the same priority. NN says all traffic OF THE SAME TYPE must be treated the same. All DNS must be treated the same - ISP must route the all DNS traffic using the exact same rules and cannot prioritize their own. ISPs must treat all SMTP the same - they cannot prioritize their own SMTP traffic if their offer mail service over a competitors. Yes, ISPs can treat ALL DNS with higher prioritiy than ALL SMTP. It has nothing to do with traffic type and everything to do with origin and destination of the traffic.
Libertarians are still saying there's no real difference between Dem. and Repug?
The Netflix incident was traced to a dispute over peering on a transit partner, not an issue of an ISP slowing traffic as so many have claimed.
So yeah, that was fake news.
In the end, the dispute here is over whether the FCC should claim greater authority over internet services or not, on questionable legal grounds and by way of accumulating regulatory powers that are otherwise more spread out among various agencies.
To me THAT's the real danger here. When did we become so comfortable with the US government (headed by Trump, mind you) making those power grabs?
This. Right here. If they did do something as crazy as now allow you 90% of the internet. It is no longer the internet and they would not be able to call it that. And I guarantee that every costomer of "the internet" that they had would abandon ship like there was no tomorrow. Look at every other business that has done something to that extent. They either went bankrupt, or changed their ways.
Thats when everybody fed up with the problem pools the money they would pay to comcast, and openes a competing company. problem solved.
If you look closely at the takedown notice, you'll see it has a toll free number for Looking Glass, the take down vendor. Let them know how you feel.
And they already have. Part of the big Network Neutrality push came when Comcast slowed speeds to Netflix down and threatened to slow it down more if Netflix didn't pay up.
Comcast didn't slow speed to Netflix; it just didn't spend more of its own resources to make Netflix have an easier time of profiting off of Comcast's customers.
Netflix chose a route to Comcast's network that was unable to handle the traffic well, and then Netflix complained the Comcast wasn't upgrading the route Netflix itself selected.
It wasn't a harm but merely declining to bear the cost of Netflix's business model, and forcing even non-Netflix subscribers to pay for Netflix traffic in the process.
Unfortunately, all too many misconstrued the incident to push for policies that tilt the playingfield in favor of Netflix.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
It has to be that way until there can be real competition with ISP choices. If there were multiple ISPs, then those ISP would have to compete to give the customers what they want if they want our business. When the ISP has a monopoly, they can choose to do whatever benefits the ISP, and to hell with customer since the customer doesn't have any real alternatives.
Imagine if your electric company decided to slow down the rate at which you could draw electricity, causing you to only be able to run half of your appliances. If you wanted more power, you don't just pay for the additional electricity, you would also have to pay a fee just to get to the next power draw cap. I can see electric companies doing all sorts of crazy things if they were allowed to.
Plenty of other commenters above have pointed out that the legal wrangling has nothing to do with Network Neutrality.
But to bring up something different, how about the style of this post? It's just positively dripping with commentary, as many adjectives as the submitter seemed able to throw at the story.
Not only was the submitter pretty off base with his premise, but he was really doubling down with his rhetoric.
I'd like to think Slashdot could be a little more fact oriented with this sort of thing if users called it out. Not everything has to be dramatized.
These aren't smart people you're arguing with. They're the majority and their tyranny will run deep without even realizing what's going on.
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
It must be nice on your planet. I would like to visit it someday.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount.
Hi. Reality here. If Comcast could do that they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
Under current rules they definitely can't (assuming the FCC has the authority to enforce these rules, which, along with calling ISPs common carriers, is one of the things that is in question.)
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Why would anyone want to prioritize netflix? It's not latency sensitive, it's bandwidth sensitive, so prioritization isn't really an issue with it. Rather, if you did prioritize it, the only situation where that would cause netflix to have better performance would be if you're out of bandwidth, and the consequence would be that multiple other services would start having issues in order to make up the bandwidth requirements needed to keep netflix running.
Secondly, I don't want my ISP choosing what is or is not prioritized. I'm the one using the service after all so I should be the one saying whether it's sensitive to latency or has minimum bandwidth requirements.
Are you thinking maybe that Netflix will get access to special network links to avoid congestion? If I'm paying for enough bandwidth to access Netflix already, shouldn't there already be enough bandwidth on the normal links, even after considering over provisioning? After all if I'm routinely not able to get the speeds I'm paying for, I should probably just start paying less for a speed that can actually be delivered reliably.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
It has to be that way because of the definition of what the Internet is. If they're giving me access to a curated internet (generic internet, network of multiple networks that the ISP is allowing in), then I don't actually have access to the Internet (proper noun, refering to the global network of networks we're familiar with) at all. Maybe access to an internet (lower-case), but certainly not access to THE Internet.
However they may get payed for it even if it isn't exactly what people want if there is no other option. An internet will probably still provide enough services that I currently rely on the Internet for since you'll still probably have access to things like online shopping, email, etc. So it's not likely to die off even if it's a downgrade compared to what we already have since the alternative is having nothing. In areas with enough competition this is less of an issue since ISP A can use a less restricted internet as a selling point compared to ISP B, but that's far from guaranteed in the US, especially if you have higher requirements than just "Internet access", like "Internet access faster than 25Mb/s".
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
There is no free market in ISPs, so consumer choice does not exist. People don't have Comcast because they loooooove Comcast as the ISP and like paying high prices for ok speed and disgusting policies, they have Comcast because in their area, it's Comcast/AT&T duopoly. I would LOVE a totally free market for ISPs, but we seem hell-bent to not allow that, mostly because we let ISPs completely control the infrastructure.
*A reputable one, not a smear piece containing fantasies and guesswork about what they imagine might have possibly happened based on woefully inadequite information and essentially zero evidence.
The Netflix incident was traced to a dispute over peering on a transit partner, not an issue of an ISP slowing traffic as so many have claimed.
So yeah, that was fake news.
No it wasn't, and stop using bullshit phrases to shut down the conversation. Netflix had to go to a peering partner because Comcast refused to discuss in good faith a direct linkage at the bandwidth levels that Comcast's own customers required. Then Comcast starved the peering partner by refusing to provide the proper throughput, even when the peering partner offered to pay all expenses related to it.
Comcast turned down offers of reasonable recompense and instead attacked the quality of the service in order to promote its own OTT video offering.
In short: They degraded another service in order to make it appear worse than of their own. This behaviour is exactly what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent.
News. Not Fake.
People who honestly question the need for Network Neutrality simply don't understand how an internet works. They latch onto a single convenient datum and ignore the system itself. Those who dishonestly question it are just assholes.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
That is a total BS. I don't have comcast but I have charter cable and measured my connection speed against various servers at various times of the day. My connection stays above 60MB/s at all times, which is what I was sold. When I had verizon dsl which should be a dedicated line, my connection could not reach past 1MB/s at peak times and was just fine in off peak hours. Modern cable head ends can manage congestion quite well as long as the circuit is not over subscribed.
99% of the time, They backfeed the system. They didnt take your line from the street to your house, They disconnected that and connected it to their router because you ASKED them to.
You expect people to know how things like the internet work before they complain about it? This is a tech site! You cant expect people to know how technical shit works.
It wasn't a harm but merely declining to bear the cost of Netflix's business model, and forcing even non-Netflix subscribers to pay for Netflix traffic in the process.
Comcast's customers were already paying for that traffic. Making Netflix/Level3 pay again is double-dipping.
Level3 offered to meet all costs involved in upgrading the connection. Comcast still refused. It was a bad faith interaction, and no amount of apologism and misconstruction will change that. Comcast wanted Netflix back on Akamai and other CDNs, and was willing to play dirty to get them back there.
Within a week of Netflix knuckling under and paying Comcast for access to its customers, video quality returned to pre-dispute levels. That means that this was never a hardware issue. It was Comcast deliberately slowing an information provider's traffic in order to extract more money from them.
Even if you grant—and I don't—that Comcast was right to demand more money, using artificial congestion to degrade their own customers' internet experience was an unethical move, and one that Net Neutrality would not allow. It's the business equivalent of holding a gun to the baby's head. Only an asshole would do that.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
And still, nothing about network neutrality would have prevented that. Worse. The Obama regulations were specifically crafted to allow that the recurr. What you think of network neutrality has no connection to the Obama rules.
Looks like a shitty Markov chain.
You're paying for service (i.e. a dumb pipe), not for another company to inspect your communications and decide *for you* what to look at. Your argument's basically moot due to that. It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with getting shitty service.
What you're suggesting (build an ISP) is laughable. Are you aware of how high the barrier to entry is? How much it costs to hook up to the backbone? How about bandwidth costs or licensing? How do you displace a municipal monopoly?
Your suggestion *can't* happen, with the current state of things. Even Google pulled out of Fiber, ffs. I'm not a Google fan but if *they* can't get into the business, then who can?
And when, in all of Internet history, has that ever happened?
Can't mention Chattanooga because ISPs are shutting it down through ridiculous ordinances, i.e. the companies still won.
Tax payer dollars were given to these companies to build out their network. If we want to take back the Internet, the most effective way will be by force. Each major ISP got a major "stimulus" subsidy, and basically none of them put that to work. They stole from the public, so they deserve to have (parts of) their network destroyed.
Perhaps we should launch a campaign to block each major ISP on major websites, complete with a message explaining why (your ISP sucks and wants to control what you look at on the Internet), how to call their ISP, and what to demand (equal treatment of packets). Enough angry customers *will* affect their bottom line, and it would show the ISPs what it's like to be on the business end of their bullshit.
Surely somebody else has thought of this before...
The fact the hardware allowed for the traffic to exceed agreed upon limits doesn't mean anything. It like claiming the government are being 'assholes' for not allowing me to drive a full size 18 wheeler using my motorcycle plates. The roads can handle the traffic so why should they make me abide by my agreement to restrict my mode of transportation to the type I was licensed for? Or are the folks at Hertz 'assholes' for not allowing me to take that Chevy Suburban when I paid for the Ford Fiesta?
By all accounts Netflix was trying to go cheap and try and talk ISPs into footing the bill for their bandwidth usage by claiming it was a benefit for all. Some ISPs folded and agreed to increase access at no additional fee, and often at their expense, while others, like Comcast, simply said no and decided to play hardball. While not great for the customers Comcast simply decided to stop Netflix's abuse of their system and the slow downs were merely a result of forcing them to live within their agreed upon limits. Once the limits were renegotiated Comcast then upped the bandwidth available to Netflix CDNs and peering partners to the new levels. Nothing in the entire Comcast/Netflix saga was related to or impacted by the net neutrality rules.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Way to actually address ANY of the points made in the post
SuperKendall completely avoided addressing the actual example in kwiecmmm's post, and I am the one you choose to call out?
That only works if there are viable alternatives
Cellular networks have become viable alternatives for most people, especially if talking about video. My mother ditched Century Link to use a wireless T-Mobile hotspot, which has about 20x the speed of her former DSL line, and is on par with Comcast in her area. She has a lower bandwidth cap but even with very frequent Netflix usage it's plenty.
If you want to really break up the monopolies, well that's getting rid of a whole other layer of government in the way of real progress. Wont happen anytime soon the way people scream trying to get rid of something like Network Neutrality that is actively harmful to consumers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and the president are bought and paid for by various people and corporations. One of which is Comcast. Do you really think they are going to let net neutrality exist when they are paying those who make the laws and decide policy?
You're going to conflate letting corporations like Comcast abuse their monopolistic position by double and triple dipping and charging you for the privilege of it, with the preservation of personal liberty and self determination? Is there some kind of award for most brazen shilling shitpost that you're aiming for?
You know in most locations, you can't just "found one". This isn't the early 2000's when carriers HAD to lease lines at internal cost to 3rd parties. Those days are gone and the NN debate is going further away from it.
So this is a major reason why we need net-neutrality?
That they wrote a letter and did not thing else.
Keep me in the kill net-neutrality side since the only people we have to fear are the pro net-neutrality side since they are against free speech.
Call me again when application neutrality comes up.
'claiming that Comcastroturf.com violates its "valuable intellectual property[sic]."'
Unless 'property' were misspelt, the [sic] doesn't belong there. It's used to highlight a grammatical, or spelling error in a quote so that the editor can note to the reader that they are reproducing an error from the original context, and haven't made a transcription typo.
Comcast is evil. The government has guns and kills people. I pick Comcast.
Also, I believe you are kind of struggling to understand NN and the pros/cons. Regulating ISPs and making sure the backbone traffic (ISP to ISP) remain neutral are pretty different things.(Way oversimplified) ISPs should be free to cater the content to their customers. Not allowing them to do so will simply make their monopolies stronger, not weaker. If Comcast wants to throttle Netflix it only makes starting an alternative in their markets that gives preference to Netflix a more attractive investment. Not to mention, let them kill themselves in the press. Stock price is everything these days and bad headlines hurt companies more than anything.
I never knew that was a thing. Why and when did it stop?
Thats when everybody fed up with the problem pools the money they would pay to comcast, and openes a competing company. problem solved.
They fucking can't. ISP competition is illegal due to government-granted local monopolies. There's literally no relief from abusive ISPs.
Again, when you cite "refusing to provide proper throughput" what you're really saying is that Comcast declined to throw more of its own resources toward other peoples' business models. They didn't "starve the peering partner." Rather, the peering partner didn't have the resources to deliver the traffic it tried to deliver.
Put it this way: I don't subscribe to Netflix streaming. When you insist that Comcast MUST provide extra service to this peering partner so that Netflix can make money, you're really saying that Comcast must divert resources away from investments that would benefit all of it's customers and toward ones that are focused on benefiting those who subscribe to Netflix, and to Netflix itself.
Why should part of what I pay for Comcast internet be required to subsidize Netflix and their subscribers?
That's the big problem with this version of Network Neutrality. It's fundamentally not neutral at all, but about tilting the playingfield toward certain businesses like Netflix.
That non-example was already adequately refuted by others in multiple posts (in short the Netflix thing was COMPLETELY FALSE, not even merely misleading).
And before you say Citation Needed:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate
This has been widely known for years and yet the original, and false, allegations still float around because the suit certain people's purposes.
The political and policy pendulum swings both ways. Tick, tock.. Net Neutrality will return, and in greater numbers [of supporters].
That evil Comca... oh wait...
Somebody sets up a site to criticize a company and the company sends a "cease and desist"... this happens all the time, and frequently to companies that are barely internet related.
This has NOTHING to do with "net neutrality" unless the advocates for that so-called policy are finally admitting that it was about TONS more government regulation than what they have claimed. Net Neutrality was sold to the public as the idea that all internet data packets should be trated equally in their routing across the net. The fear fed to the public was that big evil internet service providing companies like comcast, AT&T, Cox, etc would slow-down or block packets from customers or companies that did not pay a premium. The REAL thing that many businesses like Netflix were worried about was that competitors would ink friendly deals with some service providers to get FASTER data transport making it harder to compete because the consumer would be getting even FASTER performance because there was a PROFIT MOTIVE influencing upgrades to the net. NOW, however, with this new argument, we see that people want to have the feds muzzle a company and keep it from using the courts in a perfectly legal and time-tested manner to hassle a critic (something I certainly find distasteful, but which ought to be cleaned up by reforming the appropriate laws which apply to C&D orders involving internet and non-internet entities alike). If such muzzling of critics is so unacceptable, why use the FCC to muzzle an ISP, but leave all other companies throughout the economy free to do it? Why should this be an internet thing at all as opposed to a reform of tort law, a reform of libel law, etc?
But it WAS related insofar as Netflix became the poster child "proving" that the EVIL ISPs were taking advantage of the poor streaming services by unfairly throttling them for the ISPs gain (and even though that turned out to be an entirely false and manipulative sham, uniformed people still incorrectly refer to it years later). Netflix apparently wanted a free ride, and special consideration by legislators based on this pretense.
To hunt down and ill those who involved. It will never end..
Terrorist have taught one thing bullets and bombs are the only thing that cures political horse shit.
Comcast hasn't blocked any sites, only issued a C&D letter as they are required to do in order to defend their trademark. This poster is an idiot and doesn't understand the law.
I think you don't understand what you pay for when you buy internet services, you buy a pipe for data, they simply withheld the data coming from a source that was a concurrent of their own equivalent service (I.E. you could have had access to it beforehand, they just throttled the service you paid for in case you did not use their own equivalent).
This is basic conflict of interest.
Also keep in mind that Comcast would not sell high bandwidth connections to ANYONE if it wasn't of services like Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc. so they charge you x$ par month extra for the high speed connection, then they turn around sell your usage history to other entities, and then they also want to either limit what you do with the bandwidth you purchased to stream those high definition videos - if they come from some third party services - or double dip by charging to those who sell those services... next step is for them to replace any third party advertising with their own? would that be OK - because as you say, it goes over their own network after all?
Think of all the business opportunities!
By this logic as a paying customer for a corporation's product I become the corporation's property?
Honestly, what is the value of internet if it becomes fragmented even more? why would you buy an high speed connection if it was not for those video services?
Sorry. The ISP bought legislation at the state level to declare such ventures to be 'illegal competition." And the Federal government will uphold those laws because of "states rights."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Except, as I stated in my previous post, many people can't change their ISP. If I'm upset with Netflix's service, I can switch online video providers. If I'm upset at my ISP's service, I have no other options. Complaints can pour in night and day, but the ISP knows they are a monopoly and consumers have no choice. The only people the ISP might be concerned about is the government and they've just given the green light to do whatever the ISP wants to do.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No, they didn't throttle the service.
Netflix wanted to make its money by shoving too much through their end of the pipe (well, through the peering partner), more than the pipe they purchased could handle. It's not Comcast's fault that Netflix was overloading the pipe, and as a non-Netflix subscriber I wouldn't want Comcast spending too much money to upgrade Netflix's end of the pipe.
So if a site/service becomes popular, an ISP should have the right to slow down that site/service unless they pay the ISP extra money? What if the ISP has a competing service that's losing to the popular online service? Can the ISP slow down the popular online service so that their own service seems faster? And how is all of this NOT abuse of monopoly power if the ISP is the only one in town?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Nice logic: "I haven't personally observed the results of this architecture on my own cable connection (from a different company) when running a few tests, therefore the entire concept is 'total BS."
The fact is ISPs have actually been getting much better at delivering consistent speeds close to or even above what is advertised, because it's good for customer satisfaction, BUT enough bandwidth hogs in an area will definitely still degrade performance (in short, you're lucky, so far). Essentially all connections are always oversubscribed to some (and usually a non-trivial) extent. If _every_ customer were using anywhere close to 100% of the bandwidth available to them at the same time, everyone would inevitably slow down. Luckily, most people are typically just browsing facebook or reading email (or not even using the connection) for a large percentage of the time and Netflix HD doesn't even take all that much bandwidth by today's standards. If you're streaming ultra-HD then you might pull >20Mbps but on a 60Mb connection you could still be running two of those plus some other light use without necessarily saturating your available bandwidth. The ISPs understand this and plan fairly well for typical usage and even small spikes, but there will still be some high peaks during which they can't possibly deliver, and areas with more bandwidth hogs than they planned for are also likely to suffer noticeably.
Again, gouvernement charge for large truck plates to everyone equally to allow for that kind of use on the road (faster degradation) Comcast - or whoever is your ISP - charges you for the wide road, you pay for the plate, why else would anyone pay for a high speed connection, if they don't stream videos or transfer big files? you're already paying for that privilege, who are they to charge some random service because people who buy their premium high speed service want to take advantage of the service they buy?
Go back to dialup if you only do emails, or get a 5mb/sec connection if you only browse small web sites... because you'll save a lot of money and you already agreed to not use high bandwidth services that are not approved by your ISP...
Your payment for high speed access doesn't in any way guarantee you high speed access to every service on the internet. If the site you're trying to access doesn't also pay for proper access based on their needs then you won't be able to access them at any speed higher than their connection allows. All communication drops to the lowest common denominator and in this case that was Netflix's issue, not Comcast's.
For a while Comcast and others did allow Netflix access above and beyond what they were paying for but then they decided it was time for Netflix to pay their fair share. Netflix relied on customers like you who would complain enough to their ISPs, without understanding the actual issue, to put pressure on them to accept the uneven deal but Comcast and a few others decided they wouldn't buckle and waited Netflix out.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Hi. Reality here. If Comcast could do that they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
They are not currently free to do this. Under current rules all internet sites are given the same speed. And this is why ISP's are fighting these rules, because they are mostly giant corporations that only care about their stock holder's short term gains, not the user's experience. They did it previously in the couple of months where net neutrality rules were struck down Netflix Speeds Drop on Two ISPs
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Why should I pay extra to get the internet I want, I already pay a higher price than most other 1st world countries for. And if that were the case how long would it be before you had to start paying $50 or $100 a month to get Netflix at a reasonable rate of speed plus the cost to access a slow version of the rest of the internet?
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
So if I don't want to pay for my ISP's version of the internet, I would just have to stop using the internet? Oh wait, I guess I could switch ISP's except I only have one ISP where I live, like a lot of this country. Most ISP's operate in localized monopolies. And this is the reason why we need Net Neutrality rules. If I could switch between Cox, Time Warner, Comcast or some other ISP with ease, Net Neutrality rules wouldn't matter, but most Americans cannot do this because the ISP provides both the service and the line to the house/ apartment.
Buddy, we have net neutrality rules in place now and have since 2015.
Not really. If the FCC doesn't enforce the rules, then we basically have none at all. And truth be told, we had serial violators of the rules even right after they were implemented, for example Verizon is zero-rating its crappy Go90 service while still billing customers for data used for its competitor, netflix. It actually began doing this under Wheeler, by the way.
Some ISPs are now trying to put up walled garden plans at a steep discount
Example?
You're making shit up cockholster. Netflix uses a CDN so that meanst it is going to have many many peering partners.
If you're not making shit up you're a fucking idiot.
Where is all this peering partner talk coming from anyhow. Suddenly I'm hearing the term out of the mouths of inbred idiots all over the place when say, last year I might expect that some other tech workers might not know the term.
Whose cock are you holstering?
I know this is a pretty obvious troll, but I'll bite anyway.
it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix
You can already prioritize that traffic LOCALLY. We are talking about the ISP throttling speeds (which they have already done in the past and continue to try to do despite the Title II classification). The point is that Comcast would artificially hamstring speeds of these other services until they get paid a second time. On a standard high speed internet connection, there really is no need to prioritize this traffic anyway, as one should have plenty of bandwidth for streaming, but if you need to do so for any reason, you can do so locally!
As if these greedy monopolies aren't already making way too much money, they are chomping at the bit at the thought of implementing "fast lanes" for any 3rd party willing to pony up even more cash. God forbid you pay for the internet connection and you get access to the internet, oh no no no, they want the sites you look at to pony up even more cash, or else when you try going to their sites you're effectively blocked from them because of how slowly they will load. THAT is what the issue is about.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
Because the internet is far too important to have rules imposed on it by those who stand to profit the most from it. The benefits to society far outweigh the monopolies' desire to turn a profit. Trust me, no sane person would want to pay more for the same internet access they get today. We are -already- all paying way too much here in the states as it is. Now take your half-brained shilling out of here and go contemplate your life decisions.
If you want reliable 911 service, get a POTS line. Anything short of that is asking to die.
Brilliant idea! Let me just call up my local ISP and subscribe to landline only! Oh... wait... they won't sell me internet, TV, or phone unless it's part of a bundled package. And the only internet they offer in my area is "high speed" DSL. Well I already have 300mbps internet, TV through another provider, and Vonage VoIP phone. So if I want a POTS line, which I do because I don't want to rely on a cell phone or the internet being accessible to make phone calls, I literally would have to cancel my awesome internet (which I have a crazy good deal on), cancel my TV (DirecTV, though now that I quit watching NFL this isn't a big deal... I only had it for Sunday Ticket Max), and settle for really crappy internet and "meh" TV. Oh, not to mention I own my own modem and router, which work for cable but not DSL. Besides, that DSL line would be incapable of meeting our internet demands, having 2 adults and 2 children in the house and over 40 WiFi devices connected, plus a couple of computers hardwired.
So yeah, "get a POTS line", like it's so simple! Example above being just one more explanation for why these ISP monopolies need to be broken up and the internet should be treated as a public utility.