Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Says It Isn't Throttling Heavy Internet Users Anymore (cnet.com)

Comcast, which has been throttling speeds to slow down heavy internet users since 2008, has had a change of heart. From a report: Comcast has deactivated this "congestion management" system, according to an announcement this week. "As reflected in a June 11, 2018 update to our XFINITY Internet Broadband Disclosures, the congestion management system that was initially deployed in 2008 has been deactivated. As our network technologies and usage of the network continue to evolve, we reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system if necessary in the performance of reasonable network management and in order to maintain a good broadband Internet access service experience for our customers, and will provide updates here as well as other locations if a new system is implemented."

178 comments

  1. ..waiting for the other shoe... by ThePhish · · Score: 0

    ...and what more nefarious things are coming down the line?

    1. Re:..waiting for the other shoe... by SlashGodet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Previously called a "heavy internet user," the data hog now becomes a "blessed cash cow" as the services that stream large amounts of data will soon be tapped to pay users' data bills.

      "We reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system" -- a system that charges those who provide interesting data streams to users -- a system already developed in expectation of the termination of net neutrality regulations.

      With a flick of the switch...

    2. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. But it would be more fair to charge people based on usage. And it should be built into the networking protocol.

    3. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Email will be an extra add on service- just wait.

    4. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes she shoudn't, that's why at least some ISPs offer data plans at much lower costs than that. So I guess she will continue paying $40/month or more nonetheless.

    5. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I shouldn't be paying $80/Mo to subsidize your grandmas connection in bum-fark iowa, in the middle of nowhere.

      Dial up is 9.99/mo, it's good enough. old people can wait. or better yet, use snail mail.

    6. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 4, Informative

      You actually think your grandma's bill would go DOWN?

      Oh you sweet summer child.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    7. Re:..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They aren't throttling heavy data *users* any longer, they're throttling heavy data *services*. The user isn't being throttled because if they access other services or the service pays up they'll get the full speed. It's semantics and PR.

    8. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      In this age of Google mail (or any other online mail), not offering email accounts to Internet subscribers would lower the number of email-related calls to the tech support phone lines of the ISP.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re:..waiting for the other shoe... by Kulahan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they've already done this. 1TB/mo cap on my data in a US city with >750k population. I get charged $X/GB every time I go over the limit. They don't want to throttle users at high levels of usage because that reduces how much money they'll fuck you for. Holy shit I hate Comcast. Good thing they're the only provider in my area (aside from the providers leasing Comcast's lines, naturally).

    10. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by fortfive · · Score: 1

      You think her bill is about to go down? If so, I have a great ICO to tell you about...

    11. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Comcast does have a $5 monthly discount available for people who use less then 5 GB of data per month.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, I shouldn't be paying $60 a month to subsidize your pornhub addiction.

    13. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good. My Grandma shouldn't be paying $40/month to check her email and subsidize your Netflix subscription."

      How cute. You somehow think your grandma's bill is going to go down.

    14. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you don't think Comcast is going to lower your Granny's bill once it starts charging Netflix to use their network.

    15. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does she have the 150Mbps plan then?

      Get the 3Mbps for $15 a month.

    16. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      You actually think your grandma's bill would go DOWN?

      You STILL live with your grandma?

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    17. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I live with *your* grandma. Her brownies are boss.

    18. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by Xenx · · Score: 1

      As technical support for a local ISP, I cannot be sure what percentage of our calls are email related. But, I can say that they take up a lot more of our time on the phone than other issues.

    19. Re:..waiting for the other shoe... by SlashGodet · · Score: 1

      Diabolical. The dominant paradigm insists that making money is the highest good. ):

    20. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Farming out email to a 3rd party (or not offering email at all) won't reduce your email-related support calls.

      You're an ISP, people expect to phone up for assistance with intenet problems even if you're not the provider of the actual service in question - and if you can't assist them they're likely to take their entire business elsewhere.

      As an ISP in the 1990s we made a lot of business offering email support for people who weren't our customers and won over a lot of dial-in accounts as a result.

      Of course eventually the telcos rolled in like 9000-pound gorillas and wiped out the small outfits but the principle is the same, especially in markets where there are multiple providers.

    21. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Is it really worth an hour of your time to fight to get it though?

    22. Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      If you're running email over TLS, they can't tell it's email. If you're not running over TLS, then you've got more pressing issues. These types of assessments are plain FUD.

  2. Of course not by camazotz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would they throttle high utilization users when doing so means that they don't hit the arbitrary data caps sooner? It is much more profitable now for Comcast to let people reach that 1 TB limit each month so they can start racking up the $10/50GB charges as quickly as possible.

    1. Re:Of course not by AlanBDee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait, if we want ISPs to be treated like a utility then it's it only fair for them that they meter the connection? How much I pay for electricity changes based on when I use it and how much I use. Don't get me wrong, I despise Comcast and their shenanigans but there is a valid argument for IPSs to charge users who use more bandwidth more for the service. When you criticize Comcast for this then you sound unreasonable while I would rather save the pitchforks for when they start shaking down Netflix again for a "priority" lane.

    2. Re:Of course not by MaryannG · · Score: 1

      Moderators who aren't upvoting this comment are committing a disservice. This was exactly one those "cake and eat it too" situations...and, like the OP, I DESPISE Comcast/Xfinity.

      --
      Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
    3. Re:Of course not by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Metered utilities like gas and electric have an actual cost for consuming an actual resource. Even if we are arguing that metering internet is reasonable, it isn't at the level they wish to charge.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Of course not by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We should be paying per gigabyte and no more than ten times the cost to the ISP.

      So that's like.... $0.00001 per gigabyte for the users?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Of course not by tkotz · · Score: 1

      This is sort of the real key to getting better internet in an open market. On one side you need competition, but on the other side you have to charge for use. If the ISPs get paid more if you use more it becomes in their best interest to make sure you have as much throughput available to you as possible. Other utilities are very interested in making sure you have all the supply you want, the more you take the more they get. It even encourages the ISP to improve throughput in places where there isn't competition.

      It doesn't beat competition to keep the prices down, but if users throttle their own usage due to expense it may become worth it to the ISP to drop the price to sell more.

      Setting the price is where things get tough, but if you look at average internet usage and average cost for residential plans $0.30/GB isn't too bad. ISPs would take a hit assuming usage stayed the same, but I'm sure they could weather the resettling.
      This brings up the question what would be the impact to video sites which make up 95% of the internet traffic? Would stopping using netflix, youtube, etc be worth a 95% saving on ISP costs to you? What would the ISPs do to try to make sure you keep using it? What about ads? Would it push up ad block usage when you pay to download ads? In the end though it is kind of academic because people will sacrifice a lot for the convenience of fixed expenditures and the people with the most influence over supporting this, i.e media and technical types, are the ones who would probably be the most hurt by it.

    6. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. There is nothing comparable between electricity and bandwidth. After the network in place it costs no more to send 1TB than 1K. It is 100% irrational to believe metered pricing is in anyway something other than a money grab at no additional cost to the ISP.

    7. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, if we want ISPs to be treated like a utility then it's it only fair for them that they meter the connection?

      Sure. But public utilities are subject to public over-right for their rates. Which means they have to be at least somewhat tethered to reality. So lets look at the marginal wholesale cost of bandwidth.

      Typical wholesale IP transit pricing in the US is less than $2200/month for a 10Gbps pipe. Running that flat-out 24x7 that's 68 cents per terabyte. Now that's best case, nobody runs flat-out 24x7 and there are other costs like equipment, manpower, etc. So lets assume a generous 1000% markup for overhead. That works out to be $6.80/TB.

      Comcast's retail price is $10/50GB or $200/TB (and that's in addition to their base monthly charge which covers all the infrastructure costs with profit)
      So Comcast is charging at least 30x break-even. That's obscene.

    8. Re:Of course not by Logger · · Score: 1

      Actually, we should pay congestion pricing. Internet infrastructure is a fixed cost designed to service a maximum load. Service is great until that load is reach, after which performance falls off a cliff fast. Much in the same way traffic on the freeway goes fast until it all of sudden it doesn't.

      The problem with congestion pricing is it's unpredictable, so not user friendly. It surges and subsides. And unlike Uber surge pricing, the ISP can't use higher prices to quickly encourage more capacity, so instead the higher prices would need to discourage use. How would that be communicated to the user? Some kind of window that shows the current price? Awful.

      Probably the only good answer here is to force ISPs to advertise the guaranteed minimum bandwidth. I don't think there is a need to specify what the bandwidth is, just forcing them to advertise it will help put pressure to keep that at a reasonable level. With 5G home service around the corner, that might provide just enough competition to make that little bit of information leveragable by the consumer.

    9. Re:Of course not by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "We should be paying per gigabyte and no more than ten times the cost to the ISP.
      So that's like.... $0.00001 per gigabyte for the users?"

      While that act of moving 1GB of data doesn't consume a lot of resources once the infrastructure is in place, building and maintaining that infrastructure has significant costs. If you really believe they are gouging the world and charging 10000 times more than they should, then I recommend you buy Comcast or whoever's stock and reap the profits with them.

    10. Re:Of course not by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      There should be a base price for all the infrastructure, employees, etc. Then a data cost at ten times the ISP cost on top of that.

      That could mean a base cost with no data of $10 per month for 25GBps connections, $20 for 50GBps connections, etc.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, despite what the internet tends to think, it wasn't about gouging, it was about quality of service. The tech they used only penalized users that were bursting over 10% of the plant's total capacity. Remember, DOCSIS is a timeslotted, scheduled protocol, and only one host can talk at a time during it's scheduled timeslot. A lot like token ring. If one user is constantly saturating the available timeslots, they degrade service for all other users. That's exactly what was happening with "heavy users" - aka, bittorrent. Every single connection to a swarm node represented another set of timeslots that had to be opened up. Some putz running a seedbox could and would effectively choke out other people.

    12. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you are exactly right that this is a "cake and eat it too" type situation, but it is the ISPs who are trying to do that by calling their plans "unlimited" but also charging per GB. When I had an "unlimited calling" landline, I paid a flat rate per month, no matter how many calls I made nor how long they were.

      If they want to play the metered game, I say let them. But they must alter their advertising to make it crystal-fucking-clear that their plans are not unlimited.

      (There is also the problem of what is to stop me from sending a bunch of data your way and artificially inflating how much data you are using, but compared to getting a corporation to stop lying, cheating, and/or stealing, that problem is a piece of cake to handle, no pun intended.)

    13. Re:Of course not by sjames · · Score: 1

      Electricity isn't metered because it's a utility, it's metered because each KWh produced costs money due to fuel consumed.

      ISPs don't have to pay any more for fully utilized connections than they do for idle connections. The only exception is paid transit, but in their volume, it's less than a dollar per Mbps and in many cases they avoid it by peering.

      If they were that worried about uplink costs, they would take netflix up on their offer of colocated caching servers.

    14. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fair for them to meter the connection by things that have to do with cost. Total data used has nothing to do with cost. Bandwidth usage during peak hours does, and that's why you pay Comcast for a certain tier of speed.

    15. Re: Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My power utility has a connection fee that I pay regardless of how much gas or electricity I use. Presumably, this at a base cost covers my share of maintenance, etc that the utility needs for infrastructure. Anything above and beyond that is metered.

      I would have no problem if Comcast et al treated internet utilities the same way, so long as theyâ(TM)re reasonable about it.

    16. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's more like "have a cake and completely misunderstand what cake is, what it costs, and how it works too." Total data usage has NOTHING to do with the costs of providing the service.

    17. Re:Of course not by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      But see unlike electricity or natural gas you're not actually 'using anything up' when you use your internet connection, it more or less costs the same for them to operate regardless of 0% being used or 100% being used.

    18. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really believe they are gouging the world and charging 10000 times more than they should, then I recommend you buy Comcast or whoever's stock and reap the profits with them.

      YOU FOOLS!! You could be as evil as Comcast! Why aren't you doing that?!

    19. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, if we want ISPs to be treated like a utility then it's it only fair for them that they meter the connection?

      Why? People keep bringing that up like it's supposed to be common sense, but no one ever bothers to explain why it should be treated as a metered service like gas/electricity and not an unmetered service like phone service.

    20. Re:Of course not by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Unlike electricity, cost to provide is not closely related to total bits, peak demand, timing of bits, etc. The cost is primarily in the circuit itself, and everything else is largely incidental.

    21. Re:Of course not by greenwow · · Score: 1

      > once the infrastructure is in place

      Not really. I've worked for several ISPs, and you're right the incremental cost for bandwidth is in general cheap (but not as cheap as the $0.00001 per gigabyte you mentioned), but there's always peering points that are overloaded that are very expensive or even impossible to upgrade.

      The last peering upgrade I worked with charged $25/month per Mbps. We did that to help customers get to yelp.com.

    22. Re: Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could allocate certain time slots to certain services...

      You know, as net neutrality allows you to do

    23. Re:Of course not by lannocc · · Score: 1

      ISPs don't have to pay any more for fully utilized connections than they do for idle connections.

      You are perhaps using a narrow definition of ISP. Fixed wireless operators, for example, may service multiple customers on a single wireless link. Each individual customer has the possibility of reaching the full link speed, but only if all other customers on that link are idle. Thus, service can be sold with an "up to X mbps" specification, but if all customers on that link wanted to reach that speed simultaneously then it would certainly cost the ISP more to implement.

      It seems that many ISP customers are forgetting that they are using shared infrastructure.

    24. Re:Of course not by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's a job for fair queueing. They should also probably quit advertising such that they create the impression that each user gets the full bandwidth all the time. You can't blame the customers for falling for the ISP's fib.

    25. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine! Let's treat ISP's exactly like an electric utility is treated. States regulate the price they are allow to charge you per unit, and states regulate the devices they use to meter those units.

      I don't think they really want to be treated that way at all...

      Besides, how would you meter for only the traffic a user asked for? Whats stops someone somewhere else in the world from sending you lots of UDP packets? Whats is their current answer to that? "Too damn bad someone in china sent you 3TB of random UDP data, you still exceeded your data cap."

    26. Re:Of course not by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      yeah but in the meantime other users suffer a low bw when heavy users pump a lot of juice

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    27. Re:Of course not by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine that peak demand would very much affect the cost. The circuit will need to be able to handle the load at peak demand, unless the company doesn't care about providing advertised speeds. I get that you can assume the major ISPs don't care about it. I would say that is at least partially correct. They have to provide at least enough bandwidth to keep most people complacent. If you're(average consumer) paying for 100 and only getting 80 you'll likely complain about it, but won't actually do something unless you have a good alternative. With the monoplies/duopolies in place in the US, that won't likely be the case. If you're paying for 100 and only getting 50, you're much more likely to take action. In the end it still comes back to the fact that while it may not be a 1:1, the circuit does have to be built with peak demand in mind.

    28. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not very bright are you? Shame.

      Keep dreaming that retarded dream by friend with an extra chromosome.

    29. Re:Of course not by Xenx · · Score: 1

      $0.30/GB? Are you insane? Based on Comcast's 1TB limit, you're talking $300/mo. That slightly edges out what Comcast is charging for 2000Mbps internet in my area. For a more normal speed package, you're looking at 3-5x the current monthly rates. Now, again this is based off of the limits Comcast feels it should put on your internet. My roommate and I are gamers so periodic downloads on Steam, and stream a fair bit as well. We average around 450-600GB a month. We're not heavy users. At $0.30/GB you're looking at $150/mo, which would be almost double what we're paying. And while Comcast is a better deal than the DSL options in the general area, including my employer(I live outside the coverage area), they charge what they can get away with and not the actual worth. If I moved into a covered area near work, I could get gigabit internet for less than I pay for 150megabit with Comcast. That is without an employee discount.

    30. Re:Of course not by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I might agree to pay them per GB at a fair rate if they can agree to give me the broadband speed I paid for. When I pay for X Mb/s, I expect X Mb/s more often than not, instead most days with Comcast you can expect half or less.

    31. Re:Of course not by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't believe advertisements or salesmen. I'm sure you're aware that Comcast shares your line with others so your speed depends on how much others are using. I bet you can max that puppy out at 3 in the morning and that would technically fit their definition of "up to xMb/s".

      Shenanigans like that are why I use Centrylink at a meager 20 Mb/s instead of Comcast's promised 250 Mb/s. 20 Mb/s is enough to get most things done and I truly get that speed. At least I have options in my area, we almost had google fiber. Too bad so many people only have one option.

      Also, shenanigans. My favorite word next to discombobulated.

    32. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metered access at a penny a gig? Sure. The ISPs would be charging more like $10/gig though. It would be more honest to just block Youtube, Netflix, and Vimeo entirely.

    33. Re:Of course not by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Wait, if we want ISPs to be treated like a utility then it's it only fair for them that they meter the connection? How much I pay for electricity changes based on when I use it and how much I use. Don't get me wrong, I despise Comcast and their shenanigans but there is a valid argument for IPSs to charge users who use more bandwidth more for the service.

      I hope that do it. Charge based on traffic and watch what happens when someone sends your IP a flood of unsolicited UDP packets. The ISP will not know that and the traffic will never get past your firewall but they will be happy to charge for it.

      It is strange that I never noticed power generating facilities sending me power that I did not want and then charging me for it.

    34. Re:Of course not by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The problem with congestion pricing is it's unpredictable, so not user friendly. It surges and subsides. And unlike Uber surge pricing, the ISP can't use higher prices to quickly encourage more capacity, so instead the higher prices would need to discourage use. How would that be communicated to the user? Some kind of window that shows the current price? Awful.

      If only there was some system which would allow a standardized internet protocol to allow users to check the price of the traffic they are sending and receiving.

    35. Re:Of course not by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      Charge based on traffic and watch what happens when someone sends your IP a flood of unsolicited UDP packets. The ISP will not know that and the traffic will never get past your firewall but they will be happy to charge for it.

      It is strange that I never noticed power generating facilities sending me power that I did not want and then charging me for it.

      That's an interesting theory but there are plenty of ISP services now that have data caps and it's not happening. So while it could happen I'm not sure it would as long as those data caps are large enough to cause the sending party so much bandwidth it's not worth it.

    36. Re:Of course not by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Charge based on traffic and watch what happens when someone sends your IP a flood of unsolicited UDP packets. The ISP will not know that and the traffic will never get past your firewall but they will be happy to charge for it.

      It is strange that I never noticed power generating facilities sending me power that I did not want and then charging me for it.

      That's an interesting theory but there are plenty of ISP services now that have data caps and it's not happening. So while it could happen I'm not sure it would as long as those data caps are large enough to cause the sending party so much bandwidth it's not worth it.

      It *has* happened. ISP customers receive unsolicited traffic all the time and ISPs are happy to charge them for it. I have watched it. And it will only get worse in the future as more ISPs meter traffic.

    37. Re:Of course not by tkotz · · Score: 1

      This was the point of my last sentence. We, technophiles, would suffer so it won't happen. You and your roommate are heavy internet users as the average household uses 190GB/month. In fact you are on average each above the average household usage. There is nothing wrong with that.
      http://www.telecompetitor.com/...

      This data is from 2016, but it was the easiest to find. Many Americans would see much lower monthly internet costs than the average $60-$80 (surprisingly difficult to nail down) .

      I chose the number because it is a little below revenue neutral for the ISP market. At half to double the price, the principle of having the internet paid for by the people who use it seems more fair. And should encourage the ISPs to get everyone the fattest pipe they can.

    38. Re:Of course not by Xenx · · Score: 1

      That's just it though. We're the modern normal. Those household average, while possibly technically accurate are not actually a fair representation of the average household. If the average older internet user (or really anyone that doesn't spend a lot of time online) only uses a few gigs per month, they're directly offsetting the usage of most normal households. The average just throws them all together, which is only statistically useful and not of any practical significance.

  3. WTF! by no-body · · Score: 0

    Do you believe anything a large corporation states?

    If you do - dream on!

    1. Re: WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large corporation, sure.
      Comcast, fat chance.

    2. Re: WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more money involved, the more lies and deception, plain and simple.

    3. Re:WTF! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Nope. Especially Comcast/Xfinity and Verizon.
      Not only that, since the last "increase" in Comcast's bandwidth - I'm now at 250Mb/s, up from 200 Mb/s; oddly connections to the Internet from any wifi (sorry, "xFi" now) device is intermittently lousy. It almost seems like throttling but seems to be more application specific.
      All ethernet connections are fine, and wifi to wifi looks good, but with Wifi to Internet, something is broken. Reboots of the Xfinity/Netgear cable modem/router/AP have not addressed this. Even stranger, Netflix usually actually works okay from my BluRay player which also connects via wifi, but Youtube and Memedroid apps on any of my Android gear barely load. (Yet the Android gear works great using work's wifi so it's not the Android devices). The issue is the same across both 2.4GHz and 5GHz WLANs.

      I DREAD the thought of calling them to report this and be forced to deal with one of their helpdesk-script monkeys to try to get this rectified. I suppose I'll just buy my own AP and wire it to the Netgear, (or maybe even just buy the whole package and stop renting) since it seems to be their internal interface between wifi module and router that's wonky. I just worry that Comcast will handwave away any future issues as being the fault of my own router if I do that.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re: WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all large corporations are the same. Branding them all as the same will simply encourage all of them to be evil since.... hey they hate us anyway what ever we do!

      It is like comparing Donald Trump to Kim Jong Un

    5. Re: WTF! by no-body · · Score: 1

      A large corporation, sure.
      Comcast, fat chance.</p></quote>

      How about M$oft?

    6. Re: WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power tends to corrupt. What's so difficult to grasp there?
      Of course it also means Microsoft - also governments, religions, and whatever concentrates power on a small number of entities.

    7. Re: WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd believe Microsoft over Comcast, and that's not saying much.

    8. Re: WTF! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

      Power tends to corrupt.

      I guess all my appliances are corrupted since they're plugged-in 24/7.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re: WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just get a damn surfboard modem and setup a DD-WRT router. Youâ(TM)ll get rid of $5 a month charge, and have so much better service.

    10. Re: WTF! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Actually it's worse! $10 a month. I did plan on replacing it after all the original installation issues were ironed out, which they are.
      This Netgear router is just abysmal as far as responsiveness and feature set goes.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  4. I don't understand why we put up with this by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we know the ISPs are jerking us around. We know they've got plenty of bandwidth since they'll cheerfully sell it to you for a premium. We also know they're sitting on billions of dollars of cash; much of which was given to them as tax cuts and subsidies for the express purpose of building out their network so they didn't have to do crap like bandwidth caps. This is /., a tech community, so we all know these as facts because half of us our network engineers and the other half are programmers and scientists of one kind or another

    Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do? We never do. Every year we go to the polls and elect the same batch of anti-consumer clowns. At a certain point we're being complicit in the whole thing.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.

      If you have a good solution, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do?

      Because you (personally as well as with many others in a plural sense) don't pay any attention to politician statements and activities unless your favored comedians are talking about it. (I am including M-Smash as a comedian given its submission record.) Even more than that, when you (still personally and with many others) do actually pay some attention to a politician's actions on a subject you care about, your response is not to educate the individual or politely discuss their reasons, but instead to write death threats and start petitions with 1337 signatures to do something without actually explaining why anyone would care.

      When your behavior is exactly the same as that of for-hire protesters, why should anyone at any level care what you have to say?

    3. Re: I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure some of this group is partially to blame for voting in corporate puppets, however, when you look at the general population they are either unaware or don't care.

      The issue to fixing the US is education. The more educated our voters, the better representation we can have and the better legislation we can have. Unfortunately, acquiring swaths of money and throwing it at politicians is nearly as effective as having an educated voter system, however educating voters is far more difficult and I suspect, has a slower growth rate than typical wealth accumulation in this country.

    4. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do?

      Because someone like that would never run for election. And if they did the reigning political forces would crucify him by any means necessary. You can see it right now. Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican and he's certainly no politician. Both parties have been doing everything in their power to either oust him or bring him under their control. The reason it hasn't worked is he doesn't care about his political clout only about getting what he wants. Who wants to put themselves and their family through that kind of heartache?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not why. Check out the Princeton study about how politicians don't care one whit about what their constituents want, but they REALLY care what their lobbyists want. Imagine that: everybody has a price.

    6. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by AlanBDee · · Score: 0

      There are some, just not many. https://www.briannawu2018.com/

      I think as times goes on we'll see more.

    7. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Force Comcast to do what you want them to do?

      Fucking slavers. Seriously. You think government is some fucking hammer you can use to bludgeon your enemies and reward your friends.

      You don't deserve to live in freedom because you hate everyone who gets in your way. You don't want to pay your fair share, you want someone else to do it for you. You don't want to do the hard work necessary for a free society, you want the nanny state to take care of you cradle to grave no matter how much they abuse someone else.

      You are weak and spineless.

    8. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you just stop paying for service. It's completely voluntary. If you're not willing to do that then it would suffice to say you are satisfied with their service.

    9. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by swb · · Score: 2

      We know they've got plenty of bandwidth since they'll cheerfully sell it to you for a premium.

      It looks to me like the Mercedes dealerships have plenty of cars, too, does that mean they should give them away?

      I don't want to defend Comcast, but you're making a bad argument. Just because there is more of good available at a higher price doesn't mean they need to increase the quantity they provide at a lower price.

      I don't know if there was much if any "need" for Comcast's congestion management system. I have seen many businesses pay for top tier Comcast Business speeds and simply not be able to move bits at the speed they were paying for. Usually they were located in an area that was "residential" in terms of Comcast infrastructure and my guess was their neighborhood aggregation point was oversold In each case Comcast tried to wriggle out of it, but once the tickets got escalated high enough or we got a decent tech on site they'd mostly acknowledge there just wasn't enough backhaul out of that geographical area.

      So my guess Comcast may have had a bonafide interest in discouraging some bandwidth hogs to deal with over-subscription problems *just* as their marketing department was rolling out a ton of ads for higher bandwidth. I'd guess the solution was over-applied and a lot of areas without any contention, though.

      And of course Comcast is surely engaging in all kinds of pricing schemes that maximize revenues and treat bandwidth with artificial scarcity, but that doesn't mean they have some kind of obligation to provide you with more.

    10. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair that would still be true even without any bribery involved as a lobbyist is a specialist in representing their client's interest to politicians. The're going to be better at it than random people.

      When the politician is presented with a well crafted argument that makes seemingly salient points and cites sources and puts the issue into terms they understand on one side and a bunch of barely intelligible as language screaming where a majority of it somehow manages to contradict a separate majority of itself which are they going to listen to?

    11. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And by law, in the USA, politicians don't have to do what you want them to do.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    12. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican

      Huh? He absolutely is a Republican. And the rank and file of the party agrees - to the tune of a 90% approval rating among people who identify as Republicans.

    13. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by GWXerog · · Score: 1

      I'd mod this funny if I could.

    14. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Except bandwidth is closer to roads than cars. The incremental cost to a packet is (almost) zero, but the infrastructure is very expensive. On the other hand, the total infrastructure costs per car made are quite low compared to other costs.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re: I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh, of course they are going to double down and ride the bet out.

      You can't fix stupid.

    16. Re: I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering he's been at at least 80%, that's not saying much.

    17. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against the woman personally, and admire her strength in the fights she's been fighting thus far, but she's one of the trio that GamerGate was targeting, which unfortunately many on Slashdot were heavily supportive of.

      Reportedly the IRA (the Russian trolling outfit, not the Irish terrorists) was one of the groups stoking the GamerGame movement, so some may have soured on it, but regardless I don't think Wu will get much support here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do?

      Maybe because we don't believe in a dictatorship. Or, most of us, anyway. Apparently you do. Disgusting.

    19. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Actually they don't have 'plenty of bandwidth', they over-sell it assuming people won't all be using it all the time. That's why they advertise it as 'speeds up to n-Mb/s' instead of a static number, if lots of people are using it at the same time it gets bogged down, they know this, but they over-sell anyway because $$$.

    20. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a Republican, he ran as one, and has their seemingly undying cult like support. you can't get more Republican

    21. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Presumably, they are going to listen to polls and feedback from focus groups. Otherwise, it'd take more than sweet words to make them support policies opposed by 2/3 of the country. The study in question didn't find that that the rich have a somewhat disproportionate influence in politics. It found that if you aren't in the top 10%, your opinion has NO correlation with public policy.

      Plus, you are assuming competence on the part of both lobbyists and politicians.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think government is some fucking hammer you can use to bludgeon your enemies and reward your friends. No, but Comcast does. And for the record, one is not a slaver for expecting reasonable regulations on a natural monopoly whose entire business model is built on imminent domain.

    23. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or recognize that it's a goddamn monopoly, and thus it's not really "completely voluntary."

    24. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Wu will get much support here.

      I don't think Wu will get much support outside of here either.

      She's running up against a long time Democrat, who still won his seat back in 2010 after he voted against ObamaCare.

      Being associated with GamerGate may actually hurt her. GG is - if we are to believe the narrative favored by the left - is mostly a movement started by a very small minority of trolls (you said it yourself about Russian trolls are reportedly involved). It's not really a big issue for most voters to switch their vote.

      So besides the GG thing, what does she bring to the table to challenge the incumbent? Can she cite her success her career as a game dev? Not really. There's no indication she's a bad game dev, but not much for her being spectacular either. The fact her GG ties overshadow much of her career could make people think that maybe she hasn't done much career wise.

    25. Re:I don't understand why we put up with this by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.

      Why would they? Politicians do not represent voters.

  5. The real story by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    They are going to change the system to add throttling capabilities based on traffic type now that net neutrality has been repealed.

    1. Re:The real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      throttling based on traffic type is and has been in place for years - it's called QoS. It's fine to prioritize streaming over smtp. The debate is about whether its OK or not to throttle based on traffic source or destination. Most people don't want their ISP to throttle NetFlix because the ISP has a competing content business.

  6. They're throttling the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... websites you visit. Cos now they can.

  7. this is why net neutrality does not matter by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comcast throttles both sides of the equation. They claim that they did not, then it was discovered that they did, so they had to admit it. Now, they are claiming that they will not throttle. OK. BUT at some point, a lot of traffic will be slowing down their cable. They will then use this as an excuse for why they need to throttle supply side.

    What is needed is to get competition going. Remove the monopoly. Likewise, allow Google and others easy access to public ways.
    Finally, at a federal level, require that all local govs be allowed to put in communications utilities if the local citizens vote it in. IOW, state gov can not override the local gov choices to have this.

    As long as we have gov sponsored monopolies,and esp without proper regulations on performance AND pricing, then we will always be screwed. So, allow competition to take hold and considering the importance of communication between citizens and gov, I would suggest that local gov have a real need to install the fiber, esp last mile, and then allow competition for managing it along with providing services over it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly. The solution is not to try to get half a dozen companies to install their own separate coax/fiber/whatever lines in every town (spoiler alert: they won't, that costs a fortune even if we mandated access to utility poles, which is one of the current ways incumbent ISPs forbid competitors from arising around them). The solution is to recognize that physical connectivity is a natural monopoly (like water, gas and electricity -- you don't have separate independent distribution networks for those things, either) and regulate is as such.

    2. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by houghi · · Score: 1

      Or we could just let the market sort it ot, right?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You want to remove the monopoly that Comcast and AT&T already have? Take away their ownership of the Last Mile infrastructure and lease bandwidth on it to whoever wants to pay for it, but exclude NO ONE.

    4. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just let the market sort it ot, right?

      No, it doesn't work. Only an idiot would say something that stupid.

    5. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just let the market sort it ot, right?

      A true free market could, unfortunately the IPS's have nice monopolies in place. No competition.

    6. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      If you remove the gov. imposed monopoly, then yes, the market CAN sort it out.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      both ATT and Comcast bring in Twisted Pair and Cable. BIG mistake. Fiber is what matters.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:this is why net neutrality does not matter by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they care what 'matters' to a bunch of neckbearded tech geeks? They only care what makes them the most profit. They already have shit installed they'll squeeze every last cent they can out of it and they know the Joe Average and his family don't understand the difference and will pay anyway. You don't seem to understand that marketing has little if anything to do with common sense or decency, it's all about the money.

  8. Did anyone else read heavy internet users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and think of creimer and do a double take?

    GOBBLELOL!!!

  9. No more throttling. New tactic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast is not going to throttle users anymore.

    They're resorting to whipping.

  10. Getting the trains to run on time. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Recently after the Removing Net Neutrality decision was made (Before it went into law) Spectrum bumped its speed from 60mbs to 100mbs. And now after the law went into effect Comcast is stopping its throttling.

    I feel like these companies realize how much we are afraid of ending Net Neutrality, so they are compensating (at the moment) to show how much better life is with out it. ( like how an authoritarian dictator after getting in power, can use his power to force the trains to run on time, to show the public how much life is better with him in power ). Making the public more comfortable about the process only to turn the screws on them slowly later on, when their power has been solidified.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Getting the trains to run on time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like these companies realize how much we are afraid of ending Net Neutrality, so they are compensating (at the moment) to show how much better life is with out it. ( like how an authoritarian dictator after getting in power, can use his power to force the trains to run on time, to show the public how much life is better with him in power ). Making the public more comfortable about the process only to turn the screws on them slowly later on, when their power has been solidified.

      I was thinking the same thing. I don't trust the ISPs one bit.

      Challenge = spinner

    2. Re:Getting the trains to run on time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before NetNeutrality my bill either went down yearly or my speed increased yearly... or both.

      Since NN/2015 I received neither bumps in speed nor decreases in price.

      It would be an interesting concept to see what a couple years of not having NN would do, but no one wants to try because FUD.

    3. Re:Getting the trains to run on time. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      During NN I have been receiving regular speed boosts, and I have been tracking my bandwidth over the past 20 years of me buying internet. And for the most part the speed/price has trended equally threw Clinton/Bush/Obama.

      The jump from 60 to 100 mbs was a big jump, and I expect it to stick there for a while.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  11. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Net Neutrality is gone bitches!

    We're turning off the old throttling shit because that wasn't making us money.

    Just wait until you see the NEW throttling system.

    I guarantee you that every shareholder will absolutely love it.

  12. Re:NBC buys FOX? by tbuddy · · Score: 2

    Fox News and Fox Sports are not part of the deal.

  13. "We're not doing it anymore..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're not doing it anymore...

    We're not doing it any *less*, but we're not doing it anymore."

  14. It was really bad for their reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if any of you still see or hear ads, but I was driving a car for a few months where all I had was FM radio, and it was full of Comcast ads.

    Comcast advertises speed. Everything is about speed. My wife and I laughed over their ads' suggestion that somehow their wifi was faster than others, as if your ISP determines what wifi equipment you're using.

    But anyway, they're saying speed, speed, speed.

    If they don't actually have speed, then they are nothing, because speed is what they brag about. So this throttling stuff was severely undermining their marketing. Their ad people must have been furious. "How am I supposed to sell this, if your division can't deliver the one and only thing that I'm selling?"

  15. More sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you plan of charging the supplier end of the pipe, then you throttle *that* end, not the consumer end of the pipe. You're now selling access to consumers to suppliers (like Netflix), so of course you want to sell as much consumer bandwidth as possible.

  16. Translation by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks to the lack of Net Neutrality, we're encouraging everyone to use the Internet a bunch right now. Keep using Netflix/AmazonPrime, and strengthen our bargaining position with them. And don't worry about us, internet usage that doesn't strengthen our bargaining position (e.g. peer-to-peer networks or torrents) are about to go away entirely.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  17. "why we put up with this" <-- Who is we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is /., a tech community ... Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will [do things that tech people want]

    One possibility (I hasten to add that I haven't confirmed this) is that /. readers are less than half of voters.

  18. They just charge instead by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

    Forcing people to self throttle or give Comcast a huge profit. Just hope you don't have to reformat your computer and download a few games or you get close to the 1TB limit rather quickly. Sure it's probably enough for one person, but if you have 2 kids who watch videos and download games for their PC or consoles then you run up against the limit every month.

    1. Re:They just charge instead by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I have 6 kids. Between them, my wife, and myself I average 400 GB of internet. I've never exceeded 750 and that included dumping about 300GB to a backup server.

    2. Re:They just charge instead by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I have 6 kids. Between them, my wife, and myself I average 400 GB of internet.

      Cool story.
      Tell me more about your Internet use once you have 8 people streaming 4k video.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    3. Re:They just charge instead by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

      Maybe your kids don't purchase games then or watch videos because a single game can be 100 GB. A couple hours a day of streaming video racks up of ton of usage as well and if you are watching 4K video you can use it all up in a week.

    4. Re:They just charge instead by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I will admit that the xbox eats GB's of data when we leave it on. PC games use much less, and yes I do torrenting as well.

  19. Comcast Says It Isn't.... but I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's fix the headline.

    Comcast Says It Isn't Throttling Heavy Internet Users Anymore

    to

    Comcast Will Throttle All Users Now

    Because what stops them? Nothing.

  20. RIP net neutrality by linuxwrangler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since the net neutrality laws expired, the only piece of this to pay attention to is "...we reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system..."

    Who will the new data-hogs be? Netflix? Youtube?

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:RIP net neutrality by danomac · · Score: 2

      Windows 10 updates.

    2. Re:RIP net neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the "new system" just another way of saying "paid prioritization"?

    3. Re:RIP net neutrality by xlsior · · Score: 1

      Windows updates are defaulted to a distributed p2p method now, so they'll have a hard time trying to bill MS for it. Most people won't be downloading them straight from Microsoft, but from your grandma's Pc instead.

    4. Re:RIP net neutrality by danomac · · Score: 1

      Most people won't be downloading them straight from Microsoft, but from your grandma's Pc instead.

      If you think p2p is going to survive this, you're sorely mistaken.

  21. How strange by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    You know their subscriber base has done nothing but increased in the past decade, yet they no longer need to throttle folks.
    This can only mean one of two things:

    1) They didn't need to throttle back then either, regardless of the excuse they used.
    or
    2) They've spent the money to upgrade their network to handle the increased traffic ( LOL )

    1. Re:How strange by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      2) They've spent the money to upgrade their network to handle the increased traffic ( LOL )

      While it's very clever to say that ISPs never spend money, do you seriously believe that they've absorbed the massive changes to bandwidth consumption over the last ten years (including the rise of streaming video) without serious upgrades to their network? I can't find a good source for historical per-user average bandwidth usage, but I have no doubt that it has skyrocketed.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  22. They are playing nice before a merger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've just made a bid to buy Fox (because they weren't evil enough). I imagine that they don't want any complaints to mess up a merger.

  23. How their statement is created by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Policy Change: Increase Profit/Decrease Usability => Lawyer => Public Relations => We're making things better for Users!

    Just like every other large company.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  24. Obviously, It's not as profitable by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

    Now that Net Neutrality is no more, why bother to throttle the many many customers directly, when they can first extort money from the major sources of the data, and have those companies up their rates of your service. That way Comcasts great PR machine can indirectly extract more money from your wallet while simultaneously putting the blame on the data-service provider, not themselves. The customer will have no idea why they are paying more for the same services, and no recourse for getting that fee lowered. You can't just pick up the phone to Comcast and renegotiate you bill, because the additional cost is not on your Comcast bill. Arguing with Netflix to tell them to renegotiate a better deal with Comcast has no hope of ever changing anything. You now have no recourse other than finding another network provider, and for customers like me, there is no other provider and they know it.

    1. Re:Obviously, It's not as profitable by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Oh well. The more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers. I will just resort to more piracy then. It works better than the big companies do anyway.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  25. Re: NBC buys FOX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PRICE CHECK!

  26. Some of them do by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Bernie Sanders does. Liz Warren Does. Al Franklin did until the Dems kicked him to the curb over a minor scandal (mostly so that Kamala Harris could clear him from the 2020 presidential field, thanks Kamala).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Some of them do by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Democrats are currently their own worst enemy, they're devouring themselves. Republicans have thrown away all human decency and sanity. I hate them both.

    2. Re:Some of them do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kristin Gillibrand was the person driving the "Al Franken Must Go" bus.

    3. Re:Some of them do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly didn't do what I want them to do.

    4. Re:Some of them do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats have been their own worst enemy for decades.

      Come to think of it, so have the Republicans. While in general more effective at actually accomplishing their stated goals, the Republican party has been trying to differentiate themselves for so long by being far right of the Democrats that they have cultured some serious extremism which has hampered them from achieving their goals despite having the house, the senate and the presidency. Yes, they have accomplished some of them but certainly not all. And what they did manage was more difficult than it should have been considering they (currently) own the government. That is one seriously fucked up party.

  27. Lots of them do by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    show up to your primary. There's tons of pro-consumer candidates. There's an entire party of them trying to take the Democrats over from within called 'Justice Democrats'. They keep losing in the big primaries because folks vote for the pro-corporate establishment candidate.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Lots of them do by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      show up to your primary.

      Primaries are partisan. I don't belong to a party and more and more people are leaving both the major political parties.

      They keep losing in the big primaries because folks vote for the pro-corporate establishment candidate.

      So you answered your own question. People keep voting for the same insanity over and over!

      I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.

      Bernie Sanders does. Liz Warren Does. Al Franklin (sp) did until the Dems kicked him to the curb over a minor scandal (mostly so that Kamala Harris could clear him from the 2020 presidential field, thanks Kamala).

      NO! None of these people even remotely stand for anything a sane person would want. I would hate to see any of these people in office as they are certifiable idiots. And you proved my entire point by pointing out what happened to Franken. He was ousted by something he did over a decade ago! You didn't even mention the fact that Sanders was almost a lock for the DNC nomination but they didn't want him running so they rigged the primary and made sure he lost! Face it, the reason there are no worthy candidates is people smart enough to be worthy are also smart enough not to run in the first place. And the rare person who would be worthy is summarily ousted by the establishment anyway.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Lots of them do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Primaries are partisan. I don't belong to a party and more and more people are leaving both the major political parties.

      They aren't in my state (Washington) as well as some other states like CA. Look into improving your locality's electoral system. In the meantime, the most direct simple way you have to decide policies is to vote in primaries, so follow whatever rules your state has to let you vote in a primary and vote to nudge whichever party you want in the direction you think they should go. If you really don't want to vote for anyone on the ballot, still vote. No one knows if you hand in a blank ballot or a write-in for Mickey Mouse, but politicians definitely pay attention to who submits ballots as that is public record.

  28. Bandwidth != cars by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and on /. in 2018 I shouldn't have to explain that. It's a false dichotomy and you can't be dense enough to really believe that. You're being disingenuous.

    If I have to put a sound bite to it though: We didn't pay Mercedes billions in cash subsidies and tax breaks to give cars away. If we did I'd be pretty pissed I couldn't walk into a dealership and get my free car.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Bandwidth != cars by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      We didn't pay Comcast billions in subsidies and tax breaks to give away free internet. We paid them to expand broadband to more smaller towns, and expand fiber in cities. Be mad at them for not doing that -- and be mad at your government for not supporting competition -- but don't be mad at Comcast for charging market rates for internet.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  29. yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may not be throttling users any more, but they're not throttling them any less, either.

  30. Is that why Comcast is unreliable as shit suddenly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was getting better for a few years, but now it's back to being shitty as hell with random drops off wifi and piddly bandwidth. I would switch to Verizon, but some roommate wants to watch some shitty tv on Comcast, probably some sports bullshit.

  31. Looks like they made a typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now that Network Neutrality has been revoked, we reserve the right to implement a new, EVEN WORSE congestion management system if necessary in the performance of reasonable network management and in order to maintain a good broadband Internet access service experience for our customers, and will provide updates here as well as other locations if a new system is implemented.""

    There, all better.

  32. Unlimited 100/10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in a real first-world country, Canada, rogers recently offered 100/10 for $80. Still expensive, but it's unlimited.

    So, I run a BT seed box on my raspberry Pi. I'm currently seeding WikiPedia offline "KiWix" for users of third-world repressive countries, like the one south of me.

    I set my download to 512 down, and 1 down during 4am-7am. I average around 30Gb/day, which is about 900Gb / mo , in uploads ALONE. Now add about 6Gb streaming activities/day, so add 200Gb of Downloads on average, for 1.5Tb/Mo.

    I have kept this up for 6 months.

    Looks like no throttling, since I can use all my upload and download bw. I use the Canadian box as a VPN when I am in certain 3 letter acronym turd-world countries.

  33. They just charge more for it instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get charged $10 for every 10GB I use over 1000GB each month. Hugh pain in the ass.

  34. COMCAST IS LYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unencrypted torrents get super shit speed. creep along at 10-50k. dirt slow. force encryption on and 5MEG/second!

  35. You can't have competition by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Internet has too high a mark up and it's too expensive to get started. I've read Comcast pays as little as $9/mo to keep a customer going on high speed and charges $70. They can do that because they were basically handed the infrastructure for free and get ongoing subsidies and tax cuts to pay for it. Politically you're not going to remove those. They'll just buy out the politicians. Money is speech after all.

    Anyone who tries to compete with Comcast will get shoot down when Comcast drops their pants. We saw this with Google Fiber. Google was profitably selling fiber for $100/mo so the local ISPs cut their prices and upped their speed. Google Fiber was squeezed out and after that the prices shot up again.

    Face it, you're not going to fix this with the free market. There's lot and lots of reasons for that and I'm not going to type them all out, but it's time for actual regulation. And that means electing people that will implement the laws. I keep hearing that if only we had a law instead of the FCC, but we _have_ a law. It's common carrier and it was ruled effective. It doesn't do any good to have laws if you don't elect people to enforce them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You can't have competition by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      hey, I have said over and over we need to kill monopolies. I also have seen that town, city, and even county gov can run the fiber and then have another company manage the utility. To me, that is a fast way to get fiber moving.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:You can't have competition by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Who is going to invest if the government can just come in later and compete with you using taxpayer money?

  36. They're not compensating by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're getting ready to implement harsh bandwidth caps. They want you used to consuming large amounts of bandwidth when they do.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  37. What they didn't say... by BranMan · · Score: 1

    Of course what Comcast didn't say was "Well, we're not throttling them any LESS either".

  38. Comcast spies on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's being ignored by everyone is the fact that Comcast spies on your encrypted internet traffic as a man in the middle and can even inject/modify data in packets going to your computer.
    Don't believe me? Exceed your ridiculously low 1TB per month limit and watch the pop ups that come to your browser even if you're visiting only HTTPS pages using SSL encryption.

  39. The meaning of anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    T-minus until we release throttling... 5... 4.... 3... 2... 1... Go! And... The quote has been said! All staff, turn on all breaks immediately!!

  40. Data Caps + Throttling Heavy users = same thing by kalieaire · · Score: 1

    They're throttling people who hit their 1tb data cap which they identify as "heavy internet users".

    How is this functionally different from throttling people at a consistent basis depending on content they're transferring?

    They're basically impeding user services, just in different ways, but still there's tangible impact.

  41. This is a repeat, I think. Give it a week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is that we'll have something even worse pop up in a week, or so.

  42. Since 2008? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast, which has been throttling speeds to slow down heavy internet users since 2008

    They were using a system called The Matrix to throttle heavy internet users since at least 2000.

    ...we reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system...

    In other words, they are renaming the system again.

  43. Fuming right now. by waspleg · · Score: 1

    Sat down after a couple beers to play World of Warships. Comcast's fucking router/switch/whatever (69.241.116.206) on their border to Level 3 to the WoWs game server has 70% packet loss right now rendering it unplayable.

    Their support is completely utterly useless as always. I've played this game every day for over a year and never had this issue. I find it highly suspicious this happens 3 days after a NN repeal goes in to effect... Like many games, they use torrents to distribute patches, I'm wondering if this got flagged or something.

    1. Re:Fuming right now. by waspleg · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot to mention, Comcast and others can SAY they're not going to throttle but it doesn't fucking matter because they know there's nothing you can fucking do anyway since in many areas they're they only choice.

  44. Yeah, that'll make a difference in your image. /s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take off the data caps whereby you overcharge customers when they use over 1024 GB, you cunts.

  45. Oh, so that's something else they lied to me about by sabbede · · Score: 1
    I asked about that when I signed up, they said they didn't do it. So, just like when I asked if there were data caps, the answer was a lie. Awesome.

    At least I don't have them anymore.

  46. That's only because very few people show up by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    your primary vote has enormous power because there's so few voters. But a side effect of this is that it's easy to sway the vote by targeting the small number of voters who show up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  47. Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love you.
    The check is in the mail.
    And, I won't cum in your mouth. (Or, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help', if you are a Canadian)