digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at arstechnica.com —

FCC Chair responds to Comcast lawsuit: we still want answers

arstechnica.com — FCC Chair Kevin Martin says that even if Comcast is appealing its net neutrality Order, the agency still wants to know what the heck "protocol-agnostic" means.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • holyskeleton, on 09/05/2008, -0/+66***** Comcast. Its name doesn't even pass the spell checker.
  • alapoet, on 09/05/2008, -1/+38Comcast is just playing a shell game when they say they're no longer violating Net Neutrality. They still are big-time violators.

    Rather than throttle bandwidth for file-sharing apps in general -- since that's what the FCC called them on -- now they throttle the bandwidth of individual users. That's not an improvement. That's *****.
  • TheHayze, on 09/05/2008, -1/+20Yeah! Go Kevin Martin! Rip Comcast a new one.
    Seriously Comcast, not only does the chairman of the FCC, you know the guy, he says what you can, and cannot do, he wants some answers. So do we. We want those answers now, and for you to stop dicking us around.

    Hell, I never thought I'd be in support of the FCC. But this is the right cause for them to get involved with. They need more transparency over there in the F.C.C.
    • twiztidsinz, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Maybe the whole Net Neutrality thing is what was needed to get the FCC back for the people and away from the corporations.
      I've always stood by that the FCC isn't bad, and is in fact needed. But when any group puts the interests of corporations ahead of the people it's supposed to be in service to, it will not be a good thing.
  • fearr, on 09/05/2008, -1/+27I'm surprised the bureaucrats are actually doing something to try and help the people.
    • D14852001neko, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1That's because they are Comcast users. If they wouldn't be, you think they'll ever think of doing this?
      • u235sentinel, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0Agreed. They are also concerned with Concast terminating the top 1000 users in every region regardless of their usage.

        So since Concast was caught lying about a few things, what's to say they aren't lying about other's made in statements?

        It explains why my family was terminated over a year ago. We started blogging about bringing alternatives to our neighborhood and hopefully someday Utopia.

        Comcastissue.blogspot.com to keep up with what's going on.

        someday Comcast will NOT have their exclusive contracts with the government as the way they treat customers falling on deaf ears will affect the relations between government and the people. And people don't like Concast
  • TheGreatBelow, on 09/05/2008, -10/+1In reality, Comcast > most ISPs.
    • KloroFormd, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4No... not really.

      I switched from Comcast to a local ISP and all my daily connection problems went away. I can handle a slower upload speed (256k compared to Comcast's 384k, which actually was hitting 490k) with the local service because during peak hours I still get my advertised 6000k download speed. Comcast was dropping to dial-up speeds during peak hours.
    • tavisjohn, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Than why do we not see any articles about AT&T, or Wide Open West violating their customers?
    • bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1In reality, TheGreatBelow + acid = above comment
    • bagboyrebel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2maybe better than dial-up, but that's not saying much.
  • charm803, on 09/05/2008, -1/+18Kevin Martin is not bowing down to Comcast!

    Awesome!
  • exxodius, on 09/05/2008, -3/+8com-*****-castic.
  • Jhiaxuz, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Doctor: Wait a minute, Brian, you have a pre-existing relationship with this degenerate?
    Peter: A degenerate, am I? Well you are a festizio! See, I can make up words too, sister.
  • Ceeman, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5This is all a game. The government can not wait to control your internet.

    Remember after 9/11 everyone yelling for the Government to take control of airport security? Asking the FCC to open the market for people to compete with Comcast would be a much better thing to ask for than for them control the internet for us.
    • Diggnabbit, on 09/05/2008, -4/+4Umm... I think you're missing the point here. No-one is asking the FCC to control the internet, and the market for ISPs is opened up and competitive.
      • Ceeman, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7Open? Are you kidding? If you had a billion dollars and wanted to start a all fiber network in a city you could not get past all the red tape that is put in place by the big telcos and cable companies to do it.
      • Manther, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3It's not exactly opened and competitive. If I want TV at all I need to go through Comcast in my city (I have a condo and can't get a dish, has to be cable or the like, and Fios or U-Verse aren't around yet). And, just like the whole state of CT, each town is only allowed to have one cable provider (which boggles my mind how someone could have EVER thought that was a good idea in the first place...). If I moved, I could get Cox or something else, but I'd still be paying too much because I can't say 'I'm sorry Comcast/Cox, your prices are too high and your service too crappy, I'm going with the other guy.' And that just makes the cable companies content and lazy, therefore only getting worse, and never better....
  • damian7, on 09/05/2008, -9/+1Sarah Palin
    • pyronik, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2Obama? Biden?
    • AndrewMoyer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5I'm sure Sarah Palin would be in favor of letting the cable company do whatever it wants, even going as far as to let them drill for bandwidth in Alaska... just as long as they don't let her children download any sex education!
      • bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Yea!!! That's it!!

        I'm sure Sarah Palin would be in favor of shooting fetuses out of a cannon at kittens and then bathing in all the blood!!

        Yea!! I bet she'd be in favor of all of that! Because she's an evil Republican and MTV told me so! Yea!
      • Manther, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2I laughed out loud with that one.
  • InJectaH, on 09/05/2008, -3/+9Supposedly Comcasts bandwith limit is supposed to only effect 1% of it's consumers. If the amount is that small, why add it in the first place? it's ***** comcastic
    • zephyr42, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Baby steps.
    • elendryst, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Then they'll decrease the amount of bandwidth again, and again, and again. I'm stuck using Comcast for a few months, come January, bye bye.

      Sadly, that would mean having to go back to AT&T. I guess that isn't too bad.
    • pw378, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Because those 1% of users are taking up 90% of the bandwidth downloading nonstop porn over bittorrent?
      • roseysdaddy, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1you leave me out of this :)
      • InJectaH, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0Downloading Porn is 60% of internet bandwith, Torrent or not.
  • TheBogie, on 09/05/2008, -2/+16Comcast can go ***** themselves. I hope every Comcast executive catches beri beri and ***** themselves to death. I hate Comcast. I hate people who like Comcast. I hate Comcast's business partners. I hate family members of Comcast employees. I hate people who owe Comcast money. I hate the word "bombast", because it sounds like Comcast. Comcast, as a whole, can sit on a sharpened baseball bat and spin. ***** you Comcast. ***** you in the ass.

    And I don't even use Comcast. I have Time Warner.

    Don't get me started on Time Warner ...
    • azhura, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4I hate Comcast. They cut my RCN cable twice. :(
    • netzdamon, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6That was so full of anger.... i loved it.
    • ATLien74, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Tell us about Time Warner!
  • Lukesed, on 09/05/2008, -2/+12I'm protocol atheist.
    • Falldog, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4I'm agnostic. I can't be certain whether or not they exist.
    • bagboyrebel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1you don't believe in the protocol gods?
  • AlienMushroom, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Comcast thought it owns the US, until it was suddenly awakened by Kevin Martin, but I believe it's still trying to get back to the good dream. I just don't give a damn.
  • AndrewMoyer, on 09/05/2008, -7/+4In Soviet Russia, Comcast throttles YOU!

    --er, wait...
  • h0tpot, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6"protocol-agnostic" is code for violating Net Neutrality and getting away with it.
    • dwightfagen, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1it's actually the opposite, buddy. throttling everyone's speed is exactly what "net neutrality" entails. throttling in and of itself is a necessary part of network management. you wouldn't have ANY internets without it. what isn't exactly "net neutral" is that, before, the throttling was targeted to specific protocols (e.g. bittorrent). that means that the thottling was NOT neutral, but was targeted, and therefore biased. throttling everyone is neutral.

      further, it is still arguable whether or not targeting p2p was really a malicious move in the first place. most internet subscribers, in fact (most likely not your average digger), would probably see it as a benevolent move on comcast's part, if they were to know all of the facts. the numbers showed that something like 5% or even 1% of customers were eating up 50% of the bandwidth, or something like that (i'm fudging, but the facts are out there) and the vast majority of that traffic was p2p and bittorrent and the like.

      now, it's a very difficult decision to make whether or not that is a terrible way to go about managing the network, especially when the problem is growing rapidly. they have so many customers to think about and poor network management leads to huge outages and slow speeds for the masses. seems to me like it's an entirely reasonable first move to make, though i can easily see why it would upset and scare people... even why it could be wrong. but i'm merely trying to convey that it's at most only slightly wrong.
  • AndrewMoyer, on 09/05/2008, -3/+1Everybody knows the reason the Slowskis use DSL isn't because it's so much slower... it's because it's all they can afford.
  • Gee1004, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6Why isn't there competition? People should be able to choose from another internet provider and let comcast go ***** bankrupt.
    • azhura, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Because Comcast is only available in certain rural areas. Why? Because all other internet providers suck only slightly less than Comcast.
      • Gee1004, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Okay, but why? There should be some regulations on more service providers like cellular services. No one likes AT&T, they choose Verizon. It's ridicules with cable companies. If Satellite was good with better technology, then people would have more choices.

        Actually, this is a monopoly.
  • welestgw, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Why is everything a comcastrophy with them?
  • mmmcookies, on 09/05/2008, -6/+2Sigh. Limiting the heaviest users is the correct way to manage traffic. People screaming net neutrality about this don't know what they are talking about. Throttling a USER is net neutral, throttling a protocol, application or specific website is not.

    I can't believe people are whining about 250g cap on a home account...

    EDIT: Never thought I'd see the day when I'd take the side of comcast in any arguement
    • funkyloki, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Except they sell you on the service by telling you you will have blazing fast speeds to do whatever you want.

      No, limiting is not the answer. The answer is to take some of the profits they are making for charging more for less (other industrialized countries offer faster speeds to more people for a lot less money) and invest it in upgrading their infrastructure so they can support the unlimited usage they tout when selling themselves to customers. These ISPs have enjoyed less regulation, subsidies, and have done nothing that they have promised, like rolling out broadband to rural areas.
      • bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Thank you... should combine our two arguments... well-said
    • cawpin, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3"Never thought I'd see the day when I'd take the side of comcast in any arguement"

      Why? You're quite obviously a douchebag.
    • bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5This wasn't about throttling a user, it was about throttling a specific file sharing technology -- in this case, they were throttling BitTorrent traffic.... and I'm an affected user and it's complete *****. This would be an example of violating Net Neutrality and that's exactly what was happening...

      There are multitudes of legitimate BitTorrent sites/transfers... not all of them are copyright violations. In fact, some online software vendors are beginning to distribute their own software via BitTorrent!

      The rumor that the "backbone of the internet is suffering" is a complete fabrication... http://digg.com/tech_news/What_exaflood_Net_backbo ...

      Not to mention Comcast won't stop bragging about having "America's largest fiber optic network".. so can't they handle the traffic? Which is it? Wooing customers in with your "fiber optic network" (*****) and your advertised speeds of up to 16mbps (also ***** except in very lucky microscopic bursts), or are you crying that your businses model is suffering because of all this "unexpected" traffic?

      They're ***** artists to the 10th degree... F that.. I'll take REAL fiber right into my house with FIOS...





      • mmmcookies, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Right, that is what the FCC called them on, and that is what they are supposed to stop. I get that. That was a violation of net neutrality, and they were wrong to do it.

        The issue now is that they are saying "Ok, whenever traffic gets really bad, we'll throttle the highest 1% of users until congestion clears up". This is neutral.

        Any network will have a few users who can suck down all the bandwidth it can offer. You can put me on a gigabit pipe, and I will saturate it. An ISP has to have some way to manage that, and throttling the highest users to 50% speed or whatever, for a time, is a fair way to do it.

        I do agree that they need to step back on their marketing promises, but the vitriol out of half the people on here is out of hand.
      • bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4@mmmcookies

        Ok, I see you there.. yes that makes sense. Problem is with their plan, there is no one to oversee or verify what they're doing... unless the FCC makes sure of it. (as a Philly fan, too, they never did force Comcast to release their death grip on the Philly sports market as part of the Adelphia deal like they promised.. but that's another story)

        I mean up until this original ruling they denied throttling any bandwidth... then this comes out and "oh whoops, we mean any bandwidth EXCEPT bittorrent..."

        All this said, there are already built-in bandwidth caps on cable modems, not to mention the "checks and balances" bandwidth cap in that all users local to each other share the same pipeline...

        So while Comcast may be feeling the effects of their marketing of their "blazing fast unlimited connection," I don't buy it for a second that it's truly negatively affecting them to the point that they are crying about.

        And please, let's not even BEGIN to talk about their shady pricing plans, mysterious charges, complete LACK of customer service.... hell I lost TV and Internet service this summer for THREE WHOLE STRAIGHT DAYS without anyone at Comcast CS having a freaking clue..... the reason? A field tech disconnected my house to hook up a new connect down the street.... took them 3 days to figure it out and they were going to make me wait another 2 to get a tech out until I reamed the lady out on the phone....

        Take a page out of the RIAA and MPAA book.... rape your customers long enough and it will come back to haunt you....
      • funkyloki, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1You know, other Western nations do not seem to have the problems we do with our broadband bandwidth. Look at Japan, or Holland. They've rolled out 1MB bandwidth to EVERYONE, and they don't have caps. If they can do it, why can't America? Maybe because it isn't America, it's a bunch of monopolistic corporations that want more for less.
    • one2gamble, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2If they didnt over sale their bandwidth, they wouldnt have issues regardless
      • funkyloki, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Exactly. So take some of the money they made from overselling, and instead of pocketing it or passing it out to stockholders, invest it in infrastructure improvements. If they did that, they wouldn't have all these problems, customers would be ecstatic, FCC would get off their back, and we would be able to compete with the other industrialized nations in broadband.
        But it's not about happy customers, it's about bottom line profit. So short term thinking rules the day at Comcast (and all the other ISPs, save maybe Verizon, but by a very small margin).
  • PecanHead, on 09/05/2008, -4/+2As a Comcast customer who can't use Bittorrent, I will be glad once they've done away with this practice. But the fact remains that the FCC is overstepping their jurisdiction on this one. The FCC is supposed to be regulating the airwaves folks, not companies' business plans.

    Watch out for that slippery slope. Next thing you know the FCC will be fining ISPs that allow "indecent" traffic...
    • Csma, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4With the convergence of Telephone/Internet/TV the FCC has much more power than it used to, and with the spectrum's that were auctioned off recently they technically would be able to "control" what flows over those spectrum's, which will be ?wireless internet? ?phone service?

      The FCC is here to serve the public and protect our interests, when our interests are being messed with by a company who owns TV/Internet/Cable lines then there is a certain amount of jurisdiction they have in regulating what happens.

      Im sure once we can get a new telecommunications act the FCC will be given more power to regulate what companies can and can't do to subscribers.

      Oh and by the way, the FCC can regulate business plans. You know those basic cable plans? Yeah, those prices are set by K-Mart and crew and can only rise a certain amount every year =D
    • TTURabble, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Actually the FCC regulates interstate communications as well, ISPs fall directly into this category, but nice try.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communication ...
    • one2gamble, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Most "cable" providers are a regulated monopoly which transmit communications. Hence Government Regulation....
    • geniusj, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1The reason that the FCC is needed for cable companies and such is that, as far as I know, random small companies don't have rights to just run wires to everyone''s home. Comcast was given control over a finite resource (cable wires) with no competition. I'm hoping wireless will set us free one day.
  • bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4***** 'em up Martin... cannot WAIT to move and get FIOS instead.... good lord Comcast is such a living abortion

    (Not that Verizon is any better, but the FIOS service blows Comcast out of the water
  • Lancelot9201, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2How long is Congress / Federal Prosecutors going to continue to allow companies to operate any way they want without repercussions. It was not that many years ago when these companies would have been dragged into court by the nap of their neck.
    But now it seems no one cares about protecting the American public or the laws of this country.
    • Csma, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Once the companies become to big and start causing more problems (more than now) K-mart or whomever is chosen by the next president will most likely break a company up forcibly (Baby Bell's anyone?)
  • Matt2k, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Ron paul doesn't want the FCC
    Ron paul wants the comcasts to charge whatever the market will bear
    Ron paul hates babies and mexican dinners
    Please. Consider the children when voting Dr. Commander ron paul Sr. III this November.
    • BikerDude69, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2You forgot the sarcasm tag!!

      He wants the FCC to be ran on a STATE level, not Federal, that's his stance on most government agencies.
      he market won't bear much. there would be more competition and prices would go down.
      Dr. Paul has probably DELIVERED more babies than you have ever seen.
      Considering the children and the future of America would be the reason to vote FOR Dr. Paul!
    • Csma, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1As much as I like Ron Paul the FCC does some good...sometimes
  • badenglishihave, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4Yay, an interesting story that isn't about Governor Palin!

    Go FCC!
  • bagboyrebel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5now if we could do away with these monopolies that ISPs have over certain territories. Comcast is the only choice I have.
  • BikerDude69, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Time to break up and sell off Comcast holdings. Dissolve the atrocity.
  • Scottc320, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1In Soviet Russia, YOU throttle Comcast!
  • psychoace, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1I live in Chicago, Illinois. My house is mere blocks from Midway and a bunch of hotels. Comcast just came into our area last month. I don't mean like they took over some other cable company I mean there has been no cable set up here at all. The crew actually had to go from the poll and what they told me they had to do the same for every single house in that area. Now that is sad. AT&T Dsl is also not available now but when it was I would be looking at $30 a month for 1.5mbs and that's with a contract. That is a $15 service for $30 all because we were near the end of the Co location or something. Yeah this is a heavily populated area and you either have satellite or bunny ears for any of your tv needs.

    Anyway I tried a bittorrent and got some nice speed. Maybe 500kb was my max but it's better then nothing. Also 250gb is easily manageable even for a leacher I mean who downloads more then 8gig's a day 31 days straight and if you do is it all necessary?
  • eavesdrop, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4250gb is total traffic, upload & download.
    • psychoace, on 09/06/2008, -2/+1Yeah but seriously the only thing this is doing is keeping from people with servers from using there residential service and totally slowing down the advancement of IPTV which sucks. I just hope some backers of IPTV step up and get this crap eliminated. Until then though I can deal with 250gb's
  • cvc88, on 09/05/2008, -1/+0***** CONCRAP!
  • NecroSexy, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1You can't handle the truth!
  • effect1, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1**** the RIAA!

    ...wait, which thread am I in?
  • Puffball, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Kevin Martin doesn't actually give a ***** about the internet. He's simply (along with many others from the Bush administration), a backer of AT&T - so while people get all misty-eyed about the prospect of the FCC commissioner coming down on Comcast, he's likely to join AT&T after he leaves the FCC and sit on his ass while AT&T throttles 3G P2P.

    Take Michael Mukasey (attorney general): he was an AT&T lawyer before he was a judge. The white house cheif of staff is an AT&T lobyist. Half the Bush administration will probably go directly to AT&T after this term so of course the FCC's coming down on Comcast - not on principle - but because AT&T's scared ***** of cable.


  • gkiltz, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Why does it fall to the FCC to file these lawsuits?
    Where are the users?
    This has class-action written all over it!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.