Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FCC Considers Taking Action Against Comcast

Journal written by Presto Vivace (882157) and posted by Zonk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:19 AM
from the considering-a-crack-down dept.
Government Businesses The Internet United States News
Presto Vivace writes "According to CNet the Federal Communications Commission is considering taking action against cable operator Comcast modifying peer-to-peer traffic, a subject we've discussed here in the past. 'It looks like Chairman Martin, and by extension the commission, sees Comcast as going beyond simply managing its network. But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast. The principles are not agency regulation.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Comcast Accused of Blocking VoIP 325 comments
kamikaze-Tech writes "Comcast, the largest USA Broadband provider is being accused of VoIP blocking, just days before they release their own VoIP offering. According to a long standing thread on the Vonage Forums, many Comcast ISP users are unable to use Vonage. Tempers are flaring: 'Although you will see all manner of opinions on this thread, there seems to be a sentiment that - politely put - Comcast could really be doing a better job of carrying Vonage bits.' Looks as though this could be the beginning of the broadband quality wars, with Comcast taking the first step."
[+] Technology: Congressman Tells Comcast, Hands Off BitTorrent 304 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Just a few months back, the Net Neutrality debate was all but dead. Luckily for fans of a free Internet, the telcos are their own worst enemies. Recent stories involving Verizon Wireless blocking pro-choice groups, AT&T censoring Pearl Jam's anti-war comments from a streaming concert, and most recently, Comcast finally admitting to using anti-BitTorrent filters. The Net Neutrality debate would appear to be alive and kicking, with Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) being the first politician to make a public statement sharply criticizing Comcast's actions."
[+] Competitors Ally With Comcast In FCC P2P Filings 220 comments
crocoduck writes "Right before the deadline passed for filing comments in the FCC investigation of Comcast's traffic-management practices, telecoms and other cable companies submitted a slew of comments defending Comcast's actions to the FCC. 'Just about every big phone company has filed a statement challenging the FCC's authority to deal with this problem. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all submitted lengthy remarks on February 13th, the last day for comments on the proceeding (parties can still reply to comments through the 28th). "The Internet marketplace remains fundamentally healthy, and the purported 'cure' could only make it sick," AT&T's filing declared. "At best, the network-management restrictions proposed by Free Press and others would inflict wasteful costs on broadband providers in the form of expensive and needless capacity upgrades — costs that would ultimately be passed through to end users, raise broadband prices across the board, and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few."' P2P fans have also weighed in."
[+] News: What Will Come of the FCC Comcast Hearing 86 comments
The FCC held its hearing on network neutrality and Comcast today at Harvard. One commentator not afraid to predict what will come of it is O'Reilly's Andy Orem, who writes: "The mere announcement of an FCC hearing on 'broadband network management practices' was a notch in the gun of network neutrality advocates. Yet to a large extent, the panelists and speakers were like petitioners who are denied access to the king and can only bring their complaints to the gardeners who decorate the paths outside his gate. What we'll end up getting is a formal endorsement of non-discrimination as a policy that Internet providers must follow, leading to continual FCC review of current practices by telecom and cable companies."
[+] Technology: Comcast Gets Hard Up At FCC Meeting 163 comments
alphadogg notes a story over at portfolio.com claiming, and presenting evidence, that Comcast paid people off the street to take up room at yesterday's FCC hearing in Massachusetts. Comcast acknowledges that it paid people to hold places in line for its employees. But Save The Internet claims that people were bussed in by Comcast and then took up almost all available seats in the meeting room 90 minutes before the meeting opened, blocking scores of interested people from attending. Such tactics are not unheard of in Washington DC, but how appropriate are they in a regional meeting on a college campus?
Journal: FCC: Considers Taking Action Against Comcast by Presto Vivace (882157)
[+] Comcast Says FCC Powerless to Stop P2P Blocking 377 comments
Nanoboy writes "Even if the FCC finds that Comcast has violated its Internet Policy Statement, it's utterly powerless to do anything about it, according to a recent filing by the cable giant. Comcast argues that Congress has not given the FCC the authority to act, that the Internet Policy Statement doesn't give it the right to deal with the issue, and that any FCC action would violate the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. '"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," concludes Comcast VP David L. Cohen's thinly-veiled warning to the FCC, filed on March 11. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FCC Considers Taking Action Against Comcast 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Government Controls Not Working!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:25AM (#22718112) Journal
    When big business (or advocacy groups) can abuse consumers and no one intervenes until there is a problem (even when it is illegal, or wrong), and there is NO punishment for doing so ... why would they conform?

      • Local Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iknownuttin (1099999) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:57AM (#22718616)
        Well, in an ideal world, they'd end up with no customers.

        Yes! But, unfortunately, their lobbyists got the politicians to give them local monopolies. So, therefore, they won't lose customers unless their customers are willing to do without.

        • Re:Local Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bagheera (71311) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @04:36PM (#22722366) Homepage Journal
          Yes! But, unfortunately, their lobbyists got the politicians to give them local monopolies. So, therefore, they won't lose customers unless their customers are willing to do without.

          Even when there's only one Cable system in town, there are usually alternatives for broadband. Not many, and often not as cost effective, but they are there. DSL is available in most areas, and Satellite is an option even in areas where there's not Cable OR DSL service. If you really want to have first rate service, and can afford it, full T1's are down under $300/mo in some places. Sure it's 5 times the price of Cable broadband, but you're dealing with a whole world's different class of service.

          Personally, I'd love to see the FCC smack Comcast silly for this crap. Cable ISPs and Telco's like to claim Common Carrier protections for a world of things. But they want to be able to filter content and manipulate traffic too, and the FCC needs to put it's Governmental boot down and say "No! You can filter, or you can be common carrier. Not both!"

          Wishful thinking, I know.

          • Beyond wishful (Score:4, Informative)

            by Kaseijin (766041) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @07:07PM (#22723618)

            Personally, I'd love to see the FCC smack Comcast silly for this crap. Cable ISPs and Telco's like to claim Common Carrier protections for a world of things. But they want to be able to filter content and manipulate traffic too, and the FCC needs to put it's Governmental boot down and say "No! You can filter, or you can be common carrier. Not both!"
            ISPs don't claim to be common carriers. The FCC has classified them "information services" and therefore not subject to regulations concerning "telecommunications services". Hoping for a timid FCC to finally flex its muscle would be wishful thinking; you're hoping for an aggressive FCC to reverse course.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by utopianfiat (774016)
            Well, you have to understand the kind of civil religion that came about in the US during and after the Soviet Union- a lot of people in the states see the free market as the Holy Ghost, Milton Friedman as Jesus Christ, and Ayn Rand as the One True God.
            And if you contradict that with "socialist ideas" (including but not limited to Keynesian economics, trustbusting, welfare, and civil projects), prepare to be derided as one who will "tax the country into poverty".
            I'm not kidding.

            • Re:Local Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Chris Mattern (191822) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @03:25PM (#22721644)
              Ah, so a government-created monopoly is an example of evils of the free market, not an example of problems with socialism. I see.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Mr2001 (90979)
                You can't entirely blame the government for cable/telco monopolies.

                How low can the barrier of entry really get, when anyone who wants to start up a new cable company is going to have to wire up every house in the area? And how many different sets of wires do you really want running along those poles, anyway?

                Maybe these problems can be solved with modern technology, but historically, at least, it made some sense for these companies to have monopolies.
      • The fact that they can say, "Its our network, we'll screw whoever we please when we please", *is* the problem. If we allowed roads to all be privately owned, we'd likewise be screwed. We need to nationalize the "tubes" ( ;-) hehehe ) and lease bandwidth back to any- and everybody who wants to be an ISP. Can you imagine if the telephone companies decided that too many people were dialing 800 numbers? If they started hanging up 1/2 of the 800 calls, people wouldn't be saying, "Well, they own the phone sys

  • Take their license away? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 (869701) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:29AM (#22718162)
    Answering the question "what can the FCC do": I would assume that they could take their license away, as the final threat.

    I don't think the Comcast situation has much to do with net neutrality. Lack of "net neutrality" would mean that a service provider slows down some traffic and not other traffic. So your bittorrent might take 12 hours instead of 1, but work without problems. But that is not what Comcast does: They actively manipulate the traffic that goes through their system, sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients. That, I think, could be very much in violation of whatever license they need.

    If I sent you a letter and it arrived in five days instead of one day, I would complain. If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder.

    • Re:Take their license away? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by qortra (591818) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:38AM (#22718310) Homepage

      sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients.

      If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder.
      Given your description of what is going on, your metaphor is not apt. A better one:

      The post office deliberately sends a soldier fake dear john letters [wikipedia.org], merely because they believe that soldier's girlfriend to be unscrupulous, or because they have grown tired of mailing that soldier's letters to his girlfriend.

      Other than that minor point, I agree entirely.

      • Re:Take their license away? (Score:5, Funny)

        by snowraver1 (1052510) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:09PM (#22718800)
        Nope, try this example:

        Comcast is like a car, er wait, truck, no... HUMMER and you are behind them in traffic, but you drive a Pinto. All you can smell is the diesel exaust from the Hummer. Then the driver of the hummer gets out and kicks you in the face, but there is a dear john letter stuck to his boot, that is now stuck to your face. You can't see where you are going, so you go home, but when you get there your cat is hanging from the celing with a puddle of water on the ground. There is no evidence of struggle, so obvously your cat committed suicide by standing on a large block of ice and slowly hanging itself. You look at your cable modem and the "sync" light is slowly blinking... no internet. Damn! screwed by Comcast again!

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by howdoesth (1132949)
          The mindboggling thing is that his metaphor is far and away the best description of sandvining I have ever seen. The fact that you find it so unbelievable shows just how ridiculous what Comcast is doing really is.

            • Re:Take their license away? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by glindsey (73730) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @01:48PM (#22720414)
              Then how about this: the phone company decides to disconnect your line because although they advertise that their customers can talk for an unlimited amount of time, they think you're just talking way too much, possibly about something they deem inappropriate. You can call right back and continue talking, but they'll keep periodically disconnecting you. When you complain about this to the phone company, they claim that they aren't stopping you from having your conversation; they're just slowing it down a lot in order to manage the number of phone calls on their lines.

              Is that a bit more appropriate to you? It's still grossly unacceptable.

    • Re:Take their license away? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:56AM (#22718600)
      I would think that a really effective threat would be to take away their "common carrier" status and make Comcast legally responsible for all the traffic going through their network. For instance, since they actively manipulate their traffic, it can be argued they could stop all child pornography, copyrighted material, etc from traversing their network, and since they failed to do so they are liable for its distribution.
      • That seems like a terrible idea. Honestly, they might just like that scenario. It would give them an excuse to turn their service into an AOL-like "portal" where you get Comcast news, Comcast voip, Comcast search, and if they're really in a bad mood, one single Comcast political candidate. Portals have become passé, but they really are a crap-ton more profitable. Imagine not only getting ISP monthly fees, but also all the ad revenue from a subscribers account, email bounties (selling your address d

      • Re:Take their license away? (Score:4, Informative)

        by compro01 (777531) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:54PM (#22719466)
        cable companies have never been common carriers as far as internet service goes. DSL providers used to be, but aren't anymore.

        what would be the proper course of action would be to remove their DMCA safe harbour status, which would render them liable for any copyrighted material moving through them [that occurs without the right holder's permission].

    • Re:Take their license away? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CopaceticOpus (965603) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:59AM (#22718642)
      Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave. Money is a fantastic motivator.

      I don't know if the FCC has the authority and/or the will to take such an action, however.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Phisbut (761268)

        Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave. Money is a fantastic motivator.

        Won't Comcast then just increase the price of their service to cover the fines? Their customers can't change ISP to get a better now because they lack choice, they won't be able to change ISP to get a lower price then either.

      • Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave.

        Which Comcast will turn around and pass on to their customers. Either way, Comcast customers are pretty much screwed. Comcast knows this and so does the FCC.

        • assets to somebody else would take care of that problem.

          There would be NO ComCast bills passing on the cost because there would be NO MORE ComCast.

          It is perfectly ethical to TERMINATE ComCast when they do something illegal.
          (They're NOT a living being. You can't kill them. But you can dissolve them.)

          Imagine how delighted one of their current competitors would be at picking up their assets and their customers at fire sale prices.
    • Can the FCC fine Comcast? I look forward to them passing down the losses to me. :(
    • Are you suggesting that the government should be allowed to punish people (or businesses) because what they did was "wrong" even though its not against any rule? Or are saying there is actually some rule against this, and you are simply not referencing it?

      Don't get me wrong, I think Comcast needs to stop, and if they violated any actual regulations I hope they are punished for it, but if they didn't actually break any rules then what that means is not that they should be punished anyway, but that the rules
    • I've posted about this before, but whenever we run a Bit Torrent client for the better half of a day, our route to the internet gets lost. Everything still says we're connected and says the status is fine, we just can't get anywhere until we power-cycle the cable modem.

      Additionally I am a Vonage customer, and would be unable to place a 911 call because of this. It's just plain irresponsible corporate greed, seems to me.

      This happens even when Bit Torrent traffic is at a minimum. It's like Comcast is takin

  • Verizon (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:29AM (#22718168)
    I guess the check cleared.

  • Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Informative)

    by RingDev (879105) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:30AM (#22718188) Homepage Journal
    While I am hopeful that the FCC does act, I have about 0 faith in Kevin Martin.

    Kevin Martin was an aide to Bush/Cheney in the 2000 election, he worked the Florida recount, he was coat tailed in as an aide in the transition from Clinton, was appointed to an advisory position once Bush took office, his wife was given a job as one of Cheney's aides, and since late 2007 he has been under investigation by Congress for abuse of power, and working to reduce the effective power of the FCC.

    -Rick

  • Comcast is safe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OglinTatas (710589) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:35AM (#22718276)
    As long as they don't flash a nipple on TV, the FCC won't do anything. It's like Ed Meese or John Ashcroft work there.

  • Penalty phase (Score:5, Funny)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:42AM (#22718382)
    Excerpt from ruling......

    Bad Comcast, Bad Comcast, Bad.

    We're sorry we had to be so harsh.

  • Anyone remember Michael Powell? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gelfling (6534) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:46AM (#22718442) Homepage Journal
    The prior FCC's head. He said once, to the news, and I quote "I literally have no idea what the public interest is." unquote.

    That pretty much sums up the FCC. So don't hold your breath, the FCC is there to mouth words that the the religious right wants to hear and to support the oligopolies that keep American telcom mired 10-15 years in the past.
  • I am a comcast customer (fortunately or unfortunately, take your pick). On the island where I live they are the only broadband internet provider. I haven't had any problems with speed or connectivity when using torrents and I will admit that while I do leave several legal torrents open at night and on the weekends there are those that are not so legal from time to time. I routinely can grab a CD's worth of data in an hour or two without any problems. Last night before going to bed I queued up over 4 GB
    • I haven't had any problems with speed or connectivity when using torrents and I will admit that while I do leave several legal torrents open at night and on the weekends there are those that are not so legal from time to time. ..

      I haven't experienced any of this slow down or even ask other comments have suggested the "end packets" or whatever that mess up my downloads.

      Duduuuude! The FBI is setting you up! Get out!!! Now!

    • Re:A Comcast customer (Score:5, Informative)

      by dwillden (521345) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:26PM (#22719068) Homepage
      Look at your upload speeds during and after the D/l has finished. If you have any desire to not be a leech, you should be trying to maintain at least a 1:1 ul/dl ratio. Comcast lets the dl go fine and allows normal uploading while you are actively dl'ing your file, but as soon as your machine finished dl'ing the file the forged resets start going out to both your machine and any machines trying to dl packets from you thus breaking the connection and prventing you from effectively seeding. This makes it very difficult to upload sufficiently to maintain a proper ratio.

      Many torrent sites require a balanced ratio or close to it to be able to participate on their trackers, Comcast makes it difficult (though not impossible) to maintain such a ratio.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jc42 (318812)
      I haven't experienced any of this slow down or even ask other comments have suggested the "end packets" or whatever that mess up my downloads. Perhaps it happens to be the fact that I live in a smaller metropolitan area that the rest of the /.'ers?

      Perhaps. But more likely it's just that you're not living in one of their test areas. You see, they knew quite well that their packet-forging "traffic management" technique would be controversial, and probably illegal. Before they extend it to the rest of the n

  • This is what will happen... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by freedom_india (780002) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:47AM (#22718452) Homepage Journal
    FCC will issue a written warning to comcast to stop such practices, slap a $500 fine and close the file.
    Comcast will continue to stop Bit Torrent until it can find a way to make money off it.
    FCC's Martin will resign in Jan 2009 and join Comcast.
  • The way Comcast's system works is, when Alice communicates with Bob, sending forged packets that impersonate Alice saying, "Bob, never mind - cancel the connection."

    If I'm Alice, the Comcast customer, I would find it fraudulent to see a company sending forged packages as me. Why should it be hard to punish Comcast for impersonating me and disrupting my communication with someone else?

    If Comcast is allowed to send forged IP messages, are they also allowed to forge emails from me that disrupt my communication with those people?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by filekutter (617285)
      I may be redundant or incorrect here, but isn't the interception and reconfiguring of packets by another "entity" illegal? Hasn't this been one of the methods used by Federal agencies to prosecute those involved in system intrusion? I seem to remember the EFF attempting to use this in court filings to attempt to stop Comcast's practices but could be mistaken.
  • The remedy against Comcast for this is to say that because you're not getting the service you paid for, that the price you've paid needs to be reduced to the level of the service you're actually receiving.

    I'd say that a 70% reduction in broadband rates -- retroactive -- is very much within the ballpark for this.

  • New Speak (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:08PM (#22718786)

    Comcast has argued that it doesn't block P2P traffic. Instead, it says it simply slows down packets so that it can better manage its network.

    That's like the phone company saying that you talk too much, and in order to slow down your talking they will suddenly and without warning hang up both telephones on the two ends of the conversation for you. Since you have a Redial button, this should only be a minor inconvenience for you at most.

  • Wait.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by crhylove (205956) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:11PM (#22718828) Homepage Journal
    The FCC is actually going to do something by, for, or of the people? I think every rational constitutionalist in the country just had a collective heart attack. Aren't these the same guys that effectively gave every radio station and television network to these five corporations:

    AOL/Time Warner
    Viacom
    News Corp
    Bertellsman
    Disney

    ?

    I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I have my rifle loaded and my FM transmitter on high.

  • maybe get local govts involved? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:16PM (#22718918) Homepage Journal
    Comcast's business model largely depends on making deals with local governments to get a monopoly. Deliberately making their service unreliable, could be viewed as some sort of acting-in-bad-faith breach of contract.
  • Guess Comca$t will just put the FCC on the $1,000,000 cable plan.
  • Unfortunately, I'm sure it's nothing that a big canvas bag with a money sign on it can't fix.

    • Pull "common carrier" status (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AJWM (19027) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:01PM (#22718668) Homepage
      But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast

      If Comcast is messing with the content going over their cables, then they should no longer be allowed common carrier immunity for that content. This makes them liable for every bit of pirated media, kiddy porn, libel and spam sent over those cables.

      A few lawsuits ought to wake them up, I'm sure Comcast has pockets deep enough to attract a few contingency lawyers.

      • then they should no longer be allowed common carrier immunity for that content.
        I didn't think cable companies had common carrier

        • I didn't think cable companies had common carrier

          As a cable provider, they don't. As an internet and phone provider, they do.

          It's all about control. Cable companies have control over their content and thus can be held liable for their content. Internet and phone providers, however, do NOT have control over the data that passes over their wires. Thus they cannot be reasonably expected to be held accountable for that data. Unless they demonstrate that they are actively attempting to control the content. Then the legal veil is pierced and the common carrier status is lost.
          • From my understanding of the common carrier laws, only their phone service qualifies - ISPs have never had common carrier status.
    • and sometimes the dog learns to run not quite at the end of his chain and just knows sooner or later his tormentor is going to stray in a little too close; that's when we find out if the dog really has teeth.
    • Right. They don't need to fine them and they don't need to take away any status that they have or don't have. They need to call an end to Comcast and declare that they cannot do business any longer. Then put the little crackers in jail for tampering with thier customer's networks. Why is it that Crackers get so much immunity if they are working for a company?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.