Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet News

Competitors Ally With Comcast In FCC P2P Filings 220

Posted by kdawson
from the shoulder-to-shoulder dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Competitors Ally With Comcast In FCC P2P Filings

Comments Filter:
  • by msobkow (48369) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @04:20PM (#22480288) Homepage Journal

    The United States has been falling behind on the capacity game for a long time now, so it only makes sense that the ISPs and telcos there are crying the blues about the need for upgrades. Had they been upgrading all the way along as other countries have, they wouldn't have the capacity shortfall that they do now.

    I deal with SaskTel as my ISP. We actually get the full use of the provisioned bandwidth as promised, with no filtering, traffic shaping, or other artificial impediments. The downside? My internet connection costs $45/month instead of $22 for the basic "DSL Lite" subscription.

  • by urcreepyneighbor (1171755) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @04:25PM (#22480324)

    The downside? My internet connection costs $45/month instead of $22 for the basic "DSL Lite" subscription.
    Downside?! That's less than Comcast!
  • by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @04:27PM (#22480366)
    In my experience in Eastern Europe, customers that heavily use bandwidth are the average customer. I know hardly a single household that doesn't massively download music and films. Nonetheless, the local ISPs can keep monthly fees down to what is even by local standards cheap, and people are increasingly getting fiber to their door. Funny how the U.S., that beacon of technological progress, is being outdone by some former Communist states.

    You're right, and it's not funny, it's sad.

    The US is falling more and more behind, while the telecoms have the gall to say things like:

    "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".

    This is what happens when 'free market' monopolies are allowed to continue unchecked by a corrupt FCC.

    The money goes straight into shareholder's pockets [cnn.com], and almost nothing goes back into the network.
  • Because they didn't want the public & think tanks to submit comments ripping apart or contesting their arguments.


    But... but...

    (parties can still reply to comments through the 28th).
  • Re:Yep (Score:1, Informative)

    by megaditto (982598) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @04:42PM (#22480566)
    Why is this marked "Funny" exactly? I think this problem is indeed about the few people trying to max out their "unlimited" connections, and the rest of us paying for it.

    Remember that cartoon joke about Dilbert's dad spending 20 years at an all-you-can-eat buffet because he was not done yet? Who do you think was paying for it.

    and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few
    is how they put it. In other words, if you need to consume 160 GB/month perhaps what you need is a dedicated line, not residential cable.
  • by sneakyimp (1161443) on Tuesday February 19, 2008 @08:05PM (#22483086)
    If you think this issue is important, you should write some letters. Today, I wrote both my Senators, my House Rep, the FCC, and my cable company. Personally, I am appalled at this douchebaggery. Someone else said it best: selective throttling is censorship. It is therefore a violation of the First Amendment. Also keep in mind that some would-be ISPs are the same folks offering illegal wiretaps. Lastly, as consumers we *must* demand better. I live in Los Angeles, one of the most urbanized areas in the United States and, in my neighborhood, Time Warner is my only viable option for high speed internet access. It's just plain wrong. We must demand better.

    Find your Senate rep here:
    http://www.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]

    Find your house rep here:
    http://www.house.gov/ [house.gov]

    You can comment on the FCC proceedings here using proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7
    http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi [fcc.gov]

    I would highly encourage use of snail mail. It has greater impact when bags of mail arrive in somebody's office.
  • Hey,if the competition actually got into a nice little download VS price competition,I'd be all for it.I'd just be worried that they'd get together "for the good of the country" and set really nice high prices.Not to mention there are WAY too many of us that have the choice of Company A or dialup.I had to move just to get cable,even though it was barely a block from my house to both the cable and DSL junction box,and in the dead center of town I have the choice of cable or less than 1Mb DSL.

    You are right that perfect competition is EXACTLY what we need,but in reality a large portion of the country is living under monopolies.And if you have only one provider in the area and they jack up the price thanks to caps what will you do? Go back to dialup? I doubt many of us living in towns with less than 30K people will ever see FIOS,and many of the rural states(such as mine)haven't had any real competition at all.I am sure that places like L.A. where there are multiple companies competing for your business it would work.But I'm afraid those of us living in small town America or under monopolies would just get screwed worse.And as someone who was on Sat for 6 years,please don't even consider that garbage broadband.At $100 a month(most expensive home plan they offer) I got 380Mb every 8 hours,and it became slower than dialup after that.If I could get decent DSL or FIOS I would,but there simply isn't any to be had.And I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...