Comcast Proves Need For Net Neutrality By Trying To Censor Advocacy Website (fightforthefuture.org) 153
Reader mrchaotica writes: As most Slashdot readers are probably aware, the FCC, under the direction of Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai, is trying to undo its 2015 decision to protect Net Neutrality (PDF) by classifying ISPs as common carriers. During the recent public comment period, the FCC's website was flooded with pro-Net-Neutrality comments from actual people (especially those who heeded John Oliver's call to arms) as well as anti-Net-Neutrality comments posted by bots using the names and addresses of people without their consent. The fake comments use boilerplate identical to that used in a 2010 press release by the conservative lobbying group Center for Individual Freedom (which is funded by Comcast, among other entities), but beyond that, the entities who perpetrated and funded the criminal acts have not been conclusively identified. In response to this brazen attempt to undermine the democratic process, the Internet freedom advocacy group Fight for the Future (FFTF) created the website Comcastroturf.com to call attention to the fraud and allow people to see if their identity had been misappropriated. Comcast, in a stunning display of its tone-deaf attitude towards free speech, has sent a cease-and-desist order to FFTF, claiming that Comcastroturf.com violates its "valuable intellectual property[sic]." According to the precedent set in Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer , websites created for the purpose of criticizing an organization can not be considered trademark infringement. As such, FFTF reportedly has no intention of taking down the site.
"This is exactly why we need Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, "If Ajit Pai's plan is enacted, there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like Comcastroturf.com that are critical of their corporate policies," she added. "It also makes you wonder what Comcast is so afraid of? Are their lobbying dollars funding the astroturfing effort flooding the FCC with fake comments that we are encouraging Internet users to investigate?"
Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?
Can there be a better example? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can there be a better example? How about if they had actually blocked the site on their network? This is just a knee jerk take-down letter. Yawn.
Exactly, showing why we do not need NN (Score:4, Insightful)
As you say, the real point of outrage would be if no Comcast customers would be able to access the site. But they have not done that, they have issued a legal request which they would have issued with ANY amount of network neutrality rules in place.
So then what does it matter if those rues are gone? This is exactly the problem with NN proponents; they have NO REAL IDEA what the rules are they are calling to stay in effect, and imagining they have all kinds of benefits that do not actually exist.
Re:Exactly, showing why we DO NEED NN (Score:5, Insightful)
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount. They could make it take forever to reach any site which said anything bad about the company or provided any competing services.
If you do not think this would ever happen, just look at what happened to Netflix for Comcast users in February 2014.
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority (minus a few exceptions which are not related at all to the provider's ability to make more money). ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet. Or just internet websites that give the ISP's more of a financial benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
Way to actually address ANY of the points made in the post, which sound fairly well reasoned to me (and I'm not the same AC so I have no idea if they work for Comcast or any of its partners, but I definitely do not).
I can see how it might be possible for ISPs to do nasty things. However... I haven't actually seen them do any of those things, and I suspect they will continue to refrain from such, as it's not even good for business anyway. I honestly don't understand the huge urgency there has been to const
Re: (Score:2)
This. Right here. If they did do something as crazy as now allow you 90% of the internet. It is no longer the internet and they would not be able to call it that. And I guarantee that every costomer of "the internet" that they had would abandon ship like there was no tomorrow. Look at every other business that has done something to that extent. They either went bankrupt, or changed their ways.
Re: (Score:2)
The Netflix incident was traced to a dispute over peering on a transit partner, not an issue of an ISP slowing traffic as so many have claimed.
So yeah, that was fake news.
In the end, the dispute here is over whether the FCC should claim greater authority over internet services or not, on questionable legal grounds and by way of accumulating regulatory powers that are otherwise more spread out among various agencies.
To me THAT's the real danger here. When did we become so comfortable with the US government (
Re:Why would they? They will not. (Score:5, Informative)
The Netflix incident was traced to a dispute over peering on a transit partner, not an issue of an ISP slowing traffic as so many have claimed.
So yeah, that was fake news.
No it wasn't, and stop using bullshit phrases to shut down the conversation. Netflix had to go to a peering partner because Comcast refused to discuss in good faith a direct linkage at the bandwidth levels that Comcast's own customers required. Then Comcast starved the peering partner by refusing to provide the proper throughput, even when the peering partner offered to pay all expenses related to it.
Comcast turned down offers of reasonable recompense and instead attacked the quality of the service in order to promote its own OTT video offering.
In short: They degraded another service in order to make it appear worse than of their own. This behaviour is exactly what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent.
News. Not Fake.
People who honestly question the need for Network Neutrality simply don't understand how an internet works. They latch onto a single convenient datum and ignore the system itself. Those who dishonestly question it are just assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, when you cite "refusing to provide proper throughput" what you're really saying is that Comcast declined to throw more of its own resources toward other peoples' business models. They didn't "starve the peering partner." Rather, the peering partner didn't have the resources to deliver the traffic it tried to deliver.
Put it this way: I don't subscribe to Netflix streaming. When you insist that Comcast MUST provide extra service to this peering partner so that Netflix can make money, you're really sayi
Re: (Score:2)
No, they didn't throttle the service.
Netflix wanted to make its money by shoving too much through their end of the pipe (well, through the peering partner), more than the pipe they purchased could handle. It's not Comcast's fault that Netflix was overloading the pipe, and as a non-Netflix subscriber I wouldn't want Comcast spending too much money to upgrade Netflix's end of the pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Buddy, we have net neutrality rules in place now and have since 2015.
Not really. If the FCC doesn't enforce the rules, then we basically have none at all. And truth be told, we had serial violators of the rules even right after they were implemented, for example Verizon is zero-rating its crappy Go90 service while still billing customers for data used for its competitor, netflix. It actually began doing this under Wheeler, by the way.
Some ISPs are now trying to put up walled garden plans at a steep discount
Example?
Re: (Score:3)
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
That only works if there are viable alternatives or when the market isn't one of a natural monopoly. But neither one of those things need to have been said, since you were citing reality to begin with.
It is the fact that we are dealing with natural monopolies that make this a big deal and one which requires the utmost scrutiny.
There Is Another (Score:2)
That only works if there are viable alternatives
Cellular networks have become viable alternatives for most people, especially if talking about video. My mother ditched Century Link to use a wireless T-Mobile hotspot, which has about 20x the speed of her former DSL line, and is on par with Comcast in her area. She has a lower bandwidth cap but even with very frequent Netflix usage it's plenty.
If you want to really break up the monopolies, well that's getting rid of a whole other layer of government in the
Re:Why would they? They will not. (Score:4, Informative)
And they already have. Part of the big Network Neutrality push came when Comcast slowed speeds to Netflix down and threatened to slow it down more if Netflix didn't pay up.
Why should I pay extra for Netflix to be as speedy as possible? I pay for Internet access and all sites should be as fast as they can be. Obviously, server speed, network issues, etc. will affect site speed, but a site speed factor shouldn't be my ISP deciding that SITE X should go slow unless someone (me or Site X) pays for speedy delivery.
This assumes a healthy market. The ISP market is NOT a health market. It's a realm of monopolies. I currently have Internet access from Charter (Spectrum, previously Time Warner Cable). They are my only option in the area I live in. Suppose Charter told me that I'd need to pay an additional $5 a month for Netflix data to flow at a reasonable speed - otherwise it would slow down to the point that the service would be useless. What would my options be? Pay Charter and suddenly using Netflix is $5 more expensive a month (through no fault of Netflix's)? Don't pay and stop using Netflix (possibly paying for Charter's cable TV package which we subscribe to now)? How do I vote with my wallet?
And what if Charter decides to do this with groups of websites? Want to use social media? $5 a month. Online video? $5 a month per site. News sites? $5 a month.
What - beyond Net Neutrality rules - would prevent an ISP from doing this if they are the only ISP in the area?
Re: (Score:2)
Thats when everybody fed up with the problem pools the money they would pay to comcast, and openes a competing company. problem solved.
Re: (Score:1)
Thats when everybody fed up with the problem pools the money they would pay to comcast, and openes a competing company. problem solved.
They fucking can't. ISP competition is illegal due to government-granted local monopolies. There's literally no relief from abusive ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. The ISP bought legislation at the state level to declare such ventures to be 'illegal competition." And the Federal government will uphold those laws because of "states rights."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And they already have. Part of the big Network Neutrality push came when Comcast slowed speeds to Netflix down and threatened to slow it down more if Netflix didn't pay up.
Comcast didn't slow speed to Netflix; it just didn't spend more of its own resources to make Netflix have an easier time of profiting off of Comcast's customers.
Netflix chose a route to Comcast's network that was unable to handle the traffic well, and then Netflix complained the Comcast wasn't upgrading the route Netflix itself selected.
It wasn't a harm but merely declining to bear the cost of Netflix's business model, and forcing even non-Netflix subscribers to pay for Netflix traffic in the process.
Unfort
Re:Why would they? They will not. (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't a harm but merely declining to bear the cost of Netflix's business model, and forcing even non-Netflix subscribers to pay for Netflix traffic in the process.
Comcast's customers were already paying for that traffic. Making Netflix/Level3 pay again is double-dipping.
Level3 offered to meet all costs involved in upgrading the connection. Comcast still refused. It was a bad faith interaction, and no amount of apologism and misconstruction will change that. Comcast wanted Netflix back on Akamai and other CDNs, and was willing to play dirty to get them back there.
Within a week of Netflix knuckling under and paying Comcast for access to its customers, video quality returned to pre-dispute levels. That means that this was never a hardware issue. It was Comcast deliberately slowing an information provider's traffic in order to extract more money from them.
Even if you grant—and I don't—that Comcast was right to demand more money, using artificial congestion to degrade their own customers' internet experience was an unethical move, and one that Net Neutrality would not allow. It's the business equivalent of holding a gun to the baby's head. Only an asshole would do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact the hardware allowed for the traffic to exceed agreed upon limits doesn't mean anything. It like claiming the government are being 'assholes' for not allowing me to drive a full size 18 wheeler using my motorcycle plates. The roads can handle the traffic so why should they make me abide by my agreement to restrict my mode of transportation to the type I was licensed for? Or are the folks at Hertz 'assholes' for not allowing me to take that Chevy Suburban when I paid for the Ford Fiesta?
By all ac
Re: (Score:2)
Your payment for high speed access doesn't in any way guarantee you high speed access to every service on the internet. If the site you're trying to access doesn't also pay for proper access based on their needs then you won't be able to access them at any speed higher than their connection allows. All communication drops to the lowest common denominator and in this case that was Netflix's issue, not Comcast's.
For a while Comcast and others did allow Netflix access above and beyond what they were paying f
Re: (Score:2)
Except, as I stated in my previous post, many people can't change their ISP. If I'm upset with Netflix's service, I can switch online video providers. If I'm upset at my ISP's service, I have no other options. Complaints can pour in night and day, but the ISP knows they are a monopoly and consumers have no choice. The only people the ISP might be concerned about is the government and they've just given the green light to do whatever the ISP wants to do.
Re: (Score:2)
So if a site/service becomes popular, an ISP should have the right to slow down that site/service unless they pay the ISP extra money? What if the ISP has a competing service that's losing to the popular online service? Can the ISP slow down the popular online service so that their own service seems faster? And how is all of this NOT abuse of
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that prioritizing traffic based on sheer amount of data is a different form of Net Neutrality violation than doing it based on content. But both cases are bad.
Controlling access based on content is self-explanatory - pure censorship.
Controlling access based on quantity of data makes sense financially, I suppose. But that's best handled by charging the end-user a higher price based on their usage. That way, they decide what they download - not the ISP. And Netflix has the same 'barrier to entry'
Re:Why would they? They will not. (Score:4, Insightful)
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
That may be your highly desirable goal. My goal is not to allow Netflix to have anymore traffic priority then Hulu, or HBO, or XFinity. The internet is what it is because newcomers were able to come and play with a minimum barrier to entry, to me protecting that is of the utmost importance. This is not analogous to the war on drugs. This is more like complaining that a law against price gouging is curtailing the price gougers freedoms.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
I would argue that it doesn't have to be this way, but it should be as long as most people have only one choice of broadband provider. You want this world where people have choices. Then we need some form of line sharing agreement so that I actually have a choice to make.
Also, this version of the internet has been tried before. It's what AOL was doing, and people left it in droves as soon as they could.
And furthermore (Score:2)
And furthermore, NN was struck down because it was an overreach from a department that had no authority to regulate it.
And of course, everyone complains about the loss of NN, but no one ever proposes a new rule, properly vetted and from the correct department (FTC, not FCC) that would solve these issues.
No senator, no representative, no department head has ever proposed the common-sense solution of fixing the problem with a proper law.
They'd rather wail and moan about how bad everything is, rather than fix
Re: (Score:2)
If Comcast could [slow down sites to an unreasonable amount] they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
If that's what the current rules allow (and I've no idea how to prove they do or don't, at least in the energy I plan to put into responding to you) then the rules shouldn't be that way. AND, being allowed to do something legally doesn't mean a corporation will choose to do so when a pivotal related vote or political change is coming, so as not to sully things.
[Giving all traffic the same priority] is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Because the flexibility to do so can so easily be abused.
Why [should ISPs provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet]?
So that we're able to see more than advertisements and right-wing propagada, and able to se
Re: (Score:2)
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
It must be nice on your planet. I would like to visit it someday.
Re: (Score:2)
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
There is no free market in ISPs, so consumer choice does not exist. People don't have Comcast because they loooooove Comcast as the ISP and like paying high prices for ok speed and disgusting policies, they have Comcast because in their area, it's Comcast/AT&T duopoly. I would LOVE a totally free market for ISPs, but we seem hell-bent to not allow that, mostly because we let ISPs completely control the infrastructure.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi. Reality here. If Comcast could do that they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
They are not currently free to do this. Under current rules all internet sites are given the same speed. And this is why ISP's are fighting these rules, because they are mostly giant corporations that only care about their stock holder's short term gains, not the user's experience. They did it previously in the couple of months where net neutrality rules were struck down Netflix Speeds Drop on Two ISPs [consumerist.com]
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Why should I pay extra to get the internet I want, I already pay a higher price than most other 1st w
Re: (Score:1)
No, it does not say all internet traffic is to be given the same priority. NN says all traffic OF THE SAME TYPE must be treated the same. All DNS must be treated the same - ISP must route the all DNS traffic using the exact same rules and cannot prioritize their own. ISPs must treat all SMTP the same - they cannot prioritize their own SMTP traffic if their offer mail service over a competitors. Yes, ISPs can treat ALL DNS with higher prioritiy than ALL SMTP. It has nothing to do with traffic type and e
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't blocked the site because that would be illegal. Once Title II status is revoked, then they will be free to block the site.
Re: (Score:1)
This is an unsupportable conclusion jump if I ever saw one. The question' what's to stop them from "simply blocking" the site is easily answers. Its something called free speech. Beyond that,even Comcast knows that they really can't prevent anyone from accessing the site through the multitude of other options.
As it stands, they are doing what they would be doing regardless of net neutrality law, taking a legal action.
Free speech only keeps the government from silencing anyone, and not private companies or corporations.
And apparently someone has never heard of network filtering, and white list access.
Re: (Score:3)
Here [www.cbc.ca] is a better example, although it's not in the US. it is a good examples of what ISPs will do if permitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This seems more like a Trademark issue to me. Site uses "Comcastroturf.com". Comcast threatens lawsuit because they are using the "Comcast" name. Whether you support the site or Comcast, this is a trademark issue, not a Network Neutrality one.
Now, if they slowed this site to a crawl while making sure ComcastIsAwesome.com was as speedy as possible, then we'd be getting into Network Neutrality territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A better example would be all the zero-rating that ISPs and cellular carriers have already done. A much better example.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
They are just sending a cease and desist letter to a site using their name in the domain. We might not like that, but this is not an abuse of power or their position as an ISP at all. They didn't block the site. They didn't flood the site. They didn't slow down the site.
No ISP (that I know of) is going to support net neutrality on their own volition. They want the power to do whatever they want with data and bandwidth. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of neutrality, even though I don't like
hopeful headline; disappointing story (Score:2, Insightful)
The story really has nothing to do with the network neutrality debate. It's standard corporate shotgun trademark protection; most anyone else using the Comcast name in their site like that would get the same response.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, its a misleading headline. A cease and desist motion has nothing to do with the net neutrality debate. Such motions are fine. Comcast is not even using its position as ISP here, you only need to own trademarks and have lawyers to do that, basically every company could. Mixing up these two things doesn't help the discussion and gives the anti net neutrality an undeserved bad image.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, the point is that Comcast doesn't have the authority to block sites on their whim, but removing net neutrality would give them that ability.
Pai doesn't care (Score:5, Funny)
If he's not been paid off somehow, then there's a deal in place for when he leaves the FCC for some nice, well paid, well heeled position with some ISP megacorp.
He's made it clear that he's not having any counter argument to the point of holding his hands against his head and screaming "LALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!" as he runs from interviews with journalists. Later, when they catch him going to lunch he'll have his goonish bodyguards pin the stray ones against the wall so they can't ask questions.
No. Needs to go to the FTC (Score:2)
A better example: VoIP Emergency Calls... (Score:4, Insightful)
Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?
Well, throttling my non-Comcast VoIP provider would be one. Especially for cellphones that can use WiFi instead of the cell phone network in areas with lousy reception.
I certainly don't want them degrading a VoIP call to 911 or another emergency service (poison control, etc.), and in spite of the minuscule amount of bandwidth VoIP takes, Comcast has been happy in the past to throttle it to uselessness.
And what are my other options? DSL from my local telephone company? Satellite internet via AT&T's DirecTV? They also have a vested interest in making sure only their voice service works.
So, yeah... let's start with 911 service, and go from there.
Re: (Score:2)
99% of the time, They backfeed the system. They didnt take your line from the street to your house, They disconnected that and connected it to their router because you ASKED them to.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL. Your 64kbps VoIP stream is infringing on Comcast's right to force you to upgrade to their "triple play" package. They make way more profit on their 64kbps VoIP then they ever would on Vonage's VoIP stream.
You mean like one of them copper lines Verizon ripped out?
Re: (Score:2)
Small technical note: Comcast's DOCSIS rigging means that when world+dog gets home at night, your speeds and latency in the burbs are typically going to go to shit, so it might not quite be intentional malfeasance on Comcast's part...
Re: (Score:2)
You expect people to know how things like the internet work before they complain about it? This is a tech site! You cant expect people to know how technical shit works.
Misdirection (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Neutrality is a huge misdirection... it's getting people to accept that we are stuck with incumbent providers and have to get big brother to come save the day with regulations. If people demanded competition, we'd actually stop seeing a game of cat and mouse and none of us would care if Comcast decided to blackhole Netflix or put a 10G data cap on customers. The people paid for the last mile infrastructure with endless rounds of broadband initiative grants and corporate welfare, it's time the last mile is opened up to competition. Countries like the UK and Japan have competitive marketplaces with twisted pair copper or fiber plants and many ISPs have jumped at the opportunity to provide Internet connectivity to residential customers with lower rates and higher speeds. The moment ISP X decides to act against the interest of their customers, those very customers would have the choice to move to ISP A, B, or C... it's that simple.
We don't feel the need to tell Kroger or Publix that they have to carry Heinz ketchup and can't forbid Hunts from selling in their stores... if they don't carry the brands we want, we simply go elsewhere. It doesn't have to be complicated.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't mean that the principles behind Net Neutrality shouldn't be upheld, however. If ISPs A, B, or C collude then it all becomes moot without regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a stupid point. If it's advantageous for all the big players to take the same kinds of throttling action, then what? A small player enters the market and... what? The market won't just turn over and give them influence; they still have to go through someone else's fabric, and can face rate controls and the like by proxy. Building their own infrastructure is expensive.
Why hasn't MintSim caused everyone to abandon Ting and T-Mobile?
Re: (Score:2)
If ISPs A, B, or C collude then it all becomes moot without regulations.
Antitrust law already precludes this sort of collusive behavior in any market. We don't need a special set of regulations for this particular one.
Re: (Score:2)
If ISPs A, B, and C collude to throttle a website that people like, once people learn that ISP D doesn't throttle it, they will cancel their subscriptions with ISPs A, B, and C to sign up with ISP D. No net neutrality or regulation needed.
Never mind that it's difficult to think up a situation where ISPs A, B, C, and D would collude to throttle
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well in this case the government licensed the road to a few companies with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide.
In what country did this happen? What US ISP has ever been granted a government monopoly to be an ISP? (The answer is: none.)
This is why the internet needs to be placed under a government mandated monopoly
You've just made the (incorrect) argument that the problems of the Internet are because of government granted monopolies to ISPs, and now you claim that this is why the ISPs must be government granted monopolies.
I hate government overreach but I hate Comcast more.
"Hate" is rarely a valid reason to create more government regulation. I get it that you hate Comcast. Get your internet from someone else and vote with your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Check your franchise agreements.
I have. Have you? Exclusive franchises have been illegal for twenty years in the US. When such franchises were issued, they were for CABLE TELEVISION service, not Internet Service Providers. There have been no government monopolies issued for ISPs. None. That's why there are so many of them.
Here, let me reinsert the bits you removed.
I replied to all of this already. The parts about "roads" are irrelevant. The claim about "government licensed the road" are wrong.
Hate is a term that is merely convenient,
Please use the correct terms and not just the ones that are more convenient, if the conv
Re: (Score:2)
No, you haven't.
Yes, I have. Many of them. I've been on local cable regulatory boards that had to deal with franchises on a regular basis. Do you have a link to an actual exclusive franchise agreement that is still in effect? Please? Just one.
Does this mean franchise agreements are not still issued, which include the aforementioned rights-of-way, described as "roads" as it were?
If you don't understand the difference between a franchise agreement and an exclusive franchise agreement, please look it up.
Franchise agreements do not require monopolies, and that word, which you have insistently used, isn't even present.
So this alleged government granted monopoly doesn't exist.
with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide.
It's pretty clear that you've never read any franchise agreement, since there has never been this a
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, I'd like to see the network infrastructure be government owned, but have companies able to sell service on the lines. This way, my ISP choice wouldn't just be Charter or Nothing. It would be Charter, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Google, and a dozen smaller companies. I could vote with my wallet without that meaning "no Internet access for me."
As a side benefit, if we were to do this, the marketplace might be healthy enough that we wouldn't need Network Neutrality rules. If Comcast starts abusing th
Re: (Score:2)
This way, my ISP choice wouldn't just be Charter or Nothing. It would be Charter, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Google, and a dozen smaller companies.
You really believe that Comcast would enter a market as an ISP where it did not already have a cable television presence? If they would, why haven't they?
If Comcast starts abusing their network management, you could threaten to jump ship to any of the other dozen ISPs in the area.
I'm sorry that your area cannot financially support more than one ISP, but the answer to that is not more government regulation. I'm in a pretty small city and we have several ISPs to pick from, only one of which is Comcast. The difference is maybe that we have people in this area who took the risks of creating an ISP instead of everyone just saying "oh wo
Re: (Score:2)
If the public is demanding competition, then here is an opportunity for you, take a risk, put everything you own on the line, become an ISP and compete.
There is currently no reason for ISPs to compete, they are doing well in their respective areas, and they can make a better financial return by squeezing both their customers and the end providers like Netflix for a few dollars more.
I don't agree (Score:1)
Unless they're throttling traffic to/from the web site or hijacking DNS to redirect it to their own server, I don't think it's a demonstration of the need for net neutrality. They are taking legal action on the issue, but that does not mean they're abusing their powers as an ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're throttling traffic to/from the web site or hijacking DNS to redirect it to their own server,
Those would, indeed, be the "better examples" that the OP asks about. That's not what is happening, and the headline is wrong for tying to imply it. This is an example of a company using available legal avenues to deal with what they see as trademark infringement. It has nothing to do with Comcast being an ISP.
Of course, instead of linking to the actual cease and desist order when the link says "cease and desist order", we get a page from the defendant with their interpretation of what is happening inste
Why vote on it now with only three members? (Score:2)
And two of the three members were the ones that voted against it in 2015 are still members. We all know Ajit Pai liv
small cable here (Score:2)
We don't collect any information on our customers. The same can't be said for our upstream providers though.
Irrelevant article... but style? (Score:2)
Plenty of other commenters above have pointed out that the legal wrangling has nothing to do with Network Neutrality.
But to bring up something different, how about the style of this post? It's just positively dripping with commentary, as many adjectives as the submitter seemed able to throw at the story.
Not only was the submitter pretty off base with his premise, but he was really doubling down with his rhetoric.
I'd like to think Slashdot could be a little more fact oriented with this sort of thing if users
Die net-neutrality. (Score:2)
That they wrote a letter and did not thing else.
Keep me in the kill net-neutrality side since the only people we have to fear are the pro net-neutrality side since they are against free speech.
Call me again when application neutrality comes up.
Not just tonedeaf - deaf, dumb and blind.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I have a wife and I have fucked her in every position imaginable. Prior to being married I fucked some hot girlfriends, who were cool people.
Pics, or it didn't happen.
-=[Beau]=-