Consumer groups ask FCC to fine Comcast

[bamacre]

Linky

NEW YORK - A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars on Thursday formally asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Comcast Corp. from interfering with file sharing by its Internet subscribers.

That practice has started to fray. In tests spanning several states, The Associated Press found that Comcast hindered file sharing by subscribers who used BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing program. The findings, first reported Oct. 19, confirmed claims by users, who also noticed interference with other file-sharing applications.

Comcast previously denied that it was blocking file sharing, but acknowledged last week that it was "delaying" some of the traffic between computers that share files.

Comcast has said the interference is intended to improve the Internet experience for all its subscribers, noting that a relatively small number of file sharers is enough to slow down its network.

Comcast does this to me whenever I happen download a file via a torrent.

I have tested this and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the reason. My speeds drop dramatically, and after several minutes, my internet connection is lost completely.

Calls to Comcast tech support just say there must be something wrong with my router and offer to have someone come by in a few days to replace it. Of course, closing the torrent downloads, and waiting about 15 minutes magically makes my router work again.

Anyone else encounter similar disruptions of service from Comcast?

 

[techs]

I have Comcast and last used bittorent like 2-3 months ago and it worked ok for me then.
I don't really expect the Bushies to do anything about this since they are in hands of big business, especially non-competitive big business like cable companies.

 

[Kadarin]

The FCC doesn't have the best interests of the American public in mind, so these consumer groups will likely have no effect.

 

[DasFox]

I read this:

Comcast has given us a glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality, and it's a chilling sight.

An investigation by the Associated Press caught the cable giant secretly inspecting online communications and crippling users' ability to share information with one another.

This is a gross violation of Net Neutrality -- the longstanding principle that ensures a free and open Internet.

Tell the FCC: Save the Free and Open Internet - http://action.freepress.net/ct/Fp3sSc91CjGZ/

Today, Free Press filed a legal complaint demanding that the FCC take action to protect the free flow of information on the Internet. By joining our complaint, you can help stop Comcast and other gatekeepers.

The future of the Internet is far more than Web sites and e-mail. People are now using new peer-to-peer technologies to upload and share videos, photographs and music. They are innovating without permission from Internet gatekeepers.

Comcast is trying to shut down these innovations and treat the Internet like cable TV -- where they get to pick the channels you can watch. They're stifling the free exchange of ideas that makes the Internet so revolutionary.

Tell the FCC: Stop Comcast and Other Gatekeepers

You're the only person who should decide where you go, what you do, and whom you connect with on the Web. Net Neutrality protects your right to choose.

Phone and cable lobbyists have called Net Neutrality "a solution in search of a problem." Well, here's the problem. In the past three months, incidents of censorship and blocking by Verizon, AT&T and now Comcast have made headlines around the world. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

We stopped these gatekeepers in 2006. We can stop them for good by taking action right now. It's time to restore Net Neutrality once and for all.

Thank you,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
Free Press
www.freepress.net
www.SavetheInternet.com

1. Read more about Comcast's blocking BitTorrent and other peer-to peer networks at SavetheInterent.com.

2. Read the Associated Press' breaking news story about our filing: http://www.thestate.com/techno...wire/story/217359.html

3. Read our complaint to the FCC: http://www.freepress.net/docs/...declaratory_ruling.pdf.

Take action on this campaign at: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/comcastviolates

Tell others about this campaign at: http://action.freepress.net/ca...omcastviolates/forward

 

[Rainsford]

See, THIS is what the movement against net neutrality is all about. It's not about providing resources to expand networks, it's about legally being able to take the lazy ass way out instead of actually upgrading your network. Yeah, torrents take up a lot of bandwidth...but if Comcast didn't hilariously oversell their network, or if they took some of the money they make jacking up your bill ever month and put it into infrastructure, it wouldn't be an issue.

The real problem is that telcom companies are the laziest bunch of idiots in the country. They have virtual monopolies in most areas, so there is little incentive to respond to customer demands when they can just as easily jerk you around. Lucky for me, I live in an area where Verizion FIOS is available, and in addition to spanking Comcast all over the map, they are forcing Comcast to get their asses in gear and actually improve their service. I think it's pretty telling that even after Comcast started blocking torrents, I never noticed a problem. Not that that stopped me from switching to FIOS anyways, but clearly competition is good...and if you don't have it, legislation is needed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Comcast advertises high speed and then slows it down intentionally. Nice.

 

[techs]

When Comcast took over Adelphia I thought, finally, a company that has some technical competence. And they have kept the service running far better than Adelphia.
But everything else about Comcast sucks.

 

[ScottMac]

I suppose it'd be worth reading the Terms of Service from Comcast.

It's their network; if they want to limit (what they perceive to be) bandwidth hogs, and it's within the ToS, what's the problem?

The (perceived) "bandwidth hogs" can move on to some other bandwidth.

Additional capacity (from the carrier side) is not cheap. Spending a few million dollars per area so "a few" can swap files is not good business. Chances are that even if the new bandwidth was added, the few would just rachet up to absorb it.

Bandwidth is a finite resource, it's privately owned (though publically regulated), and all customers must be served fairly.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I suppose it'd be worth reading the Terms of Service from Comcast.

It's their network; if they want to limit (what they perceive to be) bandwidth hogs, and it's within the ToS, what's the problem?

The (perceived) "bandwidth hogs" can move on to some other bandwidth.

Additional capacity (from the carrier side) is not cheap. Spending a few million dollars per area so "a few" can swap files is not good business. Chances are that even if the new bandwidth was added, the few would just rachet up to absorb it.

Bandwidth is a finite resource, it's privately owned (though publically regulated), and all customers must be served fairly.

Comcast advertises UNLIMITED. What part of UNLIMITED don't you understand?
And the other part of this thread you don't understand, you corporate suck up?
Comcast is not banning bandwidth hogs. They are banning use of torrents.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I suppose it'd be worth reading the Terms of Service from Comcast.

It's their network; if they want to limit (what they perceive to be) bandwidth hogs, and it's within the ToS, what's the problem?

The (perceived) "bandwidth hogs" can move on to some other bandwidth.

Additional capacity (from the carrier side) is not cheap. Spending a few million dollars per area so "a few" can swap files is not good business. Chances are that even if the new bandwidth was added, the few would just rachet up to absorb it.

Bandwidth is a finite resource, it's privately owned (though publically regulated), and all customers must be served fairly.

Comcast advertises UNLIMITED. What part of UNLIMITED don't you understand?
And the other part of this thread you don't understand, you corporate suck up?
Comcast is not banning bandwidth hogs. They are banning use of torrents.

What part of "Acceptable Use" and Terms of Service (CONTRACT) are you not understanding?

Comcast Terms of Service

(quoted in part)
4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to deliver any programming, services, features or offerings except as provided in Section 11e.


(snip)


For HSI Customers.
Acceptable Use Policy. The Comcast Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP") and other policies concerning HSI are posted on the Service's Web site at www.comcast.net (or an alternative Web site if we so notify you). You further agree that Comcast may modify the AUP or other policies from time to time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE TERMS OF THE AUP AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE COMCAST POLICIES MAY BE PUT INTO EFFECT OR REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME WITHOUT NOTICE BY POSTING A NEW VERSION OF THE AUP OR POLICY AS SET FORTH ABOVE. YOU AND OTHER USERS OF THE SERVICE SHOULD CONSULT THE AUP AND ALL POSTED POLICIES REGULARLY TO CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION.

(end quote)

Bolded emphasis added by me.

Their network. Follow their rules or go somewhere else.

If you want to bitch about it, call your local representitives that negotiatied the services on your behalf and bitch to them.

I dumped Comcast a long time ago, but only because I got a really good deal on DSL.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I suppose it'd be worth reading the Terms of Service from Comcast.

It's their network; if they want to limit (what they perceive to be) bandwidth hogs, and it's within the ToS, what's the problem?

The (perceived) "bandwidth hogs" can move on to some other bandwidth.

Additional capacity (from the carrier side) is not cheap. Spending a few million dollars per area so "a few" can swap files is not good business. Chances are that even if the new bandwidth was added, the few would just rachet up to absorb it.

Bandwidth is a finite resource, it's privately owned (though publically regulated), and all customers must be served fairly.

The fact that they have a ToS that says they can do whatever they want doesn't make it right, especially since there very often IS no other bandwidth to be had in a particular area. DSL is a joke, and most areas have one cable company and that's it. It's worth noting that they don't seem to be doing this in areas like mine, where Verizon FIOS is available and is wiping the floor with Comcast.

And that's really the point. They are offering a degraded service because their monopoly power allows them to do so. In areas where they DON'T have a monopoly, they offer the service they say they do. And don't give me that ToS bullshit...that does NOT deal with advertised service levels, it deals with customer actions. You may view any and all bittorrent usage as "hogging" bandwidth, but they aren't putting a cap on transfers (a more sensible solution to a bandwidth limitation problem), they are blocking them whether you download one Linux distro a month, or download 10 movies a week. All the while they are letting people who might use far more bandwidth go on their merry way, as long as they aren't using that evil bittorrent protocol to do it.

Of course bandwidth is a finite resource, so manage it correctly and/or buy more of it. People get high speed Internet to do a variety of things, and one of those things is download a lot of stuff really fast. There is no earthly reason why Comcast can't deal with this intelligently using one or both of the ways I suggested, but they aren't because there is little forcing them to in most markets. I notice that FIOS doesn't have most of the unspoken limitations Comcast and other cable companies have...maybe that's because Verizon went out and actually invested in their network instead of just bitching about their "evil customers" who are so thoughtless as to want to actually USE their high speed connections.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I suppose it'd be worth reading the Terms of Service from Comcast.

It's their network; if they want to limit (what they perceive to be) bandwidth hogs, and it's within the ToS, what's the problem?

The (perceived) "bandwidth hogs" can move on to some other bandwidth.

Additional capacity (from the carrier side) is not cheap. Spending a few million dollars per area so "a few" can swap files is not good business. Chances are that even if the new bandwidth was added, the few would just rachet up to absorb it.

Bandwidth is a finite resource, it's privately owned (though publically regulated), and all customers must be served fairly.

Comcast advertises UNLIMITED. What part of UNLIMITED don't you understand?
And the other part of this thread you don't understand, you corporate suck up?
Comcast is not banning bandwidth hogs. They are banning use of torrents.

What part of "Acceptable Use" and Terms of Service (CONTRACT) are you not understanding?

Comcast Terms of Service

(quoted in part)
4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to deliver any programming, services, features or offerings except as provided in Section 11e.


(snip)


For HSI Customers.
Acceptable Use Policy. The Comcast Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP") and other policies concerning HSI are posted on the Service's Web site at www.comcast.net (or an alternative Web site if we so notify you). You further agree that Comcast may modify the AUP or other policies from time to time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE TERMS OF THE AUP AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE COMCAST POLICIES MAY BE PUT INTO EFFECT OR REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME WITHOUT NOTICE BY POSTING A NEW VERSION OF THE AUP OR POLICY AS SET FORTH ABOVE. YOU AND OTHER USERS OF THE SERVICE SHOULD CONSULT THE AUP AND ALL POSTED POLICIES REGULARLY TO CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION.

(end quote)

Bolded emphasis added by me.

Their network. Follow their rules or go somewhere else.

If you want to bitch about it, call your local representitives that negotiatied the services on your behalf and bitch to them.

I dumped Comcast a long time ago, but only because I got a really good deal on DSL.

Maybe YOU should read those terms of service before getting all smartass about it. I see nothing in there that says Comcast will selectively degrade certain applications, which is what they are doing.

 

[ScottMac]

It wasn't the intention to get all pissy about it. It's just the fact; they own the network, they set the rules. It was techs that got the ball rolling by calling me a "corporate suck up." I don't know which corporate he supposes I'm sucking up to, I'm not any kind of Comcast fan.

Unfortunately for some, the rules permit Comcast (and probably most other ISPs) to change the rules as they see fit whenever they want. They do permit you you to quit (apparently without additional charges, though I didn't really look to see) if it is your judgement that you cannot abide by their rules.

If a person were to find that their only option was Comcast, then the decision has to be made ... use Comcast and give up the "offending" applications or protocols, or nothing (dialup)... since they will apparently either filter or block it eventually (or I suppose they could kick you off their network and lose you as a customer .... probably not likely).

"speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations" (bolded in ToS post) I believe would apply to quenching unwanted protocols, including Torrents. They don't have to block it, they can just restrict it down to sub-dial-up speeds.

Yeah sure it sucks, but that's the way it is. It's basic capitalism: They have it, you want it; Bend Over.

There is always a commercial connection (T1, SDSL, Commercial-grade cable) which is generally less restrictive (but easing the rules means higher cost).

You could become a CLEC and sell your own network ... advertise "Absolutely no speed limitations or protocol restrictions" ... you could cash in and get some of those ISP mega-bucks and put those evil Corporate Weenies right out of business. You even said that when there's competition, Comcast becomes a bit more liberal ... be the hero of your community and give 'em some competition.

And again, it was your local governmental officials that negotiated that deal; there was no blanket policy in-place at most state levels when cable was installed. Talk to your local reps and / or AG Office of Consumer Affairs and/or FCC (like the subjects of the OP's article) if you believe it's an illegal practice (get in line, but no one has been significantly successful so far).

Regardless of what you think of what I posted, I *do* understand the frustration. When I moved into my current place, all I had was dial-up and ISDN ... cable BB didn't show up for almost two years.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It wasn't the intention to get all pissy about it. It's just the fact; they own the network, they set the rules. It was techs that got the ball rolling by calling me a "corporate suck up." I don't know which corporate he supposes I'm sucking up to, I'm not any kind of Comcast fan.

Unfortunately for some, the rules permit Comcast (and probably most other ISPs) to change the rules as they see fit whenever they want. They do permit you you to quit (apparently without additional charges, though I didn't really look to see) if it is your judgement that you cannot abide by their rules.

If a person were to find that their only option was Comcast, then the decision has to be made ... use Comcast and give up the "offending" applications or protocols, or nothing (dialup)... since they will apparently either filter or block it eventually (or I suppose they could kick you off their network and lose you as a customer .... probably not likely).

"speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations" (bolded in ToS post) I believe would apply to quenching unwanted protocols, including Torrents. They don't have to block it, they can just restrict it down to sub-dial-up speeds.

Yeah sure it sucks, but that's the way it is. It's basic capitalism: They have it, you want it; Bend Over.

There is always a commercial connection (T1, SDSL, Commercial-grade cable) which is generally less restrictive (but easing the rules means higher cost).

You could become a CLEC and sell your own network ... advertise "Absolutely no speed limitations or protocol restrictions" ... you could cash in and get some of those ISP mega-bucks and put those evil Corporate Weenies right out of business. You even said that when there's competition, Comcast becomes a bit more liberal ... be the hero of your community and give 'em some competition.

And again, it was your local governmental officials that negotiated that deal; there was no blanket policy in-place at most state levels when cable was installed. Talk to your local reps and / or AG Office of Consumer Affairs and/or FCC (like the subjects of the OP's article) if you believe it's an illegal practice (get in line, but no one has been significantly successful so far).

Regardless of what you think of what I posted, I *do* understand the frustration. When I moved into my current place, all I had was dial-up and ISDN ... cable BB didn't show up for almost two years.

WHEN A COMPANY SPENDS MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ADVERTISING "UNLIMITED SERVICE" AND PRINTS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL CLAIMING "UNLIMITED SERVICE' IT IS CLEARLY DECEITFUL TO THEN STICK IN FINE PRINT THAT SAYS THE SERVICE IS NOT UNLIMITED.
ANYONE THAT COULD POSSIBLY DEFEND THIS PRACTICE IS SUCKING UP TO CORPORATE GREED AND DECEPTION.
AS I POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD ITS LIKE ADVERTISING "ARSENIC IS COMPLETELY SAFE" IN T.V. ADS AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS. THEN SELLING ARSENIC TO THE PUBLIC, WITH A DISCLAIMER IN FINE PRINT INSIDE PACKAGE INSERT THAT SAYS, OH, YEAH, ARSENIC WILL KILL YOU.
AND THEN HAVING A CORPORATES SUCK UP POSTING THAT IT WAS THE CONSUMERS FAULT FOR DYING.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It wasn't the intention to get all pissy about it. It's just the fact; they own the network, they set the rules. It was techs that got the ball rolling by calling me a "corporate suck up." I don't know which corporate he supposes I'm sucking up to, I'm not any kind of Comcast fan.

Unfortunately for some, the rules permit Comcast (and probably most other ISPs) to change the rules as they see fit whenever they want. They do permit you you to quit (apparently without additional charges, though I didn't really look to see) if it is your judgement that you cannot abide by their rules.

If a person were to find that their only option was Comcast, then the decision has to be made ... use Comcast and give up the "offending" applications or protocols, or nothing (dialup)... since they will apparently either filter or block it eventually (or I suppose they could kick you off their network and lose you as a customer .... probably not likely).

"speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations" (bolded in ToS post) I believe would apply to quenching unwanted protocols, including Torrents. They don't have to block it, they can just restrict it down to sub-dial-up speeds.

Yeah sure it sucks, but that's the way it is. It's basic capitalism: They have it, you want it; Bend Over.

There is always a commercial connection (T1, SDSL, Commercial-grade cable) which is generally less restrictive (but easing the rules means higher cost).

You could become a CLEC and sell your own network ... advertise "Absolutely no speed limitations or protocol restrictions" ... you could cash in and get some of those ISP mega-bucks and put those evil Corporate Weenies right out of business. You even said that when there's competition, Comcast becomes a bit more liberal ... be the hero of your community and give 'em some competition.

And again, it was your local governmental officials that negotiated that deal; there was no blanket policy in-place at most state levels when cable was installed. Talk to your local reps and / or AG Office of Consumer Affairs and/or FCC (like the subjects of the OP's article) if you believe it's an illegal practice (get in line, but no one has been significantly successful so far).

Regardless of what you think of what I posted, I *do* understand the frustration. When I moved into my current place, all I had was dial-up and ISDN ... cable BB didn't show up for almost two years.

Well actually in my area, there IS competition (and Comcast isn't blocking anything as a result, as far as I can tell). Unfortunately, in a lot of counties around me, the local gomers in the government have some sort of deal with Comcast where they block Verizon from offering FIOS, so there is no competition at the high end of the market. Personally I think doing that should be illegal, but I imagine those idiots will get voted out of office before too long and Verizon will come in, offering enough competition to make Comcast play nice.

But I think your wrong about a basic idea of capitalism, that in order to have capitalism, it's necessary to remove any and all restrictions and remove any kind of responsibility from the corporate world. In a perfect world, you might be right...but in the real world, Comcast has hordes of lawyers to write Terms of Service that can mean anything they want them to mean and hordes of lobbiests to be awarded a virtual monopoly in many areas. The consumer has virtually no recourse or power without organization, and that's something the government can help provide. This IS capitalism, actually. Comcast is doing whatever it can do get the most amount of money for providing the shittiest level of service, while the customers are trying to get the most service for the least money...and both sides are using whatever means they have to reach their goal. Now maybe you think some of those means are outside of what's normally considered capitalism, but I maintain that if Comcast's manipulation of the broadband market is OK, then so is consumers using the government to make Comcast play nice.

 

[ScottMac]

But I think your wrong about a basic idea of capitalism, that in order to have capitalism, it's necessary to remove any and all restrictions and remove any kind of responsibility from the corporate world. In a perfect world, you might be right...but in the real world, Comcast has hordes of lawyers to write Terms of Service that can mean anything they want them to mean and hordes of lobbiests to be awarded a virtual monopoly in many areas. The consumer has virtually no recourse or power without organization, and that's something the government can help provide. This IS capitalism, actually. Comcast is doing whatever it can do get the most amount of money for providing the shittiest level of service, while the customers are trying to get the most service for the least money...and both sides are using whatever means they have to reach their goal. Now maybe you think some of those means are outside of what's normally considered capitalism, but I maintain that if Comcast's manipulation of the broadband market is OK, then so is consumers using the government to make Comcast play nice.

No, I mostly agree with your point. Since the ISPs (Comcast in this case, but should apply to all the same that are providing essentially the same services) are necessarily a limited resource, I think it's incumbent on the controlling government entity to get the best deal it can for its constituents, and hold the provider to the contract.

That's the long and short of it right there. It's a contract, and the party representing the consumer (usually your local / city government) did a bad job of it. Perhaps it was bad because the constituents were screaming so long and loud to get access, they didn't review teh contract close enough. There's usually some political pressure too. I live in Chicago, Cook County, IL ... I'd also believe that it's possible that the local politicians could have been greased a little (d'ya think? ).

Now, I'd also believe that Comcast /the ISP would hope to get the contract renewed and operating "in good faith," even outside the contract, to reasonable requests by the local governments would be a good idea.

I think the issue can be argued on the basis of ethics, business or personal, depending on your point-of-view, but legally, IMO, it appears that Comcast is operating within the bounds of the contract they negotiated. I'm not lawyer, and I never played one anywhere, but as a "reasonable person" reading the ToS and stuff relating to the consumer's access under the AUP, it appears "legal" to me.

Ethically, probably a little fuzzy, but I believe Comcast can argue that they are looking out for the overall Comcast population's access to the limited amount of bandwidth available within some defined boundry. It'll be interesting to watch as it unfolds, no doubt.

techs: Bold and upper case! Is the next level ITALICS? or UNDERLINE? You should post a legend so other posters can accurately track and assess the level of your apparent outrage.

"Unlimited" in the context of an advertisement is pretty broad. There might even have been some fine print somewhere. That's no kind of argument when you're facing a contract that specifically permits them to change their operational profiles as they see fit.

If you know anyone in the military, ask them about what their recruiter told them versus the reality of what they got.