Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

What Comcast Wants

savetheinternet.com — So what does cable giant Comcast want? Only to monopolize your Internet connection, block online competitors, and control what consumers do online. Comcast wants to turn the Internet into cable TV, where every Web site has to cut a special deal with them to get carried or else get blocked. And Comcast wants to be above the law while doing this.

Bury

jsilver123 97 days ago, made popular 96 days ago

1015 diggs
digg it

Fangsinmybeard, on 07/10/2008, -17/+35Comcast is following orders to slow down connection speeds so that the NSA can intercept any suspect correspondence that can condemn American citizens under the Patriot Act.
- staxofmax, on 07/10/2008, -4/+56Really? I heard that Comcast is slowing down connection speeds because if too much information flows through the internets too quickly, the tubes could catch on fire and explode.
  
  See? I can make ***** up too.
  - Slade605, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10I heard that Comcast puts it's pants on in the morning one leg at a time and sometimes gets violently angry with the internet and so it has to go to a battered internets shelter.
  - stealthc, on 07/11/2008, -1/+15The NSA already has spying technology installed on all major Internet backbones. This is not a secret, OR made up.
    
    I'm not sure it's actually affecting network performance though.
  - Verfel, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2@stealthc
    
    Not likely, chances are the NSA are using backdoors to simply sniff, not poison.
  - WomensUnderwear, on 07/11/2008, -2/+2I heard Comcast is in rehab and is said to be "responding to treatment"
  - trippinlikegod, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3@verfel there was a video on digg a while back (i don't know if it was legit or not) but it was from an AT&T employee admitting that he personally hooked up the tapping hardware. Apparently the backbone building he was working in had a secure room where he was to hook up loopback type devices, he didn't realize what he was doing until sometime later when FBI/NSA people were the only ones who had access to the server room.
- Suricou, on 07/11/2008, -3/+4Please back up your claim with evidence. It may be true, but without evidence the claim is worthless.
- lead2thehead, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5You can still get fast connection speeds... for $199 a month.
sockpuppets, on 07/10/2008, -9/+75Nonsense, I'm on comcast and I've experienced nothing but fast connections and uniterru
- Erich100, on 07/11/2008, -1/+9I'm on Comcast also, maybe it's my computer, but when I'm on digg It sloooows dooown.
  - Noods, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4It is some of the new advertisements that are doing it. I get the same thing.
- Hangly, on 07/11/2008, -2/+18I think people aren't reading your comment all the way to the end, sockpuppets.
- nigh7dagger, on 07/11/2008, -4/+9I see what you did there.
- drywallbmb, on 07/11/2008, -1/+6Nice one, sockpuppets. Made my morning.
- trippinlikegod, on 07/11/2008, -8/+2can i ask what uniterru is?
trackerbishop, on 07/11/2008, -6/+21ahh i can see it now - drudge, cnn, msnbc, foxnews, mtv, moron.com, all part of basic internet package. want digg and other non neocon sites? extra $20 a month.
- trackerbishop, on 07/11/2008, -2/+6i forgot to mention that the mandatory 'explicit content' filtering box will be $3/month rental. this will protect you from nonpatriot hate speech.
  - enjrgrhydr, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1exactly
umbrellainabin, on 07/11/2008, -8/+50***** THE RIAA
***** THE MPAA
***** THE IFPI
***** THE BFI
***** VIACOM
***** COMCAST
***** MEDIADEFENDER
***** AT&T
- dagamer34, on 07/11/2008, -1/+10What, Verizon has immunity?
  - TheSavant, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Nope, it just isn't as pretty as the rest.
- xarevius, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1So much hate
  - Faasnat, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Maybe he means it in a sexual manner...
- jhandfield, on 07/11/2008, -1/+7Your parents must be so proud.
- bcr8u, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5damn BFI!
- redwallhp, on 07/11/2008, -3/+4You forgot Microsoft.
  
  And they're all part of the MAFIAA.
  - enjrgrhydr, on 07/11/2008, -4/+0GOOOOO MICROSOFT!!
- dmerc, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4You forgot:
  
  "Mobb Deep"
  "Biggie"
  "Bad Boy as a staff, record label, and as a mother ***** crew."
  - rodeosmurf, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1hahaha this is the best digg comment ever.
- zezerik, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4Che Guevara over here... Pound the keyboard a little harder kid...
andywu92, on 07/11/2008, -4/+22What Comcast Doesn't Want: a front-page Digg article revealing its plans
- AntBing, on 07/11/2008, -1/+20I'm pretty sure they don't give a ***** about Digg.
- pr0gr4mm3r, on 07/11/2008, -1/+11If they thought Digg was a problem...I wouldn't be able to read this page right now.
- czeman, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1I don't know. It sounds to me like they don't want customers.
stealthc, on 07/11/2008, -14/+8Another anti-ISP lynchmob.

I'm not defending Comcast, but they aren't your real enemy. Artifices of government create barriers of entry into the telecommunications business. In a free market, there is nothing Comcast could do to overtake the Web. Customers would be in charge. That's the meaning of a free market, and anyone who tells you that a free market means free reign of corporations doesn't understand economics, or the fact that corporations are created and protected by government.

The enemy of choice and freedom is coercive force, and coercive force comes from government. There is nothing Comcast can do that won't eventually be subverted by someone else's technology. The Internet has prospered wildly in an atmosphere of freedom. Introducing more coercive force is not the answer. Removing as much of it as possible *is*.

You know what stands in the way of practically-free broadband nationwide WiFi?

The FCC.
- klco, on 07/11/2008, -5/+11I am so sick of you free-market fanatics. The end result of an unregulated, free market is monopoly. The US government has been far to limited in breaking up dangerous monopolies or duopolies here in the US.
  - stealthc, on 07/11/2008, -8/+4No it isn't. How can a monopoly possibly prevent competitors from entering the market without the helping hand of *force* from the government?
    
    http://mises.org/story/621
    
    I sometimes look forward to the coming economic apocalypse in America, just so the whackjobs who still believe in socialism will have to face reality.
  - wexmajor, on 07/11/2008, -5/+8Seriously, it seems like people think that just because communism turned out to be a ***** idea that means 100% pure capitalism must be the perfect economic system.
  - asterlacnala, on 07/11/2008, -2/+6It isn't in response to communism, it is in response to good moral standing: someone provides something at a price, you either take it or not. You don't get someone bigger to FORCE them to provide it on YOUR terms, because that is tyranny.
  - bradleyland, on 07/11/2008, -1/+6I'm so sick of you econ-illiterates. Government run programs are monopolies too! The same cronies run the ship, just flying the state flag, rather than the corporate one. Rogers? Telus? Both state granted wireless monopolies, both under tremendous pressure due to brain-dead iPhone pricing.
    
    Comcast has a near monopoly because of the _government_, not because of capitalism. Cable companies must negotiation with state and local agencies to gain access to the right-of-way where cables must be run. The process is rife with kick-backs and corruption. Comcast knows how to get what they need. They go to the top. The guys the bottom don't matter, because they have no say. You get what you ask for, and the public at large seems more concerned with whether or not someone says *****, piss, *****, ***** on television than their right to fair use of public property. That's a people problem, not a capitalism problem.
    
    The grass is definitely NOT greener on the other side.
  - Noods, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4So let me get this straight.
    
    The FCC prevents companies from entering markets where there is only one ISP. Then it gives those monopolies billion dollar subsides to develop their product and ignore alternative technologies. How are other companies supposed to enter these markets legally or financially?
    
    The real joke here is that pro-government people, like yourself, ignore the fact that the government is creating the monopoly and you hand the whole market over to the same dumb ***** who just passed telecom immunity.
mbowersox, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6So I just moved and my only choices for internet service are Comcast and Verizon DSL (1.5Mbps). Verizon hasn't rolled FIOS out to my area yet (although I have seen them laying fiber), which is unbelievable considering I'm right across the water from NYC. I would rather go with dial-up before choosing Comcast, given all of the horror stories I have heard about them. Hurry up Verizon!!
- kamiten, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3I'm in the same boat. Just moved, with Comcast and Verizon DSL being the only things available. Even more frustrating for me is the fact that FIOS is on the poll directly opposite my house, but Verizon won't run it because I'm in a condo, or "multi unit home" as they say. I've spoken with them several times on it, and even with the condo association and building management giving them permission, they will NOT run FIOS to the house unless every unit in the building agrees to use them.
  
  Lame.
  - HareBall, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2You two guys are lucky. My only broadband access above 1 or 2 meg is Comcast.
- lordpookdai, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I feel for both of you...had to deal with 1.5mb verizon dsl in my area for awhile...I can tell you with 100% certainty that as soon as FiOS rolled out in our area...Comcast's monopoly over internet and cable took a good 25% hit. Over the few years I can see them only having a VERY small presence in my town because of the expandability of fiber lines as compared to comcast's high-grade copper.
  
  at least my area may be able to shake the insufferable comcast...good luck!
- libertao, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Same here, they are charging me $62 a month for just internet!! Bastards
jcwuerfl, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10What comcast wants? how about what the customer wants? The customer always comes first right ??
- ErrorLoading, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5lolz
- oxymoron69, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4Remember that next time you ever call into a call centre... bwhahahahahahahaha
  Profit comes first, customers are after shareholders and employees somewhere down the list!
noahco, on 07/11/2008, -3/+5As much as I hate comcast for everything it's doing, they don't really have a reason to stop doing it until a large amount of people stop using their service. I'll complain about comcast a ton but in all reality they are the only option that is affordable to me so I will continue to use their services. However, they have gotten to the tipping point where I'm about ready to pay double somewhere else for less quality as long as i'm not supporting them.
- HonoredMule, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4...and that's why free market principles don't apply to basic necessary services. It is without a *reasonable* option to just say "no thanks, I'd rather do without" that the most obscene market abuse happens. All major telecommunications services in Canada and the U.S. serve as prime examples (save cable...***** as that is also, not too many people /really/ need it).
  
  For those of you who think socialism is a crock and free market is king, why don't you just come on up here and sign up for MY internet or cellphone service (Canadian ISPs are subject to privacy regulations, and that's about it). Then go back in time and see how much better it was when our phone/internet service was provided by a crown corporation (P.S. our taxes are roughly still the same).
  - Scheissen, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1No, this would be a crowning example if it was a free market and if the government didn't setup "natural monopolies." If Comcast started over estimating what the consumer would pay then a new ISP would compete, but this is prevented because the government tells us we wouldn't want two landlines next to each other! You let yourself get addicted to the Internet.
  - asterlacnala, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Despite what you'd like us to believe, internet isn't a "basic necessary service" - otherwise, there wouldn't be anyone, anywhere, in history, without it. Basic necessities are food, clean water, and protection from the elements. Everything else is optional, though some are harder to live without than others.
    
    I recently went through a stretch where because I had no car and my city has almost no public transportation, I had to walk to work. While I usually caught a ride home with a friend, that was still 4 miles(!) per day, in a Louisiana summer no less. Yes, I really wanted a car. But I didn't _need_ one.
sporg, on 07/11/2008, -2/+19Comtrash and the rest of the robber barons try to do whatever they please as usual. Don't believe any of their claims about them needing to charge consumers for how much bandwidth they use because "ohhh the load is too much!". Any claims that the internet is operating anywhere near capacity are pure fantasy.

"Summary:The global telecommunications and networking backbone contains millions of kilometers of fiber-optic cabling, but we use only one ten-thousandth of the potential bandwidth of those cables. One reason is that a single converter from electrical to optical signals can only make use of a small amount of the optical spectrum, limiting the achievable bandwidth to about 2.5 Gbit/s. Wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) helps to resolve this disparity. WDM takes advantage of the fact that multiple wavelengths (or frequencies) of IR light can be transmitted simultaneously down a single optical fiber, and each of those frequency channels can carry independent information. With the use of WDM, the capacity of a single strand of fiber, 250 microns in diameter, can carry between 10 and 80 Gbps; a typical cable of 18 mm in diameter contains up to 200 fibers"

"The concept was first published in 1970, and by 1978 WDM systems were being realized in the laboratory. The first WDM systems only combined two signals. Modern systems can handle up to 160 signals and can thus expand a basic 10 Gbit/s fiber system to a theoretical total capacity of over 1.6 Tbit/s over a single fiber pair."

sources:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/i ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength-division_m ...
http://networks.cs.ucdavis.edu/~mukherje/book/ch01 ...
- HonoredMule, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4I believe it is primarily a last-mile issue however, and a poorly-made assumption that we'd all be happy little consumers and not go trying to push stuff /back/ upstream on cable networks. They could come right out and explain that, but then they'd get a huge backlash from free speech/freedom of information advocates.
Seabiscit, on 07/11/2008, -3/+0MIXED SIGNALS!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wisewaif, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6I would like to think that people in this country would be so pissed at these kind of tactics, and online and offline businesses would be so pissed to not have equal access, that the congress would get involved to shut this crap down if it ever happens.
- secrity, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3It is happening, the problem is that most consumers don't know that it is happening.
phydeaux70, on 07/11/2008, -1/+15These companies are monopolies.

When you move to an area and you have one choice for broadband...monopoly. One choice for DSL monopoly. This is exactly why satellites have done so well, because people now have another choice for Hi-Def or cable.

The government should allow the infrastructure to be used by any company and then let the consumers choose who is the best. Of course...that also comes with other problems too. But the reason that Comcast is so big isn't because they are so great to their customers, it's because they are the dominant figure in big cities and have a captive audience. Condos, rentals, apartments etc, might not allow the installation of a dish, and in many cases there just isn't a choice for high-speed internet. Fish in a barrel.
- Spartyon, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3its an oligopoly. You can't say that there is a different market for DSL AND a market for broadband. Few people know the difference between the 2.
asterlacnala, on 07/11/2008, -5/+4I'm inclined to agree with stealthc, above. I like network neutrality, but giving Congress the power to enforce it is a bad idea. Let ISPs block all they want - eventually, they will find themselves out of business because nobody wants to use their service.

Personally, I'd like to see someone invent the technology and protocols to have a peer to peer wireless internet, where each computer acts as a relay and no cables are used at all...
- secrity, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4Until there is an alternative, everybody who wants service will be forced to use their service. What you are saying is the same as saying that the 1960's Bell System should have been free to block whoever and whatever they wanted to block.
  - asterlacnala, on 07/12/2008, -2/+0There is more than one ISP out there. If nothing else, people could switch to a high speed dial up. Is it ideal? No. But if you value freedom of access more than high connection speeds, you'll make the switch and that sends Comcast a message.
    
    The way to change company policies isn't legislation and regulation, it is to hit them where it hurts: their wallets.
  - shmatt, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2First off, "high-speed dialup" is an oxymoron, and a retarded one to boot.
    
    There is NOT more than one ISP for broadband in many, many places in the US. In my city, they gave half to Comcast and half to another ***** ISP- both are actually cable companies, and neither will give you internet without paying for ***** TV too! If you move across town you have to switch ISPs, and here in D.C,, across town is a couple of miles at most. That's *****
magusat999, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2What I think is pathetic is all those small ISP's getting in there (at the website) and making comments that try and invalidate the article by attacking free the internet - but having nothing to say about the actual article itself. They fail to see that the actual law is agaist these practices - and standing up for Comcast is NOT going to help them in the least - unless they have the big bucks to pay Comcast... and are willing to change into internet TV providers!
blueletter, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1I hate comcast with every fiber in my body. If it wasn't the only service available in my area I would drop them in a heart beat. They are nothing but trouble. Their HD is terrible, same with their download and upload speeds.I also know fore sure they throttle my connection almost everyday. I cant wait for AT&T to be available in my area. Hell I will even move to get another service if this stuff actually starts to happen.
- scheckler, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1When I lived in an area where comcast had no competition (They had bought out the local cable company), my service from them was absolutely terrible. Now that I live in an area where they have competition for cable, voice, and internet from no less than 3 other sources, their service is good.
  
  Coincidence? Comcast stops the ***** when they have to actually compete.
FearFactory, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4Comcast knows its dying, once Verizon FIOS deployment gains more momentum Comcast will become extinct.
- Elranzer, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3There needs to be more fiber optic services than FIOS. Verizon's monopoly on FIOS-type networks has caused them to just stop caring about most markets (it's been 3-4 years and my metro area still doesn't have it!). When will another company come in and offer a FIOS-type ISP??
  - Coolkid11, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Actually, the government is partially to fault here. I called to see if Fios was available in my area and they told me that Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and AT&T had the internet for my region reserved or something along those lines.
Noods, on 07/11/2008, -1/+6So let me get this straight.

The FCC prevents companies from entering markets where there is only one ISP. Then it gives those monopolies billion dollar subsides to develop their product and ignore alternative technologies. How are other companies supposed to enter these markets legally or financially?

The real joke here is that pro-government people ignore the fact that the government is creating the monopoly and you hand the whole market over to the same dumb ***** who just passed telecom immunity. What the *****?!?

Buried as inaccurate.
InorganicMatter, on 07/11/2008, -2/+3What Comcast wants is the kind of business practices that would make Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller proud. What's sad is, they seem to be doing it 100% legally so far. Where's the monopoly breakup already?
- Noods, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2What are they doing wrong? It is the FCC that is preventing other companies from entering the markets legally. It was the government subsides that prevented other companies from effectively competing. Under those conditions how can a monopoly not occur?
armakaryk, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5to summarize: "What Comcast wants. Your Soul."
s0m31john, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4"I am so sick of you freedom fanatics."

Looks like you made a typo, I fixed it for you. I'm sick of freedom too, I hope the government will tell me what to get at the store this afternoon, I have a hard time thinking for myself.
smackhappymappy, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2I wish I had some alternatives in my neighborhood. Unfortunately Comcast is the only option and they of course bend me over for it. Friends of ours 20 miles away pay Comcast significantly less because they have Verizon FIOS as an alternative.
evilgold, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1http://cablehack.net
theflash42, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Just changed over to FIOS yesterday. At least for then internet, unless you like being whored out by Comcast.
Taiyoryu, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Obligatory DUH!

That said, any company supplying "tubes" wants to do this. Just look at Verizon. If there's profit in an action and there's nothing hindering a company from doing that action, that action will be done. However. you've got a serious conflict of interest if you're not just delivering content but producing it as well.
sysop073, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1How many times can people post the same comment, that Comcast costs more and sucks more in places where they have a monopoly. You think? You're defining how competition works, this isn't a new discovery
xerodustrial, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2You guys know that SaveTheInternet is an astroturf organization created and primarily funded by the telecommunications industry, right?

I'm not saying Comcast isn't evil (they are bastards, I should know, I am a customer), but SaveTheInternet isn't exactly kosher either.
Bluezdood, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1Ehem..
http://digg.com/tech_news/What_Comcast_Got
- Bluezdood, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Wow, guess diggers would rather whine than learn.
redscofield, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5THIS IS COMCASSSSSSSST!!!
enjrgrhydr, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1wow................................................. they would do that.
Tantrum, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I hate comcast but am thinking about switching back. I have two choices, neither of them good (just like voting for a president i guess ) . I can go att dsl or comcast , both of them have so far successfully managed to keep Verizon FiOS out of this area. ATT can't match Comcast's speed now. I had comcast but wanted 700k upload service and att was providing that for 35/month and comcast wanted 80/month at the time. So i switched. Now comcast has a 2meg upload service and att tops out at 700k, the price is 20/month more than att so that's not great but it is the best amount of upload speed i can get in the Bay Area until att adds a new level of service of Verizon finally gets here. VERIZON where are you ?!
kd1s, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2It's been demonstrated that Comcast isn't the only one doing 'traffic shaping'. Cox is guilty too, and I've even heard Verizon does it too. Hopefully the FCC will come down hard on this one.
quadkid, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I just switched from Comcast to Cox when i moved and the new sevrice is sooooo much better. Comcast was good, for the first couple days of the billing cycle. By the end of the month the service crawled. You could verify that with bandwidth tests. Cox has yet to screw with us.
stealthc, on 07/11/2008, -5/+1I HATE COMCAST & WANT THA GUBMINT TO FIX IT BECAUSE LAWS CAN FIX ANYTHING

CAN I HAZ DIGG PLZ
zezerik, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I've had no problems with Comcast; bittorrent or anything else. $54.95 is a joke but... no performance issues what-so-ever.
DrLeePhD, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1if comcast wants to own the net and offer certain specific sites based on subscription level as the article implies they should give me free access to some premium porn sites with my subscription. My comcast cable-tv service came with 6 months free showtime, Isn't that like the same thing?
mmilton, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1we need more choices. period
crazyronaldo, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0yes relly period. but Belarc Advisor version 7.2x intersting http://www.dodownload.net/utilities/belarc-advisor ... You computer install software last, this software serial number list viewer and system properties, software update a very subject in professionel software.
ameologger, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1true , trying to control the online flow .. that is way wrong and would affect millions of peoples worldwide ..
just imagine you won't be able to go where you are used to hang online all the time . that sucks !
Login or register to add a comment

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

What Comcast Wants

Login or register to add a comment