What is Digg?180 Comments
- borez, on 07/11/2008, -1/+402Because unlimited should mean unlimited, end of.
- Ljay90, on 07/11/2008, -1/+250Wait, did the FCC actually get it right this time?
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 07/11/2008, -1/+191"It is to be expected that - if the pipes are really congested - Comcast and other ISPs will have to step away from the all-you-can-eat plans they have been offering for years, now that people are actually using bandwidth they signed up for."
Or build "bigger" pipes? I pay them enough money. Sometimes I think cable and internet providers are more greedy than the ***** oil companies. - funchords, on 07/11/2008, -3/+120Ernesto and Torrentfreak,
Thank you for your great and early coverage of this story!
The technological power that enabled Comcast to block P2P uploads did not exist until late 2006 and was only employed mid-to-late 2007. Only one other ISP (Cox) seemed to do the same. I wouldn't say that this spells the end to unlimited access plans. We've had all-you-can-eat Broadband since before the year 2000.
Two ISPs got greedy and decided to put a halt to the Internet's growth, and spent their money on secret technology to steal purchased bandwidth back from their own customers.
Both got caught, publically, but only Comcast tried the tactics of deny, diffuse, deflect, defame, and disillusion.
When Comcast bought up large systems to become the largest Cable MSO, it did not buy the Internet. It has no right to change how it works -- not one byte of it.
How the world-wide Internet works is defined by all of us, through our participation and trust in the Internet Society and the Internet Engineering Task Force. To ensure interoperability and access for all, changes must be carefully deliberated and standardized there. The responsibility of operating the Internet in accordance with those standards is entrusted to companies providing access to it. It's not Comcast's job to change how the Internet works nor can it decide who or what gets preference upon it.
I haven't seen anything other than the press reports about something to be circulated around the FCC. I am hopeful that when the details are released that it serves to preserve and protect the Internet from those who would abuse their power and change it.
Robb Topolski - maverick999, on 07/11/2008, -1/+111Sweet justice.
- 321george, on 07/11/2008, -2/+88Up yours Comcast!
- onlyone0001, on 07/11/2008, -0/+83What about a PENALTY?
- bubbles19518, on 07/11/2008, -2/+54Bout ***** time.
- Splizxer, on 07/11/2008, -1/+52Haha, eat a dick comcast!
- Lugano, on 07/11/2008, -0/+51Any financial penalty would be passed on to the customers anyway.
- earnjam, on 07/11/2008, -0/+39"Sometimes I think cable and internet providers are more greedy than the ***** oil companies."
Amen. - maverick999, on 07/11/2008, -5/+41Story?
- freelio, on 07/11/2008, -0/+33Like it will happen, comcast will just find another way to circumvent the law and screw us over some more.
- monkeystick, on 07/11/2008, -0/+30..or start activating all that dark fiber already in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fiber - Celeborn27, on 07/11/2008, -2/+30VICTORY!!!!
- jblade, on 07/11/2008, -0/+26Eat it corporate America, the people are on the scoreboard.
Corporate America | 1534364
People | 1 - bman1984, on 07/11/2008, -2/+24Unfortunately, you are not correct. I support net neutrality, but this is not it. Throttling certain types of traffic is wrong. Very wrong. The thought that when you pay for a residential broadband service, you should be able to get your maximum download speed all month long is wrong as well. I know it sucks, but hear me out.
There are things such as dedicated service, or confirmed information rates if you will. These apply mostly to business and commercial packages. If you do not have one, unfortunately, you do not have the "right" to use your maximum amount of bandwidth, 24x7x365. Check out the price on a 10 Mbps dedicated service. There are obvious reasons it is more expensive. There is no network in the world that could handle all of its residential users using their maximum bandwidth simultaneously.
Unlimited hours does not mean unlimited bandwidth. Plain and simple. I will side with you in one way however. America, and Canada, face a problem. Huge corporations are not upgrading their infrastructure at a rate that is on par with the rest of the world. We are falling behind fast, and none of the ISPs seem to care. Huge profits are being made by communication companies, but where are the huge upgrades in infrastructure. The telecommunication companies are back at what they do best. They are trying to turn the internet access into a "feature" based system. With this system, little investment is required on their end. Almost no investment in physical infrastructure is needed. But they get profit. Much more profit than they would be able to get otherwise. In all reality, with the advances in technology, your internet speeds should go up without any increase in cost. I would not bet my life on that happening. The communication companies are thieves, and they serve only their wallets. - twiztidsinz, on 07/11/2008, -0/+21But if Comcast upgrades their infrastructure like they (and many other ISPs) were supposed to have have done then they cant roll around in the piles of $100 bills... They'd have to use $10 bills, and those just dont feel the same.
- dagamer34, on 07/11/2008, -0/+21Yep, Comcast got slapped in its face for essentially creating a "tiered" internet where Bittorrent traffic was shafted for their own personal gains. Especially when Bittorrent has several legal uses now, screaming piracy immediately is like Best Buy arresting a customer for buying a 160GB iPod because there's no way you can fill it up with legal music!
- austinnowlin, on 07/11/2008, -2/+23I am happy that this case seems to be moving in the right direction.
Does anyone know how long it will be before this actually affects me as a Comcast user?
I am not being a smartass.
I am actually curious to find the answer to this question. - catbeller, on 07/11/2008, -0/+19They were supposed to do it, indeed. In 1997, they were given billions of dollars in tax breaks for the specific purpose of bringing broadband fiber, etc, to the door. They reneged and kept the money. We've already paid for it. They committed fraud.
- AlienMushroom, on 07/11/2008, -0/+16Next month on Digg's front page: Comcast facing $1 trillion law suit.
- rowjimmy, on 07/11/2008, -0/+16he didn't; he wanted to check the file-system consistency of comcast.
- borez, on 07/11/2008, -2/+18I was really referring to ISP's here in the UK who use the the words "Unlimited Broadband" When most of the time it's nothing of the sort, I presume it's the same in the States.
- robbob, on 07/11/2008, -0/+16Where's the subscriber's rebate for this? Users must get paid for this. Comcast should suffer financially, not just a scolding from the FCC.
- richiewrt, on 07/11/2008, -0/+15After they have exhausted their 12 appeals, and the 12 appeals on their appeals.
- KunoJ, on 07/11/2008, -1/+16***** THE RIAA!!!
Wait sorry...wrong mob.
/changes sign...***** COMCAST!! - paulmer2003, on 07/11/2008, -1/+16Yay for negativity!
- zakatov, on 07/11/2008, -1/+14I would digg this a million times if I could. Fsck Comcast.
- skyshock1, on 07/11/2008, -0/+13Awesome!!!
Now for the part no one wants to talk about: How will the FCC enforce this?
.... - sugarazor, on 07/11/2008, -1/+14Yes, and now their foot is in the door. Can't wait to see where that leads.
- ralphthemagi, on 07/11/2008, -3/+16All they are going to do is get rid of unlimited all together, just like they did in the 3G market in the US. There is no longer any such thing as unlimited 3G access. Verizon, AT&T and Sprint now only offer service with a 5GB cap for $60/mo. There are no other plans, and no exceptions. AT&T and Sprint terminate you and charge you with a $200+ ETF, and Verizon charges you $256/GB in overage over 5GB. (FYI, a 5GB cap with a 1500Kbps connection is about 7 hours of intensive use or downloading.)
Expect to see the same thing happen in the cable market. The goal of the telecom & cable companies is to get everyone to pay the single price monopoly fee, and simply not service anyone who uses more than the average. This way they can maximize profits with a zero cost outlay because they never have to upgrade their infrastructure.
So now that Comcast can't throttle certain kinds of traffic, they are just going to limit it all together. $10 says that by the end of the year the only "unlimited" Comcast plan is the business cable for $200+/mo. - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+11So this stops Sandvine but it doesnt stop them from profiling and adding you to a degraded tear when you use to much.
Sure this will bring on Caps faster and 250 gigs isnt a lot. - toxicshok, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10This is Digg, you don't have to censor yourself.
- worminater, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10companies don't think like that. They'll increase their infrastructure investment when they *have* to; but what kind of cash cow would it be to just simply stick a cap and give "fines" to those who actually use any significant amount of bandwidth?
- inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10FCC FTW?
- aywwts4, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10Really, Almost every ISP has a bandwidth cap. Its just not advertised anywhere and remains a vauge shadowy number, until you cross it of course.
- richiewrt, on 07/11/2008, -1/+11Giant civil fines, passed on to the customer of course.
- Fatcheeseguy, on 07/11/2008, -0/+9Just the opposite of what I expected after the recent FISA act.
- conversekid, on 07/11/2008, -3/+12That's great, but I have a feeling that they're either going to come up with something else, secretly keep doing it, start reporting "illegal" traffic or a combination.
However, if the pessimist in me is proven wrong......
***** YEAH!!! - saphyrre, on 07/11/2008, -2/+11
Knowing Comcast, probably another 10 yers or so :) - GreenChaos, on 07/11/2008, -3/+12I'm still not getting Comcast internet in spite. But still, Yeah FCC for something good!
- DarkShroud, on 07/11/2008, -0/+9Comcast isn't even using DOCS 3 yet. They're supposed to be switching over some time soon. But yes it's time to activate all the damn fiber we actually have laid in this country.
- freff, on 07/11/2008, -0/+8You buried the lead here. This is a HUGE victory for Net Neutrality. We can all celebrate this one folks. The FCC got one right.
Screw Comcast. - say592, on 07/11/2008, -1/+8Epic. *****. Win.
- ConceptualTrap, on 07/11/2008, -0/+7250 isn't really THAT much to be fair. Especially if he's download tv series in HD.
Nevermind all the other bandwidth from streaming vid, sharing files, and downloading games.
Is it excessive? Totally. - paulmer2003, on 07/11/2008, -2/+8Ice-T ftw
- DarkShroud, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6All it takes in one ISP not to impose a limit cap and it goes down. A lot of ISPs do not have caps, I''ll soon be switching to one from Comcast.
- petrikigor, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6He's probably right about his main point, that the end of the unlimited internet as we know it is near, unless someone does something.
http://digg.com/tech_news/Charging_by_the_Byte_to_ ...
and
http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080614/1194785259060. ... - sockpuppets, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5I just wish they were honest about it. "Hey, what's this $4.99 "***** You Surcharge" on my bill?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
No big deal, vassever. Bruno is our latest guest for Digg Dialogg. 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is