digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at downloadsquad.com

Comcast could receive $1.77 Trillion fine

downloadsquad.com — According to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a group of consumer advocates and legal scholars have asked the commission to look into Comcast discriminating against specific types of data (read: Bit Torrent). The groups have also requested the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 per affected subscribers.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • otw7, on 01/09/2008, -4/+698I really hope Comcast pays a huge fine, just because they thought it would be cheaper to throttle bit torrent.
    • blackmage439, on 01/09/2008, -1/+109I think it's funny for all of that company's documented offenses, this is what gets them burned.
      • Vektuz, on 01/09/2008, -1/+19Its not funny. ... its vitally important.
        Getting away with this means that they'll try to get away with something else soon again. For example, throttling skype becuase it "competes" with their ***** voip service, or throttling newsgroups or other TV-related services or even individual websites because they feel it encroaches on their business model.
        • ChaosMotor, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4Good, they're only killing themselves. I'm working on a project to make ISPs and cellular companies obsolete - no more filtering, no more spying, no more bills, no more *****. Read more here http://digg.com/tech_news/Services_Middlemen_and_G ...

          I'm updating the blog later today with more info on centralized vs decentralized services, be sure to check my website http://chaosmotor.com often as I add more info.
          • skunkman62, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2if comcast gets the $1.77 Trillion fine, guess who's cable bill is going up.
    • donkz, on 01/09/2008, -4/+151Am I the only one who thinks this publicity trick is never going to happen?
      • GliTCH82, on 01/09/2008, -0/+42If it raises awareness, maybe that's enough to deal Comcast a blow.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8Agreed, some bad publicity you can't buy yourself out of.
        • skunkman62, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1how is this going to give comcast a blow? they will pass the fine to their customers.
      • brad3378, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Since this fine is about the same amount as the cost of the war in Iraq, I'm going to have to agree with you.
      • kaelyiesta, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Kevin Martins just wants to look nice. The public is starting to become aware of what a ***** douche he is, just like is predecessor.
        • ChaosMotor, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1In public, he's all about the consumer. Behind closed doors, he's sucking media owner *****. I'm working to bring down this whole corrupt system. I'll be updating my blog at http://chaosmotor.com with more info over the next few weeks, today I'll be discussing centralized vs decentralized systems. For the first article in the series about middlemen and gatekeepers, check out http://digg.com/tech_news/Services_Middlemen_and_G ...
        • Anath3ma, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Blogspam = FAIL
          • ChaosMotor, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Yeaaaah, this is all original content, thanks.
    • daza, on 01/09/2008, -3/+52They will never get a huge fine like that, it's like the RIAA suing me for every copyrighted MP3 I have - $1,715,750,000 (at $250,000 per offence).
      • NichowA, on 01/09/2008, -0/+62No one thought that the chick who got sued for 24 songs on Kazaa would end up paying over $9000 per song, either.
        • dafragsta, on 01/09/2008, -1/+14She still hasn't. I don't think there has been a case yet where someone has gotten that kind of ruling and accepted it.
          • dinostabOMG, on 01/09/2008, -0/+10Can you link us? I am curious as to what developments have... developed.
          • MtheoryX, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8[citation needed]
        • Maloney, on 01/09/2008, -0/+20dugg for over 9000
    • kent1146, on 01/09/2008, -2/+81How do you think they are going to cover this fine? They're gonna pass it on to the consumer.... in small bits, like a "$1.75 recovery fee" to each and every customer per month.

      • cawpin, on 01/09/2008, -3/+37Not if they issue the fine correctly. They can specify that they not bill the customers for it.
        • LuckyASN, on 01/09/2008, -0/+31They'll still find a way to do it. Comcast is forever always upping their bills annually.
          • LocalDocal, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8Exactly. Comcast would simply add a new charge and list it as something else (for example: the oh-so-popular "convenience fee" or, better yet, "processing fee").
          • Spuy767, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8A LocalDocal. I ***** a ***** brick when I signed up for electronic billing, and my cable company hit me with a $2.39 convenience charge. They charge me for saving them money. Nice.
        • stripes, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5The only way to do that is to issue the fine then revoke Comcast's charter (dissolve the company). Otherwise even if they are prohibited from charging customers for the fine they will charge someone else (their advertisers maybe), and the money from the advertisers that would have been profit is gone. Now to make that profit they charge the costumers more, but that only covers profit, and maybe buildouts. Not the fine, that is payed elsewhere.

          They money has to come from _somewhere_, and the only real place is the costumers.

          A non-fine punishment may work better, but they are rarely imposed ("you have to auction off your cable monopoly in these areas", or "no expansions for a decade", or "you can't offer phone service", or "you have to wholesale your infrastructure to other companies that can then sell your services to the consumer").
          • ChaosMotor, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1The money COULD come from their own profits, but won't, because they know they can take the same profits and push the costs off onto their customers.
        • Vektuz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3well then... just keep upping the fine until they'd have to charge each customer 200 extra bucks.
          Then their customers will flee.
      • thecarpe, on 01/09/2008, -10/+2The truth of business is that money, no matter how it's earmarked, will get absorbed somewhere. If the advertisers pay incrementally more to pick up the fine, the consumer will eventually find this in a justified higher cost of goods or services because of increased marketing expenses. Einstien's theory of relativity can apply here as well (roughly).
      • Cyber_Akuma, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5So I get the money, then switch to another broadband IS..... oh *****.
      • EricJD, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1That's why I have Qwest internet. Price for life guarantee!
      • SubaruPowah, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Also, Qwest doesn't block Bittorrent.
      • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7So after getting fined $195,000 per subscriber, they will recover this at a rate of $1.75 per month? This wold take a little over 9,285 years.... Let 'em try.
        • RandomNetUser, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1But historically, Comcast will increase rates on varying things 2-3 times per year. Each time, the increase may be anywhere from $1 - $3.... So maybe it'll only take 1000-2000 years.

          That's totally doable. ;-)
      • cranium, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2For a huge fine the only way they will be able to pay it is to sell off parts of the company. If they're forced to do that, it is a significant blow to the company and it does not necessarily need to be passed along to consumers.
        • heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1I think they'd try to raise their rates first.
    • thecarpe, on 01/09/2008, -22/+3Think of Einstien's theory of general relativity - the govt is creating an expense for Comcast. Once created, expenses don't just dissipate. They change forms, they change hands, and they change names, but they are not destroyed. E=MC(squared) breaks down like this: Error (comcast's dumb move) =(is shouldered by Marketers (advertising dollars) and Customers (on their bills and on the price of the advertisers' goods).
      • yayster, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3And the C is squared!
      • Recuso, on 01/09/2008, -2/+17That was the dumbest thing I ever read. And I accidentally reported your comment (because it was so dumb)
      • faskill, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3Damnit ,you're still commenting. Please stop.
      • SpikeyFreak, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3Thanks man, I really needed something to make me stupider today, I was getting too smart. Your post really fit the bill.
      • Spuy767, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7I think that it's more the first law of thermodynamics that he's thinking of. "Energy can be neither created or detroyed, it can only change forms."
    • yeti22, on 01/09/2008, -9/+41This is a ridiculous thread. The only time the article mentions the absurd fine is to say, "We don't really think Comcast will be forced to fork out the projected $1.77 trillion", and that gets turned into "Comcast could pay $1.77 trillion fine". Let me spell it out for you: No, they could not. Did you even look to see where that number came from? 9.1 million total subscribers does not equal 9.1 million internet-subscribers-using-bit-torrent, and the $195,000 per subscriber number has that fresh-from-someone's-ass aroma about it.

      Jesus people, do you really accept everything you read this uncritically? This is not remotely connected to the real world.

      The headline should read: Unnamed advocate group makes up large, ***** number for Comcast fine, blogger multiplies it by even larger ***** number, Diggers plan what to do with their portion of the fine. A little wordy, but 100% factual.
      • Solarbip, on 01/09/2008, -16/+7Dude, blame the article, not the readers. And um, your mom.
    • provost, on 01/09/2008, -23/+5What the hell!?

      I thought you libertarians hated government regulation and embraced the free market? If you were actually not a bunch of hypocrites then you would be up in arms about this fining. They are being fined because the 'big scary government' is punishing them for having a business model. I thought it was supposed to be the market, not the government that would take care of these kinds of problems.

      You ron paul morons can't have it both ways. If you are a true Ron Paul supporter, then you should be pissed about this. In my opinion, this is totally typical. I have never met a libertarian that didnt say one thing and do another.
      • TalaBAM, on 01/09/2008, -3/+5I had my mouse over the thumbs up button until the last sentence.
      • dinostabOMG, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6Wait, who are you talking to?

        For one thing, the "free" market does depend on competitive practices. For another, not everyone agrees with Ron Paul about every one of his positions, but many still agree that he is the best man for the job overall.
      • cwabray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I don't want the FCC to start fining ISP's because some customer doesn't agree with them.

        So .. who exactly are you addressing?
    • LongShlong, on 01/09/2008, -8/+7Where does all that money go, though?

      Lot's of people will lose jobs at Comcast (honest employees unwittingly working away), while the fine money will go to either lawyers or to some other dastardly hellscape.
      • cwabray, on 01/09/2008, -3/+2don't talk sense to Diggtards, it might scare 'em
      • LongShlong, on 01/09/2008, -6/+1Seems to be, as I'm getting thumbs down.
        I wish I had four hands so I could give these ***** four thumbs down!
      • dgp1, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6-Honest- employees at Comcast?!?! Yeah right!

        I'd write more but I have to go have my bill corrected for the 97th time.
    • Scottamus, on 01/09/2008, -1/+11Dugg for absurdly high number that has a 0 percent chance of being fined, payed, or even asked for but still gives some blind hope for justice to millions of torrentors.
    • neeyo, on 01/09/2008, -3/+2And the obvious point that hasn't been brought up yet - even if Comcast was fined this money, where do you think they'd get the money from? Answer: you, the subscriber. Lose/Lose.
    • kaelyiesta, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1More money to lawyers, higher cable prices and nothing really changes. If we really want a free internet, we have got to cut this problem off at the source. We need to get rid of government granted and subsidized monopolies over the network infrastructure OUR tax money built. Get rid of all the groups trying to take control of the internet, and let us have some real competition, real choice and then you will see real change. Right now we are voting with our wallets in a rigged election, so to speak.
    • ViP3R16, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Diggers against Comcast!
      http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/vip3r/
    • thepatster, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2This is on the level of the person who has sued the US government for $3 quadrillion for Katrina. Not gonna happen
  • djgump35, on 01/09/2008, -5/+41I don't know what kind of fine they may get, but I highly doubt they get that 195,000 for each of 9.1 million customers, but I do wonder if you would have to implicate yourself on your download records to submit times you think you were throttled, or if they will just look at the company top to bottom. To that end, I wonder if the whole thing will be public.

    Doesn't this kind of support the thought that net neutrality goes against our rights, especially as they are interpreted and defended by the fcc?
    • yunus, on 01/09/2008, -1/+13If everyone had to allow their download records to be aired in open court to collect on this fine the money would go from Comcast, into our hands for a minute then into the hands of the RIAA/MPAA.
      • faskill, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6The internets aren't just for sharing illegal content. A file is a file... data is data... neither have to be copyrighted or illicit material
      • RyeBrye, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Last time I checked, linux distributions weren't at all involved with the MPAA / RIAA - but you do use BitTorrent to get them...
    • vypergts, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4IANAL but if the FCC is able to demonstrate that they are actually capable of regulating net neutrality in this manner than the whole argument gets more complicated since it would essentially give credence to those who don't see a need for additional legislation dealing with net neutrality. I absolutely love seeing Comcast getting bitch-slapped, however I'm pretty sure that any action taken against them becomes a double-edged sword for the overall cause.
      • Spuy767, on 01/09/2008, -2/+4YOU ANAL? I realy ***** hate it when people use obscure convoluted acronyms cause they're too ***** lazy to type out "I am not a lawyer." or some other phrase. I always have to google the ***** acronym, and then I can't take your post seriously.
        • Phisolo, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2IANAL has been in common comment use since the late 90s. If you are new to these thing you might not want to hang out at sites like digg.

        • EntangledPhysx, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I dont know what IANAL is either, and i've been on the tubes for about 10 years.
    • protogenxl, on 01/09/2008, -1/+12If you need proof that will not implicate yourself just torrent linux distros
  • dynacrylic, on 01/09/2008, -6/+387$195,000 per customer is a lot!

    Now I'm curious, how will I be receiving this $195,000?

    (I would gladly even take $1000 at this point.)
    • apb1991, on 01/09/2008, -1/+211By the time lawyers are done you might get $10
      • kevinmotel, on 01/09/2008, -3/+77thats cool. i can then take the 10 dollars, go out, and buy a CD. nah i think i'll just bittorrent it
        • dynacrylic, on 01/09/2008, -32/+3Why go buy the cd with that $10. When, and if they win, you'll be able to download that CD from a torrent.

          That's $10 towards the increasing gas prices.
        • robotosaurus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2You should mount the $10 as your official compensation from Comcast, for its aesthetic value.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1No you'll end up owning them money LOL
    • aresef, on 01/09/2008, -1/+29In pennies. 19,500,000 pennies.
      • DeathMarcher, on 01/09/2008, -1/+16...OK, deal.
      • Ouze, on 01/09/2008, -1/+13It would be pretty awesome if they delivered 2 of these bad boys: http://kokogiak.com/megapenny/seven.asp
        (not spam, swear)
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/09/2008, -0/+631.3 tons of pure One Cent POWER.
        • Spuy767, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Copper is actually worth more as scrap metal than as a penny. Albiet, only a few tenths of a percent. The $200,340.48 in monetary value is actually worth about $206,000 as scrap copper.
      • Creamedweasel, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Actually if they paid in pennies, you could sue them again. I forgot the cases but several companies (stores, post office, as well as bill collectors) have won lawsuits for people who pay large fees in pennies.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 01/09/2008, -0/+43I think it is a government fine, not a class action lawsuit, so consider it a tax, and the FCC keeps all of it. This is one of the reasons I wish we had restitution in this country, cause we should be getting more than a little bit of it.
      • adventflux, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1I'm all for getting money, but why should we? What have we done besides steal material? Material that even if Comcast didn't throttle torrents, we'd be getting for free anyway?
        • rarson, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1Not everyone uses torrents to ***** steal, douchebag.
    • gachamp2, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7After the Govt fines, we could do a class action, most of the hard work at that point is done. Thanks FCC, Then you could receive some money.
    • Woecip, on 01/09/2008, -2/+8Unfortunately , its a fine not restitution. We will see 0
      • AbsurdParadox, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1And now you see the real problem with our legal system.
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Correct. If Comcast pays a fine, it is a forfeiture to the FCC. They don't pay the subscribers.
    • exomni, on 01/09/2008, -6/+8It's a FINE. Those $1.77 trillion would be paid to the FCC.
      • kittnerrules, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3::Clears throat:::....sarcasm exomni. Jesus.
      • jon30041, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5So... what's our national debt at now?

        Put that money where it MATTERS! Take down the companies that are hurting our country and use their money to dig us out of this gorram hole!
        • Tommyhawk, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah except instead of using it to pay down the debt they'll find some new program that actually costs 3 trillion and they'll have to borrow the other half!
      • Nickdotnet, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1what the ***** did the FCC ever do for me?!
    • cruzlee, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1And of course they earned way more than $195,000 from every customer, so they will have no trouble coughing that up.

      Here's a better fine: "One HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!!"
  • sotopheavy, on 01/09/2008, -6/+63They push us we push back. They throttle us we throttle them. I would be glad to have the FCC finally do something for the consumer. They will never have to pay this fine though. The worst that will happen is they will be warned by the FCC and Comcast will stop the throttling to avoid the fine.
    • weeeezzll, on 01/09/2008, -1/+13Which will be enough for me...
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7And I'm sure along with that sternly worded warning, they'll rush right out to change their practices, like Exxon and GE have.
    • addiktion, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Remember its not called throttling per Comcast's words. They like to use clever words to try to make it seem like they aren't throttling, when in fact they are.
    • jjmckay, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1First and foremost, the FCC is out for itself, not you or I. Get a job there and find out first hand.
  • 89vision, on 01/09/2008, -15/+310I hope they reimburse me for all the music I have had to pay for since they started throttling my bittorrent traffic!
    • wes00mertes, on 01/09/2008, -1/+29Sooo, nothing?
    • Okari, on 01/09/2008, -14/+7You don't need bittorrent to download music.
      • 89vision, on 01/09/2008, -9/+1thanx Zer0 Cool
      • EarlOfLade, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8That's right...
        You don't need bittorrent, http or ftp to get all the music, movies, games or porn you want and on top of it all, at top speed and your good friend, the ISP, host it all for you!
      • breezytrees, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3that's right we have itunes... ha... ha............ good one..
    • Rocketbird, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6They throttle uploading, not downloading.
      • Spuy767, on 01/09/2008, -3/+2Are you dense? It is bit torrent; by the very nature of the system, if you throttle one, the speed of the other suffers.
        • Rocketbird, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Not everybody on bit torrent is using comcast, idiot. If it were a 100% comcast-based torrent, then sure, that sucks. I had comcast over winter break and had no problem getting good download speeds from healthy torrents. Sure, I had to leave my torrent running a bit longer than normal so I could get a good ratio, but downloading was not an issue.
          Just in case, in the event that you were referring to only being allowed to download at double your upload rate, that number is determined by what your max upload rate is set at, not the speed at which you can realistically upload.
        • MusicalGenius, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1I guess I'm just as dense to realize that uploading is not downloading and you can throttle one and not the other...

          Besides, I get great speeds using Comcast.
    • MusicalGenius, on 01/09/2008, -8/+1Wow, so as you steal someones music.... you should be reimbursed for having to pay for it now??

      I mean, I like torrents, I'm not criticizing that...but your argument is stupid.
      • Jeffler, on 01/09/2008, -0/+10His argument is literally a joke.
        • deezeejoey, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6MusicalGenius should change his name to MusicaIdiot.
        • 89vision, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Thank you for realizing this.
  • Error601, on 01/09/2008, -5/+37No, they couldn't. Totally ridiculous claims by some advocate group does not even enter the "could" category.
    • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1The only ridiculous part of this is the "per subscriber" dollar amount of $195,000. However, we all scream RIDICULOUS when we see the RIAA talk about $50,000 dollars PER SONG in their court cases. Yet, the courts let it through. If this goes to court, and it should, don't expect to see Comcast saying how ridiculous they think it is.
    • active1x0, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1A man can still dream.
    • TheZorch, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1There have been reports that what Comcast is doing has been affecting other networks adversely. If this is true and can be proven that its Comcast's network shaping methods there won't be fines in this ... there'll be jail time.
  • GunbladeVIII, on 01/09/2008, -3/+44I'd like for Comcast to be smacked silly with fines, but the problem is that they're likely to pass that cost on to their customers. Not a good thing for those of us in Comcast's Philadelphia Monopoly Zone who don't yet have access to FiOS...
    • wes00mertes, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Perhaps, but imagine if they did try and pass that cost on to consumers. That'd be a huge increase in bills and many of their consumers who weren't in monopoly zones would change service. Meaning trouble for Comcast unless they raised rates again, meaning more changes of service etc. Eventually I think monopoly zones would be recognized by other companies who would promptly set up shop wherever they could.

      Although, I'm sure Comcast won't be fined anywhere near 1.77 trillion dollars so don't lose any sleep over this.
      • notinuseyet, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2I imagine the dsl / fios provider would simply raise rates also. ahh, competition
        • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Actually it isn't competition, it's an oligopoly and without busting out some game theory on this specific industry, it's hard to tell where the other companies would fall. It could be very possible that lowering rates would be the key to a bigger profit for DSL/FIOS.
      • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2It's incorrect to believe that Comcast would raise rates. Comcast is most likely operating at a profit maximization point and any rate change would most likely reduce their profit. They would probably maintain their profit maximizing point and just "suck it up".
      • EvilMoose, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Comcast recently bought a huge chunk of Monopoly pieces... (Former Illinois Insight subscribers)
        I think they have almost the complete set to win the plasma tv now.
    • GRTWHT, on 01/09/2008, -5/+3Thank God at least one person realizes that these fines hurt the consumers more than anyone else.
    • caustikBT, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Or anywhere else Comcrap offers service. I'm in one of their monopolies :(
    • endrest, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Wrong, wrong, wrong. You actually think that the fines are going to come from the operations account? These fines are directed at their profits-only account. Secondly, I think that it's probably illegal for them to 'pass the buck' to the consumer just because they were found guilty of jilting the consumer in the first place. Some board member(s) and/or some lackey below them will get the boot for instituting the policy and implementing the hardware (Sandvine).

      But, I am curious to see exactly where these fines go. Even though the fine will be nowhere near 1.7T, billions and even millions of dollars will probably end up in some government coffer that was once the publics' money.

      I also write this from a Comcast-owned line. It really sucks that I can't get service from some other company. The worst part is that I pay $60/month and the most I get is 40K/s up. Colorado is the domain of the conspiring oligarchy of Comcast and Qwest. Colorado sucks big monkey-nuts in this respect.
  • bightchee, on 01/09/2008, -35/+202If elected Ron Paul will personally eat the 1.77 trillion single dollar bills to prevent the government from getting it. He will also personally shoot dead every IRS employee. Vote Paul!
    • timbo458, on 01/09/2008, -17/+20If elected Ron Paul will be the government! Just like any other candidate!
    • warcin, on 01/09/2008, -8/+37And RP is about as likely to be elected as this fine has of being applied, in other words none at all
      • breezytrees, on 01/09/2008, -6/+16:'-(
      • jossawye, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4And that makes me a saaaaaad panda.
        • jon30041, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3Good! You pandas need to stop suckling at the human teat! Go and get a REAL job!

          Being a tourist attraction is NOT a real job, by the way. I'm thinking a bouncer at a bar or something.
      • doronster195, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1He doesn't have a chance because the majority of America are sheep like you... they won't vote for what's right just because they believe that it doesn't have a chance. This is why America will continue voting in terrible presidents.
    • Twoodge, on 01/09/2008, -13/+3Stop spamming.
      • Spuy767, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Hey Twoodge, I'l like you do meet a good friend of mine. Twoodge, Sarcasm. . . Sarcasm, Twoodge.
    • danconia, on 01/09/2008, -2/+5$1.77 trillion and he still wouldn't be able to place above 4th in the primaries. Damn I'm going to be annoyed at the primary results for a while...
    • active1x0, on 01/09/2008, -6/+5If a man, any man, ran on the platform of shooting every IRS employee, I think this country would have a revolution on its hands.
    • hasahugedig, on 01/09/2008, -5/+3are you saying you like the IRS? I worry about you.
    • wlfrd, on 01/09/2008, -5/+2Well, it's relevant; Ron Paul and Barack Obama specifically, are on the side of Net Neutrality. Others? I'm not American, so I'm not following the Primary terribly well.
      • cwabray, on 01/09/2008, -5/+2obviously you aren't, because Ron Paul is AGAINST net neutrality - and rightly so.
        • jon30041, on 01/09/2008, -2/+4Rightly so? I like knowing that I don't have to explain myself about where I go on the internet, and everything is open to me. I don't have to pay extra for connections to servers using a different ISP.
        • Scheissen, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2He's for net neutrality and that can only happen in a free market. lawl some people don't know about Net Neutrality, it's the ISPs wanting other big companies to pay for using more bandwidth and I'm fine with that cause that will force the webpages to be better coded and designed.
      • kaelyiesta, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Actually, Ron Paul is against net neutrality as defined by using government to further regulate the internet, or more precisely the ISPs.

        If anything, it would be best to say he is for a free internet. One that is in the control of the people, and not dominated by government backed monopolies like we have currently. The net neutrality issue wouldn't even be a problem in a truly free market, but as long as we have this partnership of business and government both supporting each other at the customer/tax payers expense, we will have results like you see today: a mockery of competition, no incentive to change when instead business can just send some money to washington, and a few public displays from government to appear to be on our side. By removing government from that equation, you allow people to again have control over business.
    • Merrick178, on 01/09/2008, -5/+4If Ron Paul is elected the annoying spam everywhere is just likely to continue for the next 4 years. I'll vote for Hillary before I vote Ron Paul just because I'm sick of the damn spam.
      • snowmew, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3End the Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton cycle. We need change.
  • RyanDFA, on 01/09/2008, -93/+8MY NAME IS ROBERT NEVILLE. I'M A SURVIVOR LIVING IN NEW YORK CITY. I AM BROADCASTING ON ALL AM FREQUENCIES. I WILL BE AT THE SOUTH STREET SEAPORT EVERY DAY AT MID DAY WHEN THE SUN IS HIGHEST IN THE SKY. IF YOU ARE OUT THERE, IF ANYONE IS OUT THERE. I CAN PROVIDE FOOD. I CAN PROVIDE SHELTER. I CAN PROVIDE SECURITY. IF THERE'S ANYBODY OUT THERE... ANYBODY. PLEASE, YOU'RE NOT ALONE
  • Mockylock, on 01/09/2008, -2/+105I think I paid that much for my Comcast bill, just last year. Why isn't THAT investigated?
  • CroMag, on 01/09/2008, -19/+7YEahhh Sure.

    That'll happen. Buried for gayness.
    • luchid, on 01/09/2008, -5/+13Please refrain from posting on digg until you hit puberty. Thank you.
      • Brad324, on 01/09/2008, -4/+6he makes a good point, though.
      • djbon2112, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3... or evolve to a level of intelligence similar to ours. "CroMag", "CroMagnon man"?
  • EvileSpawn, on 01/09/2008, -0/+25fine or no - their customer service is still going to suck
  • timbo458, on 01/09/2008, -2/+95Comcast won't pay a penny, their subscribers will.
    • DavidYeah, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1You don't think people will be a little bitter once Comcast rolls out that they're going to pay for their fine via fees and rate hikes? That'd be suicide.
      • LuckyASN, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4Most people don't have a choice in the matter. If they want cable, they only get one provider in their area.
        • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3People DO have a choice, and EVEN A MONOPOLY CAN NOT overprice their services or goods. There are plenty of monopolies that have folded because they thought they could overprice their service/good. In reality, a local monopoly (which most of the broadband providers are not anymore), operates above the most efficient point in regards to total cost, but they have the benefit of being able to charge above their costs. However, there is still a point at which they maximize their profit and that is where they usually end up. Changing rates or production, usually reduces profit.
          • LuckyASN, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1No, they charge you by raping you in the ass. And every year they go deeper.
    • breezytrees, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2welcome to inelastic demand and a corporate monopoly!
      • jjmckay, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Welcome to your local government backed monopoly, corporatism! Complain at your local county board.
    • Doubledown, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1seems like satellite will win if this goes through
    • ilovebass, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0I've been browsing Digg for about a year now and I finally created an account to digg this. I just finished taking econ1.
    • Rileyper, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1F*#&, my cable companies switches over to comcast in 4 weeks
  • hermes369, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5I understand that Comcast wants to do tv downloads at high bandwidth any guess as to how iTunes or Netflix downloads will be affected? What happened to net neutrality?
  • slapded, on 01/09/2008, -0/+20yeah but u can get internet/tv/phone for 29.99 for the first 6 months! /sarcasm
    • Slizzo, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0I can get VOIP for 24.95 per month with the first month free. Woo hoo woo hooo hoo!
    • astrotrain, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Comcast is like a drug pusher... keeps giving you little bits here and there for a small price (aka their 6 month deals), and then !WHAM! hits you with a $200.00 bill without telling you at the end of the six months.
    • endrest, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1You can get all three services for only $30/month for six months? No way. I think that's gotta be $30 for each type of service. Hence, if you want all three, that's ~ $100/month after taxes and fees. At least, here in Colorado, we weren't offered that type of deal. Ten dollars for each three services per month. I'd pay that, even if I didn't use their VOIP. We give them over $100/month for cable and internet alone!

      I've been trying to get my roommate to switch to Dish, as DirecTV is a piece of News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) --Dish also offers better hardware and the interface for their DVR is easier on the eyes than Tivo, IMHO. Comcast's DVR looks like it was made by a couple kids down the street messing with Photoshop. Shame on you Comcast!!!
  • yujie, on 01/09/2008, -3/+11They need more, 1.77 is too low
    • NichowA, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6It's almost 8 times their revenue for 2007, and 80 times their actual profit. Clearly not a harsh amount at all.
  • scrappyvintage, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7It makes me wonder what influence Comcast had to throttle such traffic. What I mean is, WHAT WAS THE POINT of them doing it in the first place? There's something (or someone) we're missing here. I have COX, they send out letters when they've noticed you upload a lot of *****. They will threaten to shut down your service, but I've never heard of them actually going through with it. Anyone have any clues?
    • Bantec, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I was about to post the same question. I think the bigger scandal may be why they did this, and on who's behalf they were acting. I don't think it would require a thorough investigation though. They have close ties with the entertainment community and thus the RIAA and other.... scumbags. What continuously amazes me in regards to these companies is their complete lack of concern regarding their customer satisfaction. If you switch to Verizon FIOS, you are switching to a company that was involved in illegal wiretapping. They just don't give a crap. If it comes to paying the fines or buying a few public officials.... well the officials are cheaper.
    • Jellybob, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8They're doing it because like every other ISP, they don't have enough bandwidth at their backbones for all their customers to actually use the connection their paying for at full speed. Throttling BitTorrent is a fairly simple way to stop a few high-traffic users clogging up the network, and preventing everyone else from checking their e-mails and web browsing.

      I'm not saying it's right. If you're paying for xMbps thats what you should get, but I really don't think it's some sort of conspiracy, just cost cutting.
      • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3Actually you are saying: "They don't and have never actually had the bandwidth they advertise." It's more a question of them being forced to be honest with their advertised speed and FINALLY being forced to reduce rates when they can not provide a certain bandwidth in your area.
    • SpaceRibs, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Well doesn't it start a series of actions favorable to them? Put the RIAA to one side for a moment, because P2P is the broadbands appeal, and they know it.

      Making restrictions and attacking protocols allows them to put forth tiers of bandwidth, fines for overages of bandwidth, and all sorts of fun money making crap that the cell phone companies have been doing for years, all in the name of protecting joe shmoe from hackers plugging his tubes.

      When the FCC comes knocking, they only have to put forth the idea that they are the victim of these damn consumers.
    • cwabray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Cox won't do anything. I upload nearly a TB/month and I've never received a letter. I reset my IP address every few days, but I'm sure they can keep track regardless.
  • JonesJohnson, on 01/09/2008, -4/+119I downloade a lot of torrents using my Comcast cable connection. Generally, they're movies of the 16:9 widescreen variety, which is coincidentally, equivalent to a 1.77 ratio. 1.77 ratio, $1.77 trillion.

    It all makes sense now.
  • smackafiyah, on 01/09/2008, -3/+42[dr. evil]1.77 trillion dollars![/dr evil]
    • Toddward, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2[Council of World Leaders]lol[/Council of World Leaders]
  • floatingpoints, on 01/09/2008, -1/+12No, they really couldn't.
  • JonesJohnson, on 01/09/2008, -10/+2I download torrent movies all the time with my Comcast connection.
    They're generally of the 16:9 widescreen variety, which coincidentally, is a 1.77:1 ratio. 1.77 ratio, $1.77 trillion fine.
    It all makes sense now.
    • raynar, on 01/09/2008, -8/+1you're so cool. you realize your not anonymous when you download bittorrent, right?
    • Lythium, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6Any particular reason you felt compelled to post that a second time?
    • JonesJohnson, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1@raynar: Actually, I prefer renting/buying Blu-ray, but my wallet took a beating recently so I've had to settle for torrents lately.
      @Lythium: It was my first time commenting since the implementation of this new comment system. I didn't see the first one after I posted it. I didn't know there was a delay this time around.
      • zanderscoffee, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1There's also a reply button so you don't have to use the silly "@"s.
        • JonesJohnson, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but I only wanted to do one reply instead of two. Now I ended up doing two just to reply to your comment about the reply button.
  • Bantec, on 01/09/2008, -2/+53This will be struck down by a few key members of the FCC committee. A few months later they will resign their positions to 'work in the public sector', and coincidentally Comcast will hire them to extreeeeeemly lucrative and prestigious positions. They will deny any conflict of interest and we will get totally screwed by one of our wonderfull government agencies once again.
    • anonydigg, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4you mean private sector.
    • jjmckay, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1[sarcasm] What? The government doesn't lie or screw us over and partner with corporations!! [/sarcasm]
  • Lanage, on 01/09/2008, -7/+11.77T isn't that much, now 1770000000, thats A LOT...
    • lornefs, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6That's 1.77 billion, you were looking for 1770000000000.
  • JAGUART, on 01/09/2008, -2/+78 $1.77 trillion fine? Wow, you'd think RIAA was suing them with those numbers.
  • DietMountainDew, on 01/09/2008, -0/+16There is no way this would go through, even for $1,000 per infraction. But the sad thing is if the RIAA sues you for downloading songs the government wouldn't think twice about letting them sue you for $3,000 per song.
    • Ribald_Jester, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Welcome to the good ole US of A! You must be new here right? That's how us little folks get treated round here...

  • mark076h, on 01/09/2008, -3/+10you cant throttle the future
  • digitallysick, on 01/09/2008, -14/+5One trillion dollars could buy a lot of bling
    One trillion dollars could buy most anything
    One trillion dollars buying bullets, buying guns
    One trillion dollars in the hands of killers, thugs
    • digitallysick, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Its a song by anti flag, you assholes
  • flair1, on 01/09/2008, -2/+11Comcast would go into bankruptcy before they pay a fine 1/100 as big as that. Give me a break.
    • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Correct, but its a statement amount that tells the industry to start shaping up and providing users with the services advertised.
  • touch0ph, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Right....could be fined, but won't be.
  • tuxidomasx, on 01/09/2008, -3/+31wow, this is turning out to be a great day.

    first i win two free ipod nanos from digg

    and now i might be able to get money back from comcast.
    • SpectralSounds, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I finally decided to install an adblocker because of that ***** audio ad for ipod nanos. They put on this site today.
    • Zombi, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1The best part about your comment is that I followed it in that order too. I read the topic about the ads right before I read this one.
  • pattyman5000, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8My Internet provider does the same thing (Richmond Air). I think I'll forward this to them.
  • brufleth, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4I'm not seeing the legal basis for fining a company that provides a service for setting bounds on that service?

    I have Comcast and I hate it more than anything. I've been the victim of incompetent contractors, terrible customer service reps, shoddy equipment, unannounced charges, generally crappy service, and constantly increasing costs. I'll switch as soon as I have another high speed option. However, I pay them for internet access. I'm pretty sure they are within their rights to restrict that access just as they restrict my access to premium TV channels. I don't have to like it and, like I said, I'd go with another company if I could. I think they're probably still within their rights though.
    • SomeImagination, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Yeah they are within their rights to restrict certain things aslong as they tell the customer in the contract, thats something Comcast didn't do though...
      • heartless_, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It's not even that. It is the fact that they agree to be governed by the FCC and if the FCC decides that this is a legitimate complaint, Comcast will have to defend it's actions in court. That is where the the "Comcast didn't tell anyone" problem comes into play.
    • Timbo1970, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Except the proper analogy would be for you to purchase a premium channel and then to have them restrict the bandwidth to that channel because they want you to watch network TV because it costs less for them to send it to you.
    • EarlOfLade, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3No, incorrect.
      It's more like paying for basic package and all channels except some crappy christian halleluja channels, are shown in slow motion. You get to see everything on those channels, it just takes a bit longer before you are done and sucks a bit more.

      • offspring06, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Also their bandwidth caps are like buying a Premium channel package and than being told you watched too much t.v. last month so they are going to shut your cable service off unless you can cut your t.v. viewing back. When you ask how them much you can watch t.v. without being cutoff they tell you there is no set limit.
  • Sinudeity, on 01/09/2008, -5/+6***** censorship of ANY KIND!!!
  • bahamutxd, on 01/09/2008, -1/+32Not so Comcastic now, huh Comcast?
    • active1x0, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1Haha. Headline should be changed to "Comcast Might Be Forced to Remove Penis from Customers' Rectums, Insert in Own Mouth"
  • dext, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Any kind of fine is meaningless unless the money is given back to the subscribers. the company will just kick everyones bill up 5 bucks to cover the cost and after its paid off they will see no reason to lower the price again. The fine will just further increase the company profit margin.

    Until the government lays some real restrictions on these monopolistic cable companies nothing will change.
    • NichowA, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I think you fail to understand how many zeros are in 1.7 trillion.
      • bahamutxd, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I think you fail to see how many customers they can screw over. With virtually no competition, they can easily set their own prices. It's much like AT&T was.
        • Krodis, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0195,000 dollars per customer. If they were to hike it up at $5 a month, it would be... Wait for it.

          39,000 months before they recouped this. That's over 3,000 years.

          1.7 trillion means Comcast goes bankrupt.
      • dext, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0I think its a little unrealistic to assume they would actually be fined the full 1.7t amount. The largests fine i was able to find record of was for 1.7m against Howard Stearn back in 1995.

        My guess is that this will indeed far surpass that record. the FCC may decide to make an example of comcast and set a precedent. but i wouldn't expect the fine to be over a billion dollars. bankrupting the company is not an option, as no service available to fill the vacuum. They can only wound them and send a message that its not ok for a company to not be net neutral.
  • DrDabbles, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4If they were fined a large sum I can promise the cost will be passed on to us as a rate increase.
    • NichowA, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0It depends on how big the fine is. If they were to somehow be fined the amount that is being asked, no rate increase could recoup those costs. Irregardless, surely there are other options for Comcast subscribers. If I had Comcast the first thing I 'd be doing right now is switching to another provider. A small percentage of the customers probably have no other choice, but if all the ones who did migrated to another service, that would also drive Comcast out of business.
  • toytoyota, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I'm all against Comcast throttling bandwidth for any reason, but this is an example of venture capitalism amongst lawyers. "Legal scholars" ASKED the FCC to look into this, so the lawyers will be suing for their own behalf here. Lawyers find problems in the system, and rightfully so they sue the perpetrators... but it is made to look like a class action law suit when in fact they are not representing anyone, merely pocketing the winnings.
    It's quite genius, but this rape of our tort law has got to stop.
  • gregdogum, on 01/09/2008, -2/+9***** those ***** Comcraptistic ***** Bastards. Please, excuse my French.
    • davewho, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5***** ceux Comcraptistic ***** ***** bastards. S’il vous plaît, pardonnez mon Anglais.
  • Takami826, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Somehow this seems like a scam to lure in greedy leechers and bust em when they submit their contact information or show up to collect a check. Considering most torrent downloads are probably not terribly legal, this just sounds like an underhanded sneaky way to suck in the dummies who download piles of pirated material then want a handout for it. What an awesome way to get real names and addresses for those downloaders of pirated material! HAHAHA
    • offspring06, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2There are many legal torrent downloads. I downloads shows from revision 3 using torrents. How the ***** would they prove that you downloaded copyrighted material?
  • tatertot444, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Prices and services would be a lot more fair, if monopolistic cable companies didn't own like half of the internet's bandwidth or buy out ISP startups.
  • toejuiceDCUP, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5Step 1. Abuse consumer
    Step. 2 pay off government officials to protect them from lawsuits.
    • digitalarcanum, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3step 3. ???
      step 4. M-M-M MONSTER FAIL.

      I hope communistcast gets their collective ass handed to them.
  • bjs3171, on 01/09/2008, -9/+5jesus ***** christ.
  • GLMonkey, on 01/09/2008, -2/+23HOLY CRAP!!! The lady on the website told me that I had been selected to receive 2 free ipod nano's. I should click it soon, or it may run out...seriously, Digg, get some better ads. When I am surfing digg, the last thing I want to hear is that whiny voice telling me I have won an iphone, or 2 free ipod nano's, or an xbox 360 elite...
    • uptown, on 01/09/2008, -0/+9I'd left ads on at Digg until that point. That sealed the deal for me.
    • emalen, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Firefox with AdBlock = no more problems
      • cwabray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I have flashblock, and the ONLY ads it doesn't block are the ipod nano ones from Digg. It even blocks the same ad on IsoHunt.

        Digg must be using covert methods to let me know about my ipods. I guess it's just that important to them that I know.
    • astrotrain, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Quick.... better go download the McKrappy Comcastic Security package, that will not only stop pop-ups but your PC dead cold in its tracks.
  • FeloniusMonkey, on 01/09/2008, -0/+33My Comcast Haiku

    Comcast bites my wang.
    They throttle my connection.
    Comcastic... my ass!
  • hansk, on 01/09/2008, -2/+6thats comcrapstic
  • uptown, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Perhaps more than that Jim.....
  • dmuth, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I am the guy who took that picture. I'm glad folks here found it so useful.
    It should not be any surprise that I live in the Philadelphia suburbs, right in Comcast's "cable monopoly zone", as another user put it.
    There was a cover on that box at some point years and years ago, but it was removed at some point. Yes, that cable box is outside, which means it is exposed to whatever the elements decide to dish out.
    And my friends wonder why I won't get cable. :-P
  • JimSwarthow, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3gimme $10 and I'll pretend like it never happened
  • evo8ftw, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Can't say how happy I am to now have fios!!!
    • spider418, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Ditto! Comcast picked up their equipment 2 days ago.
    • astrotrain, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5In the works of getting the house set for FiOS then I am jumping the RMS Comcrapstic for faster speeds at the same price, and over TRUE fibre connections.
    • Foxehh, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Your so lucky! FIOS is not available in our area...grrrr. We are forced to use AT&T which is not much better then Comcast.
    • dudefaceguyman, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Lucky bastard, really sucks for my town. I'm a few hours north of silicon valley and all that good stuff in mid california...Our best internet connection availible is a 4.8mb down charter connection...(Which I'm getting in a couple months..lol) So it's torture to hear all these people getting 3G, broadband speeds with evdo cards (I get like 200kb down...on a GOOD day...) and fios connections sprouting out all over california mere hours away from where I live...

      If I can find away to afford the cost of living, I'm SO moving down to san francisco or something...

  • epyon8282, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Will they receive a fine? Most likely. The evidence is overwhelming that they did affect their traffic in a manner which clearly affected bittorrent users without any type of disclosure to the public or with approval from the FCC. As for 1.77 trillion? Yeah right! To do that would put them out of business and they have such a huge subscriber base that would cause huge problems for all the regions they provide service to. The FCC investigation's goal is to make an example out of them if/when they find them in the wrong, not to put them out of business. Mabye a $100 million dollar fine at most. Anything more than that is a fantasy.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
  •  

    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.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.