What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
88 Comments
- holyskeleton, on 09/05/2008, -0/+66***** Comcast. Its name doesn't even pass the spell checker.
- alapoet, on 09/05/2008, -1/+38Comcast is just playing a shell game when they say they're no longer violating Net Neutrality. They still are big-time violators.
Rather than throttle bandwidth for file-sharing apps in general -- since that's what the FCC called them on -- now they throttle the bandwidth of individual users. That's not an improvement. That's *****. - fearr, on 09/05/2008, -1/+27I'm surprised the bureaucrats are actually doing something to try and help the people.
- czeman, on 09/05/2008, -0/+25Comcast not found. Suggestions: Concast, Comcrap
- TheHayze, on 09/05/2008, -1/+20Yeah! Go Kevin Martin! Rip Comcast a new one.
Seriously Comcast, not only does the chairman of the FCC, you know the guy, he says what you can, and cannot do, he wants some answers. So do we. We want those answers now, and for you to stop dicking us around.
Hell, I never thought I'd be in support of the FCC. But this is the right cause for them to get involved with. They need more transparency over there in the F.C.C. - charm803, on 09/05/2008, -1/+18Kevin Martin is not bowing down to Comcast!
Awesome! - TheBogie, on 09/05/2008, -2/+16Comcast can go ***** themselves. I hope every Comcast executive catches beri beri and ***** themselves to death. I hate Comcast. I hate people who like Comcast. I hate Comcast's business partners. I hate family members of Comcast employees. I hate people who owe Comcast money. I hate the word "bombast", because it sounds like Comcast. Comcast, as a whole, can sit on a sharpened baseball bat and spin. ***** you Comcast. ***** you in the ass.
And I don't even use Comcast. I have Time Warner.
Don't get me started on Time Warner ... - andydumi, on 09/05/2008, -1/+13Because its called New Zealand, which does pass the checker.
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -2/+12I'm protocol atheist.
- Hypatia42, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7Yes. FCC should now stand for ***** ComCast.
- Ceeman, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7Open? Are you kidding? If you had a billion dollars and wanted to start a all fiber network in a city you could not get past all the red tape that is put in place by the big telcos and cable companies to do it.
- netzdamon, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6That was so full of anger.... i loved it.
- InJectaH, on 09/05/2008, -3/+9Supposedly Comcasts bandwith limit is supposed to only effect 1% of it's consumers. If the amount is that small, why add it in the first place? it's ***** comcastic
- Gee1004, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6Why isn't there competition? People should be able to choose from another internet provider and let comcast go ***** bankrupt.
- twiztidsinz, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Maybe the whole Net Neutrality thing is what was needed to get the FCC back for the people and away from the corporations.
I've always stood by that the FCC isn't bad, and is in fact needed. But when any group puts the interests of corporations ahead of the people it's supposed to be in service to, it will not be a good thing. - exxodius, on 09/05/2008, -3/+8com-*****-castic.
- bagboyrebel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5now if we could do away with these monopolies that ISPs have over certain territories. Comcast is the only choice I have.
- AndrewMoyer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5I'm sure Sarah Palin would be in favor of letting the cable company do whatever it wants, even going as far as to let them drill for bandwidth in Alaska... just as long as they don't let her children download any sex education!
- welestgw, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Why is everything a comcastrophy with them?
- h0tpot, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6"protocol-agnostic" is code for violating Net Neutrality and getting away with it.
- Falldog, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4I'm agnostic. I can't be certain whether or not they exist.
- bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4***** 'em up Martin... cannot WAIT to move and get FIOS instead.... good lord Comcast is such a living abortion
(Not that Verizon is any better, but the FIOS service blows Comcast out of the water - azhura, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4I hate Comcast. They cut my RCN cable twice. :(
- badenglishihave, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4Yay, an interesting story that isn't about Governor Palin!
Go FCC! - Jhiaxuz, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Doctor: Wait a minute, Brian, you have a pre-existing relationship with this degenerate?
Peter: A degenerate, am I? Well you are a festizio! See, I can make up words too, sister. - Gee1004, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Okay, but why? There should be some regulations on more service providers like cellular services. No one likes AT&T, they choose Verizon. It's ridicules with cable companies. If Satellite was good with better technology, then people would have more choices.
Actually, this is a monopoly. - bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4@mmmcookies
Ok, I see you there.. yes that makes sense. Problem is with their plan, there is no one to oversee or verify what they're doing... unless the FCC makes sure of it. (as a Philly fan, too, they never did force Comcast to release their death grip on the Philly sports market as part of the Adelphia deal like they promised.. but that's another story)
I mean up until this original ruling they denied throttling any bandwidth... then this comes out and "oh whoops, we mean any bandwidth EXCEPT bittorrent..."
All this said, there are already built-in bandwidth caps on cable modems, not to mention the "checks and balances" bandwidth cap in that all users local to each other share the same pipeline...
So while Comcast may be feeling the effects of their marketing of their "blazing fast unlimited connection," I don't buy it for a second that it's truly negatively affecting them to the point that they are crying about.
And please, let's not even BEGIN to talk about their shady pricing plans, mysterious charges, complete LACK of customer service.... hell I lost TV and Internet service this summer for THREE WHOLE STRAIGHT DAYS without anyone at Comcast CS having a freaking clue..... the reason? A field tech disconnected my house to hook up a new connect down the street.... took them 3 days to figure it out and they were going to make me wait another 2 to get a tech out until I reamed the lady out on the phone....
Take a page out of the RIAA and MPAA book.... rape your customers long enough and it will come back to haunt you.... - eavesdrop, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4250gb is total traffic, upload & download.
- Ceeman, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5This is all a game. The government can not wait to control your internet.
Remember after 9/11 everyone yelling for the Government to take control of airport security? Asking the FCC to open the market for people to compete with Comcast would be a much better thing to ask for than for them control the internet for us. - ATLien74, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Tell us about Time Warner!
- KloroFormd, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4No... not really.
I switched from Comcast to a local ISP and all my daily connection problems went away. I can handle a slower upload speed (256k compared to Comcast's 384k, which actually was hitting 490k) with the local service because during peak hours I still get my advertised 6000k download speed. Comcast was dropping to dial-up speeds during peak hours. - bdigital24, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5This wasn't about throttling a user, it was about throttling a specific file sharing technology -- in this case, they were throttling BitTorrent traffic.... and I'm an affected user and it's complete *****. This would be an example of violating Net Neutrality and that's exactly what was happening...
There are multitudes of legitimate BitTorrent sites/transfers... not all of them are copyright violations. In fact, some online software vendors are beginning to distribute their own software via BitTorrent!
The rumor that the "backbone of the internet is suffering" is a complete fabrication... http://digg.com/tech_news/What_exaflood_Net_backbo ...
Not to mention Comcast won't stop bragging about having "America's largest fiber optic network".. so can't they handle the traffic? Which is it? Wooing customers in with your "fiber optic network" (*****) and your advertised speeds of up to 16mbps (also ***** except in very lucky microscopic bursts), or are you crying that your businses model is suffering because of all this "unexpected" traffic?
They're ***** artists to the 10th degree... F that.. I'll take REAL fiber right into my house with FIOS... - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Time to break up and sell off Comcast holdings. Dissolve the atrocity.
- Manther, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3It's not exactly opened and competitive. If I want TV at all I need to go through Comcast in my city (I have a condo and can't get a dish, has to be cable or the like, and Fios or U-Verse aren't around yet). And, just like the whole state of CT, each town is only allowed to have one cable provider (which boggles my mind how someone could have EVER thought that was a good idea in the first place...). If I moved, I could get Cox or something else, but I'd still be paying too much because I can't say 'I'm sorry Comcast/Cox, your prices are too high and your service too crappy, I'm going with the other guy.' And that just makes the cable companies content and lazy, therefore only getting worse, and never better....
- funkyloki, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Except they sell you on the service by telling you you will have blazing fast speeds to do whatever you want.
No, limiting is not the answer. The answer is to take some of the profits they are making for charging more for less (other industrialized countries offer faster speeds to more people for a lot less money) and invest it in upgrading their infrastructure so they can support the unlimited usage they tout when selling themselves to customers. These ISPs have enjoyed less regulation, subsidies, and have done nothing that they have promised, like rolling out broadband to rural areas. - Csma, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4With the convergence of Telephone/Internet/TV the FCC has much more power than it used to, and with the spectrum's that were auctioned off recently they technically would be able to "control" what flows over those spectrum's, which will be ?wireless internet? ?phone service?
The FCC is here to serve the public and protect our interests, when our interests are being messed with by a company who owns TV/Internet/Cable lines then there is a certain amount of jurisdiction they have in regulating what happens.
Im sure once we can get a new telecommunications act the FCC will be given more power to regulate what companies can and can't do to subscribers.
Oh and by the way, the FCC can regulate business plans. You know those basic cable plans? Yeah, those prices are set by K-Mart and crew and can only rise a certain amount every year =D - Manther, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2I laughed out loud with that one.
- zephyr42, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Baby steps.
- AlienMushroom, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Comcast thought it owns the US, until it was suddenly awakened by Kevin Martin, but I believe it's still trying to get back to the good dream. I just don't give a damn.
- mmmcookies, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Right, that is what the FCC called them on, and that is what they are supposed to stop. I get that. That was a violation of net neutrality, and they were wrong to do it.
The issue now is that they are saying "Ok, whenever traffic gets really bad, we'll throttle the highest 1% of users until congestion clears up". This is neutral.
Any network will have a few users who can suck down all the bandwidth it can offer. You can put me on a gigabit pipe, and I will saturate it. An ISP has to have some way to manage that, and throttling the highest users to 50% speed or whatever, for a time, is a fair way to do it.
I do agree that they need to step back on their marketing promises, but the vitriol out of half the people on here is out of hand. - TTURabble, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Actually the FCC regulates interstate communications as well, ISPs fall directly into this category, but nice try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communication ... - bagboyrebel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2maybe better than dial-up, but that's not saying much.
- pw378, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Because those 1% of users are taking up 90% of the bandwidth downloading nonstop porn over bittorrent?
- Falldog, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealand
- roseysdaddy, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1you leave me out of this :)
- dwightfagen, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1it's actually the opposite, buddy. throttling everyone's speed is exactly what "net neutrality" entails. throttling in and of itself is a necessary part of network management. you wouldn't have ANY internets without it. what isn't exactly "net neutral" is that, before, the throttling was targeted to specific protocols (e.g. bittorrent). that means that the thottling was NOT neutral, but was targeted, and therefore biased. throttling everyone is neutral.
further, it is still arguable whether or not targeting p2p was really a malicious move in the first place. most internet subscribers, in fact (most likely not your average digger), would probably see it as a benevolent move on comcast's part, if they were to know all of the facts. the numbers showed that something like 5% or even 1% of customers were eating up 50% of the bandwidth, or something like that (i'm fudging, but the facts are out there) and the vast majority of that traffic was p2p and bittorrent and the like.
now, it's a very difficult decision to make whether or not that is a terrible way to go about managing the network, especially when the problem is growing rapidly. they have so many customers to think about and poor network management leads to huge outages and slow speeds for the masses. seems to me like it's an entirely reasonable first move to make, though i can easily see why it would upset and scare people... even why it could be wrong. but i'm merely trying to convey that it's at most only slightly wrong. - elendryst, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Then they'll decrease the amount of bandwidth again, and again, and again. I'm stuck using Comcast for a few months, come January, bye bye.
Sadly, that would mean having to go back to AT&T. I guess that isn't too bad. - one2gamble, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2If they didnt over sale their bandwidth, they wouldnt have issues regardless
- Csma, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1As much as I like Ron Paul the FCC does some good...sometimes
- Puffball, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Kevin Martin doesn't actually give a ***** about the internet. He's simply (along with many others from the Bush administration), a backer of AT&T - so while people get all misty-eyed about the prospect of the FCC commissioner coming down on Comcast, he's likely to join AT&T after he leaves the FCC and sit on his ass while AT&T throttles 3G P2P.
Take Michael Mukasey (attorney general): he was an AT&T lawyer before he was a judge. The white house cheif of staff is an AT&T lobyist. Half the Bush administration will probably go directly to AT&T after this term so of course the FCC's coming down on Comcast - not on principle - but because AT&T's scared ***** of cable. -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is