What is Digg?70 Comments
- bjornski, on 11/14/2007, -1/+33The best part about this?
Comcast is letting me seed again.
I think they're scared. VERY scared. - manicallday, on 11/13/2007, -1/+28Here's the letter:
November 7, 2007
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
The Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Request for FCC Review of Comcast actions involving BitTorrent
Dear Mr. Chairman:
During your tenure as FCC chairman, you have supported the free market over government regulation as the best way to preserve free expression and speech while also bringing new benefits to Internet users.
The Hands Off the Internet coalition has supported this view, as we believe it is consistent with America’s traditional “light regulatory touch” Internet policies that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for more than a decade.
As you know, the cornerstones of today’s open Internet are the four principles embedded in the FCC’s August 2005 net neutrality policy statement:
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
These principles are the necessary safety net to protect consumers and the openness and freedom of the Internet.
Comcast’s actions toward BitTorrent: Initial reports and subsequent confusion demand FCC investigation
Comcast stands accused of violating the FCC’s four principles. The company has responded by offering the rationale for the actions it took. Now the ball is in your court.
The FCC must determine if any of its four principles have in fact been violated. If not, and the process has been fair and open, then so be it. If after reviewing the facts, the FCC determines that the company has been in violation, then the FCC must determine the remedy.
With both outcomes, the process works and the integrity of the four principles are intact.
The FCC is on firm ground to investigate this possible violation of the open Internet
From a legal standpoint, Mr. Chairman, we believe the FCC has clear authority to enforce its four principles. Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 specifically grants the FCC the power to:
“regulat[e] interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio [and to] perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders” to fulfill this mission.
In 2005, in the Brand X case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s authority, writing that provisions in the Communications Act:
“give the Commission the authority to promulgate binding legal rules…. [Also,] the Commission has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations [on Internet Service Providers under its authority] … to regulate interstate and foreign communications….”
Finally, as you testified to the Senate Commerce Committee on September 12, 2006 when asked if the FCC had authority to stop an Internet provider from blocking or degrading access:
“The Commission does have authority under Title 1 of the Communications Act, and indeed last summer the Supreme Court… stated that the Commission has ancillary authority to adopt additional rules over the infrastructure providers of broadband access…. So I think we do have that authority.”
We believe you do, too. Mr. Chairman, we were on record during the 109th Congress in support of codifying these principles into federal law. Though the legislation was held up and did not pass into law, we remain committed to these Four Principles and we urge you to move expeditiously to resolve any possible violations and uphold their integrity.
Sincerely,
Mike McCurry
Co-Chair
Christopher Wolf
Co-Chair - Scynet, on 11/13/2007, -4/+21Net Neutrality has nothing to do with that in the first place.
Another guy who doesn't realise that Net Neutrality is the thing we've had since the beginning of the Internet. NN isn't a new thing, it's the old way. Removing Net Neutrality is what big telcos want to do, and that's bad. It's amazing how many don't even know which way around it goes.
Net Neutrality = Good old Internet where ISP doesn't care what you do as long as it isn't illegal (and still just barely)
New tiered model or whatever you want to call it = ISP monopolies who decide which sites you can visit, and what services and protocols you can use. Extra services might be possible for a fee, if they feel like offering them. - SouthsideIrish, on 11/13/2007, -0/+14Throttling bandwidth is not the problem, lying in their advertising is. Get them for that.
- digitalarcanum, on 11/14/2007, -0/+13It's about time someone with some weight to throw around bitched to the FCC. I think it's ***** that comcast is more or less getting away with this right now in areas it has a virtual monopoly (i.e. my city of Detroit). The article is right. instead of upgrading an over-saturated network, they opted to buy sandvine equipment to block torrent connections. torrent connections individually don't take up much bandwidth, so I really don't see why comcast is doing this. Before this whole torrent blocking debale began, torrents never downloaded at more than 400kbps for me and never uploaded over 100kbps. Kind of funny they start bitching over this when they advertist 6.0Mbps down and 384Kbps up, don't you think?
- bjornski, on 11/13/2007, -2/+14Let the ISPs do what they want, and this is what we can look forward to.
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5520/neutrality ... - NeoRicen, on 11/13/2007, -5/+15Well sorry douchebag but I'd much rather Government 'control' of the internet (which isn't even what Net Neutrality is for one thing) that have it be controlled by the ***** ISPs and Corporate ***** heads.
Net Neutrality is making sure NO ONE has control of the Net, that's why it's ***** neutral. - GeekJoe, on 11/13/2007, -0/+10Time for the cable companies to knuckle up and eat what the telcos have been eating for a while now.
- MikeMacMan, on 11/14/2007, -0/+9I feel your pain... Mine too
- ReallyOswald, on 11/13/2007, -0/+9Awesome! This is a big victory!
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -1/+10No, it equals the government regulating the cable companies to stop them from regulating the internet.
No net neutrality = telcos and cable companies control over the internet. (See what I did there?) - xobecide, on 11/13/2007, -1/+9I can't tell if that description of what Comcast does is meant to show your approval or disapproval.
- Whackly, on 11/13/2007, -1/+8You either lobby for an ISP or someone who does held you down and made you drink the koolaid.
- duffblue, on 11/13/2007, -0/+7The FCC shutting down may not be such a great idea.
- smacksaw, on 11/13/2007, -0/+7Ars Technica is good, but this article is especially insightful. It really delivered the goods at the end. As I read it, I initially was puzzled "Why would telcos want to go after a fellow ISP like that?" Then as I read I started to think that the Comcast network is a bit of a fraud, and even though they claim much higher speeds than DSL, DSL does deliver your speed that you pay for. Then at the end they mentioned Verizon and FIOS and they hit the nail right on the head.
Comcast are liars like that. "We don't block traffic" they say. No, but you slow it down.
A lie of omission is still a lie.
Verizon is right. FIOS is faster because there is no delay. You own your pipeline. Comcast is truly only a fraction of what they claim, and even though DSL is a fraction of cable's speed, you have to wonder if on average the speeds aren't that far apart and Comcast are liars after all. - inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+7In the meantime, Cox has started experimenting with Sandvine now!
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19400841-OK-Cox-d ... - luchid, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8So are you ok with buying a car, only for it to stop halfway to work cause the dealership thinks you're on your way to do something illegal and takes remote control of it?
- danielsousa, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7correction: cable company*
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7OH YEAHHH!!
- missingnoh4x, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5At least they're asking politely to limit your bandwidth, rather than forcefully blocking torrents.
- Hewolf1982, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6I go through Insight for my Internet. I got a call a few weeks ago and all they told me was to limit my uploads to 60 kbps. They said they don't care if I use Bitorrent and I can download as much as I want. They just wanted to cap the upload. I am assuming I was using to much of the network. I honestly don't care, as long as I can get my stuff downloaded the uploaders can wait. Atleast its not as bad as Comcast
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -3/+8I don't know about the bill, but Net Neutrality as a concept has been around for a long time, and it means that providers don't block anything.
- Bleue, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6Two points: the opponents of net neutrality laws are not against net neutrality, they are against net neutrality legislation because they believe that the more you regulate the net, the more regulated it is. And the net has done well with no regulation whatsoever thank you very much. Ironically many of the groups that opposed the communication decency act now oppose net neutrality legislation. Their position is that when the markets work well, and provided there is sufficient competition, bandwidth providers will have no choice but to make their net neutral. And some groups are even now doing all they can to put pressure on comcast to drive this point home, both for comcast and any other providers on the sideline. And even though bit torrent throttling is not a net neutrality issue per sey, as this was not the debate to begin with, it's related enough to be an effective cautionary tale. IE this is what happens to you when you mess with my bandwidth, we don't need no stinkin' law.
But everyone seems to misinterpret what's at stake. The net neutrality debate was never about charging end users more for access to certain sites. It was about charging high bandwidth sites for service speed guarantees. The thought being, from a technical standpoint, that because of youtube's or google's popularity they occupy a huge bandwidth footprint and per the backbone network provider's logic if they make $10billion a year off our network, and use so much of it, they are entitled to a cut. If google does not cut them in (them in this specific instance means AT&T, which is the company that started the whole debate) AT&T will throttle bandwidth to unpaying sites. Google's contention is that they are already charged for bandwidth, and why should they pay more PER BYTE than a low traffic site just because of their popularity? Shouldn't the net be neutral? Content providers do not pay flat monthly fees, they pay by usage and now companies want to charge more per byte for faster or 'quality enhanced' bandwidth. Google, understandably, said no. And put a lobby together to a: put pressure on companies to not do this and/or b: make it illegal to provide two tiered internet service to providers. There was never any question of protection end users, who are not currently protected except through market forces and who already have multi tiered service anyway, in the form of pay more for more bandwidth. In fact, essentially, the backbone ISPs wanted to start using a similar system for content providers (pay more for more bandwidth).
Opponents fall into two categories: those who think this is unfair because it would favor large companies like google who can pay for this and hurt up and coming not-yet-monetized sites: sites like flicker and youtube would probably have been negatively impacted by such a system and would probably not have taken off. Then there are those who say that net neutrality is a good thing but they would rather not see a law guaranteeing it, they argue that given the players involved (let us remember, after all, that google is looking out for google's best interests when they lobby for a net neutrality law) such a law is not likely to protect end users, and is in fact very likely to end up protecting content providers at the expense of end users.
Supporters contend that free market forces are not sufficient to ensure that high use sites get the same level of service as low use sites, and that to ensure that phenomenea such as youtube and flicker and the next bright idea can flourish a law is needed to ensure that multiple tier service to providers is illegal, at least in the US.
Both points have merit, but until this comcast fiasco the issue had pretty much died as backbone networking providers had retracted any statement about intent to multitier internet to site providers.
The third category of people is those who seem to think that comcast wants end users to pay extra for access to google, say, or youtube or flickr. These people simply have no understanding of the debate. You see, as said before, last mile ISP already charge extra for better bandwidth. In this case the point is moot, the internet has never been neutral/equal service level wise to end users, and there is no law proposed or considered about eliminating this practice. Non neutral is the generally accepted way to do it from the end user's standpoint. The net neutrality debate is strickly about the so called internet backbone, which is the ultra high bandwidth channels that move data long distances.
This traffic shaping debate is something else again, completely separate from the net neutrality debate from last year though it overlaps that issue in many places. - Whackly, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5relevance?
- seneyr, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5Not surprised. The telcos aren't happy about the cablecos stepping on their turf, so I think this is more them going after a major competitor than it is anything. I would bet that if Verizon were caught in Comcast's shoes, Comcast would be quick to motion for a beatdown of Verizon.
- Hewolf1982, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Exactly the second they tell me no Bittorrent is when I cancel my service.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Amen to that. It's one thing to cap bandwidth, it's another to restrict what your bandwidth can be used for. And for Comcast to cap bandwidth while advertising the service as 'unlimited'.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4What $10 fee to get rid of damn Sandvine? Even if they did offer that, I shouldn't have to pay extra for my "unlimited" service to truly be unlimited.
Oh, and they don't have competition where I live. It's a monopoly, I have no other option to get my connection from. - MaynardJK, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5Yeah, and we could call it something like "tiered internet".
If the ISP is promising X Mbps down and Y Mbps up, then it is their fault that they are running out of bandwidth when people actually decide to use it. - missingnoh4x, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4No, have the government fix Comcast.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Both are problems. Get them for both.
- invinciblechunk, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3The telcos only want to stick it to Comcast because they're scared ***** of cable VoIP.
Remember, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. - yodaj007, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3That's what indiscriminate bandwidth caps are for. Traffic shaping based on any parameter of the traffic itself shouldn't happen.
- undetected, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3I don't think that qualifies as harming the network. There should be a difference between a few applications eating up bandwidth that the service provider agreed to provide, and a device or an application that is eating up whatever bandwidth is provided with the intent of preventing other users from accessing the internet.
- duffblue, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3FiOS is the only way to go. It's the future.
- yodaj007, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Despite those bills you named, the government is still capable of passing laws that favor the consumer over the corporation. The bill is not a step in making a fascist government as there is in China; rather, it's meant to stop that very thing on the corporate level.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3It has nothing to do with paying. I'm stuck with Comcast, which I pay for since there's no other option due to their monopoly, and I'm limited in what I can do. So far, torrent protocols, and a few applications like Lotus Notes are blocked due to their use of Sandvine.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Just click the damn button then. No need for a comment with nothing but "+1".
- Richandler, on 11/13/2007, -6/+9Net Neutrality won't prevent the goverment subsidizing the hell out of comcast like it already does.
- Stalks, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4Could this be fixed with a pay per use policy? Traffic shaping and the like are in place because of heavy users costing the ISP more than what they are being paid. Wouldn't we all be happy if we are simply billed for what we used, like a telephone bill?
- Wosat, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Charging for usage is NOT "tiered internet". Second, no consumer ISP guarantees throughput -- they only guarantee you'll get "up to __Mbps".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiered_Internet - Factionrider, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Uhh, there is more than one cable company. However, because of the way the cable system works you only have one choice in who to go to.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3It worked without regulation, but clearly it isn't working any more. I'm tired of the free market argument, I have no option other than Comcast where I live.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2This so called group is a mouth piece for ATT
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1269 - JigoroKano, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2So because the government passed some bad bills, we should only let the government pass bad bills and not be in favor of the government passing good bills.
Okay retard. - ghoti06, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3Actually, the net is not now nor has it ever been neutral. As Michael Grebb notes in an article for WIRED, "As the debate reaches fever pitch, it seems fair to ask: How neutral is the net right now? Not very, it turns out." He then goes on to quote Khaled Nasr, a partner at venture-capital firm InterWest Partners, who asserts, "I don't think the internet has ever been perfectly equal or neutral." Matt Tooley, CTO of broadband optimization firm CableMatrix, agrees noting, "There has always been some level of inequality. I don't think it's as egalitarian as people would like to think it is."
Check out the full article here: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2006/05/71012 - yodaj007, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3It wouldn't be a problem, Scorned, except that in most areas you only have one provider available. Thus there's no incentive *not* to screw your customers over and every incentive to make as much money as possible by offering a tiered internet. It's coming, and that's why the ISP's hate the bill.
- missingnoh4x, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2It's just a protocol. I could easily say the same thing about HTTP, FTP, and other common protocols. You can't say it uses more or less bandwidth, that varies from user to user.
- AbsurdParadox, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2And why not?
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 