|
FCC set to punish Comcast for breaking net neutrality laws
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 27 July, 2008
Two weeks ago we reported that the FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin was recommending that the ISP Comcast be punished for violating net neutrality laws.
It appears now that most members of the FCC have voted in favor of Mr. Martin's proposal and that Comcast will be facing some sort of punishment soon.
Comcast is the United States' largest cable company but has been in the news over the ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Solo_Tek
Junior Member
|
27. July 2008 @ 18:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Great!
Not, Comcast was impeding my connection all the time I was a user of their service and I called many times and emailed many trace routes to them to prove to them my connection was crap and they continued to blame me and my modem and not themselves. So I paid for S**t service and the only thing they are getting is a slap on the hand.
How about reimbursement to all of its customers, how about 5 to 10 dollars to all its customers or even some sort of credit.
More examples of lying greedy corporations who steal our money commit crimes and they get only a slap on the hand. If we where to rip them off we face jail or a hefty fine.
Never again will I use Comcast
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
DDR4life
Member
|
27. July 2008 @ 18:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
(Paraphrasing)
FCC chairman, "We will definitely punish Comcast for violating 'net neutrality laws' by ordering them not to do that again. However, Comcast is free to continue in their practice of 'managing its network' with the understanding that they inform their customers that they will limit the customers access to the internet."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you just love the justice?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. July 2008 @ 18:41
|
Senior Member
|
27. July 2008 @ 19:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
That was my take on it too, DDR4life.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
27. July 2008 @ 19:47 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah.. not net neutrality at all, just more hot air while they wait for the full spying and blocking laws to come into force.
What about the 2 who haven't voted yet? Are those the ones in the pay of the ISP's? There is a majority, that should be enough for the FCC to go ahead and dish out the slapped wrists. No deterrent whatsoever...
I'm going to start selling 50% of the advertised amount, and only then if they agree to use them in an "approved" manner.. and see how far that gets me.
|
|
DoomLight
Junior Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 00:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
this decision still wont make me get comcast again. i will and am fine with my slow 3.5meg DSL
comcast is too greedy.
specially knowing other countries get more than quadriple the speed we get here is insulting!
they should get fined too. those agreements to stop their evil ways of throttling will be enforced about as good as J walking in Kansas.
|
Senior Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 00:55 |
Link to this message
|
Don't quite understand the article, what have they done regarding bittorrent traffic?
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
28. July 2008 @ 01:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chwoolgar:
Don't quite understand the article, what have they done regarding bittorrent traffic?
Please read some of the related news underneath the current article, that should get you up to speed on the Comcast situation :)
|
|
susieqbbb
Suspended permanently
|
28. July 2008 @ 04:01 |
Link to this message
|
Ok this sucks...
Comcast needs to be held responsible by fineing the heck out of them
i would love to see this.
On another note of these charges should be the illegal searches of peoples home computers.
i had two comcast trucks parked outside my home and every two seconds my firewall would go off saying your firewall has been currently disabled by comcast ltd and your machine is going under a search by are service personal assistants
bull it's called you are illegally searching my computer to get illegal information to use against me by use of mob tactics so i let them have it i called my local police and both comcast personal tracks where towed and both of the workers A.K.A hackers where arrested and charged with illegal search and taps on a network
and still they try to screw customers.
|
|
OFI
Newbie
|
28. July 2008 @ 07:25 |
Link to this message
|
I wish we had net neutrality laws here. It's common practice to have throttled p2p :-(
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. July 2008 @ 08:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Quick question, how many people complaining don't use the net to break the law on a regular basis?
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
28. July 2008 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
We'll see if this holds up. The FCC was just smacked when a judge threw the Janet Jackson boob slip fine out of court.
|
Junior Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 08:34 |
Link to this message
|
More than likely this scenario is a slap on the wrist. Obviously they knew they would not pursue Comcast completely and that this was the easiest way out to save face. To just say:
Quote:
Chairman Martin did note however that any punishment would not include a fine. It will most likely "require Comcast to stop its practice of blocking; provide details to the commission on the extent and manner in which the practice has been used; and to disclose to consumers details on future plans for managing its network going forward."
Is like putting a bad child on timeout knowing they need to be spanked/or whooped lol...
|
|
tin23uk
Junior Member
1 product review
|
28. July 2008 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by atomicxl:
Quick question, how many people complaining don't use the net to break the law on a regular basis?
that question is irrelivant, comcast are supposed to be providing a service, instead they have appointed themselves as "the law" to decide who can do what on their networks, at the end of the day it boils down to their bad network not being able to provide their product. they cannot meet the requirement of the speeds they are advertising so instead they limit the bandwidth for people using programs that are usually used for breaking copyright infringement (notice i said usually).
if you pay for 10mb down and 1 mb up, you should be able to download non stop at 10mb and be constantly uploading at 1mb (remembering they are seling you unlimeted internet access). because they cant provide this to all of their customers simultaniosly they instead decided to block the biggest thing they thought they could get away with (bittorrent) in the hope that everyone using it would be breaking the law and too scared to complain. how wrong were they.
i used to have insight broadband which are partners with comcast, when my connection started slowing i started to get nasty phone calls from them, one nice person at insight did inform me of their buisness package and told me that if i paid double the usuall home package they would never limit my speeds or contact me about it again.
|
|
lxfactor
Senior Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 10:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
all it is.. is... warm the consumer before you slow down speeds.. thats all thats gonna happen.. so now in fine print.. its gonna say.. we can manage your network anyway we wish.. and as long as you sign up they can still "manage" your network.. so either way your screwed.. and if they do get fined.. then they will introduce a slightly faster speed.. and jack up the price to pay off the fine.. perhas cap incoming traffic..
|
Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 12:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by susieqbbb:
i had two comcast trucks parked outside my home and every two seconds my firewall would go off saying your firewall has been currently disabled by comcast ltd and your machine is going under a search by are service personal assistants
Well considering most people have more than just one firewall, i don't think that they could have gotten far. Nevermind the fact that they're all idiots over there so they couldn't known where to find anything after getting in.
|
Senior Member
11 product reviews
|
28. July 2008 @ 13:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just looked up the word;
FRAUD:
"Something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage"
and, isn't "FRAUD" illegal?
I believe that the individual would have a case if someone wanted to take Comcast to court.
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. July 2008 @ 14:04 |
Link to this message
|
Well it's pretty obvious the P2P traffic is overloading comcasts lines,why does anyone not realise that the internet isp's don't have infinite capacity & why should your average surfer have to subsidise P2P users who can quite easily schedule another time to upload or download since your not doing anything constructive,get over yourselves *rolls eyes*
ps: gnaw on that ya mongrels...lmao..
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
28. July 2008 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
yeah scorp.. I'm with you on that. but what if isp's set times when p2p users can have free reign? then we all slow each other down... everybody should get the bandwidth they pay for otherwise the isp's are guilty of overtrading.. i.e. selling what they don't have or cannot provide. Their excuse is it leads to unused bandwidth which they have to pay for... but surely they have already received the money from the customers to pay for said?? smells fishy to me :s
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. July 2008 @ 14:11
|
Junior Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
I agree with you varnull. But they have the money to pay for whatever bandwidth upgrades needed to serve all customers. They choose to be cheap on top of over charging every 3 - 6 months. They always have room for service price increases but not service improvements with that extra money. The saddest side of this scenario is no other cable companies stand there ground when Comcast comes to town. They just lay down and sell their shares and move on. So most cities or towns don't have any other choices if Verizon or some other phone company can't service that area with internet deals to compete. That to me is the reasons Comcast has been able to get away with all the things they've done over the years. More money paid to them equal lower quality of service in the end.
|
Member
|
28. July 2008 @ 19:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm giving these idiots $60 a month. I need an alternative.
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. July 2008 @ 19:22 |
Link to this message
|
The real big issue, coz it's the same here is the infrastructure is that old & whether it was Government owned or private,there's been no real re-investment over the years, next thing the net takes off & the lines can only just cope,in the meantime the isp's continue to charge what i'd call extortionist prices for speeds that are only worth a fraction no matter where you live.
over here it's only now the main player telecom is installing ADSL 2,so i can expect to sign up to those speeds right about the time i'm on my death bed *shakes fist & shouts curse-ed capitalism*
actually the only city in NZ that has decent speeds is Christchurch as the council & local business paid to have there own lines installed,much better if you own your own telco
|
Junior Member
|
29. July 2008 @ 00:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Every once in a while, I will do an instant watch on NetFlix.
Comcast is going out of their way to slow down the traffic and it really makes it tough some times to comfortably watch a show with all the interuptions to get more data. ( I have a Quad Core2 so no reason for slowdown.)
I had to call NetFlix last night, and asked the tech if they were on top of the Comcast Issue. The reply is that they are gathering evidence and have complained of interference.
I hope something good comes out of this.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
29. July 2008 @ 11:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by atomicxl:
Quick question, how many people complaining don't use the net to break the law on a regular basis?
One example comes immediately to mind: Vuze (the folks who bought Azureus to distribute legal media torrents) and other P2P media streamers, such as NetFlix. They were probably trhe most potent driving force behind the complaints against Comcast.
|
|
Hardwyre
Newbie
|
30. July 2008 @ 14:51 |
Link to this message
|
You guys know Comcast owns Cox and Roadrunner too, know, right? This "network management" (a.k.a. TCP/IP stack resetting) is even going as far as to disrupt VOIP and even XBOX Live functionality. It's BS.
Comcast: "We're not blocking any web traffic!"
everyone else: "Um, yes you are."
Comcast: "oh, you mean THAT web traffic."
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
juztrax
Newbie
|
31. July 2008 @ 08:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Look I agree with the comments about fraudulous beaviour with Comcast. However i will share with you the state of affairs in Australia. We get ADSL2+ but for my $150AU i get 20Mbits per second speed but they limit me to only 60Gb per month download. To make it worse the bastards count my Upload as download. Also if I go over the 60Gb cap, they start charging at 15c a Meg. So i just want to say that is F#cking Highway Robbery! Those F*ckin C#NTS !!!
|
