Consumer Groups Ask FCC to Fine Comcast

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A coalition of consumer groups has formally asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Comcast Corp. from interfering with file sharing and to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.

The petitions will be the first real test of the FCC's stance on the so-called "Net Neutrality" issue. The agency has said that Internet service providers can't block customers from Web sites or from using Internet-based applications, but it has not had to enforce that policy, given the long-standing industry practice of treating all Internet traffic substantially equally.
Click to expand...
 
How about fining them $100,000 and them using the other $95,000 to give me free cable and internet service for, say, 15 years. :D
 
The file sharing interuptions wouldn't be so bad if Comcast would give us the speed broadband is truly capable of.

To say we're using up bandwidth while our bandwidth is the butt of jokes around the world is a slap in the face.

I say lets get FCC to kick their butts in higher gear and improve the internet.
 
I truely hope this happens. I am not a Comcast customer, but it should send a message to all ISPs that you can't pick and chose what you allow your consumers to do with there unlimited internet access. There are alot of legit uses for Bittorrent, alot of large companies are useing it, you can't go blocking it because some people can't refrain from breaking the law. If that was the case there would be No Cars, No Guns, No....well damn, just about anyhting can be used to commit a crime and you can't take away everything now can you.
 
Grondy said:
Well I'm sure that part will help my cable rates go down. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They have to compete with other ISPs/Tv services so no, they can't hike up the rates. A lot anyway.

If you don't like your rates get DSL and satellite TV.
 
thejulex said:
They have to compete with other ISPs/Tv services so no, they can't hike up the rates. A lot anyway.

If you don't like your rates get DSL and satellite TV.
Click to expand...

Already have sat TV. I live in Qwest DSL territory, so not an option there either.

Wait, a moment, did you just say that a cable company can't raise it's rates??? :D
 
If corporations can sue each person that "fucked them over" (RIAA), then corporations should be sued for each person they "fucked over" (Comcast).
 
The petition was actually started by the RIAA/MPAA to get the names of those people using file sharing utilities. :eek:
 
Silentbob343 said:
The petition was actually started by the RIAA/MPAA to get the names of those people using file sharing utilities. :eek:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be surprised. Like phone tapping, they might need a couple minutes to get a phone number..

RIAA tapping into someone's BitTorrent stream: "Almost got it.. just need 2 more numbers then the IP address will be complete... and here it is... WTF?!? Comcast cut us off!"

You know, this makes me wonder if maybe Comcast is doing just that.. they're not monitoring the customer, but rather they're monitoring RIAA. If they detect a tap, they cut that user off. Hows that for conspiracy? :eek:
 
I can see two valid points here. One, if all Comcast had done was to restrict the amount of bandwidth certain applications use, namely the upload speed of bittorrent, they they would be complying with the FCC. However, faking termination messages between downloaders/uploaders on BT may be a step over the line. Unfortunately, this could shape up into an ugly battle, no matter who wins. If the Comcast wins, then it will allow ISP's to start limiting bandwidth on many things in the name of network management. However, if Comcast loses, then everyone suffers because ISP's will be limited as to how they can manage bandwidth, the end result in being that a few bandwidth hogs can slow down other subscribers. The only good thing is that DOCSIS is making it harder for hogs to hamper the bandwidth of other users, even if they are on the same node.
 
comcast will win. (i know someone at comcast) if the fcc has ANY common sense at all.

BiTorrent Traffic uploads account for about 75-90% of the bandwidth (upload only) on comcasts network at any one time

the percentage of comcast clients USING BT ...less than 10%.

so less than 10% of their user base (and the figure is significantly less than 10%...) using 75-90% of their network resources...

If I was comcast, i'd dump those users, and save thousands or hundreds of thousands in costs a month...but that is me...
 
lenardo said:
comcast will win.
...

less than 10% of their user base (and the figure is significantly less than 10%...) using 75-90% of their network resources... If I was comcast, i'd dump those users, and save thousands or hundreds of thousands in costs a month...but that is me...
Click to expand...

Comcast has a right to cut costs, restrict service, and disconnect users, but it doesn't have a right to do any of this other stuff. There are currently no laws enforcing net neutrality, and if Comcast had been up front about what they were doing they probably would not be in a mess.

The FCC lawsuit will NOT be about restricting bandwidth. As stated, this is their right.

The lawsuit could be about blatantly lying to their customers, the media, and regulators. It could also be about deceptive practices and false advertising. It could even potentially be about forging their customer's online identities.
 
SEALTeamSix said:
The lawsuit could be about blatantly lying to their customers, the media, and regulators. It could also be about deceptive practices and false advertising. It could even potentially be about forging their customer's online identities.
Click to expand...
I mentioned that in another thread... essentially what they're doing is the same thing I (or about a million other people) would go to jail for if we did it ourselves as individuals.
Consider if, say, UPS decided that Newegg was responsible for too many shipments, bogging down their system, etc. Suppose further that, rather than telling Newegg to find another provider or setting policy, they just slapped "Return to Sender" on every outgoing Newegg box and told their customers that Newegg never shipped them... How legal would that be?
What will really come back to bite Comcast in this case is the fact that they did blatantly lie about their practices. That takes this from a case of "unofficial policy" to out-and-out deceptive business practices, and regulatory commissions hate being lied to.
 
AGAIN what is ILLEGAL/Deceptive about what comcast is doing?

comcast user gets a Torrent file- downloads whatever file is associated to the torrent.

that works 100% of the time....provied said user has program configured correctly.

the users are GETTING their files in a timely manner.

i just downloaded a 170meg file in 10 minutes via bit torrent.

it is only when the users are doing the courtesy of seeding said file post download that the filtering pops up..and then it still will work, just takes several minutes to start up.

ya'll push this to the limit or they get ruled against and comcast might just say Screw it and block 100% of peer to peer traffic. they Can/could do this with the rational that a majority of the peer to peer traffic is illegally uploaded copyrighted material.
 
lenardo said:
AGAIN what is ILLEGAL/Deceptive about what comcast is doing?
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=comcast+denies+filtering+bittorrent+traffic

lenardo said:
ya'll push this to the limit or they get ruled against and comcast might just say Screw it and block 100% of peer to peer traffic. they Can/could do this with the rational that a majority of the peer to peer traffic is illegally uploaded copyrighted material.
Click to expand...

They sure could do this - there's no net-neutrality laws on the books currently - but they would lose a ton of customers.

The real complaint here is that Comcast lied to their customers (and regulatory commissions). By doing this, they have probably violated consumer protection laws.

As an aside, they may have also violated wiretapping laws, depending on the specifics of their method of forging TCP Reset packets to terminate the transfers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top