Senators Want Probe on Content Blocking

[HardOCP News]

Two Senators are calling for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to launch a probe investigating allegations of content filtering and blocking by companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the incidents involving several companies, including Comcast Corp., Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc., have raised serious concerns over the companies' "power to discriminate against content."

 

[HardOCP News]

I think the key term here is "launch a probe into them."

 

[uberbucket]

How dare you block my probe!

 

[DesertCat]

This will probably be addressed with a non-binding resolution that declares that content blocking is bad and puppies are adorable. The vote will likely be split along party lines.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

I think the key term here is "launch a probe into them."

Your right...
I think the key terms here are "2 senators", "calling for," and "launch a probe." In other words, it most likely will never happen.

 

[InorganicMatter]

What do you think, will this be the case that escalates to the Supreme Court and ultimately decides the issue of Net Neutrality?

 

[Fooshnik]

no.

 

[Azhar]

I'll come back to this page 7 years from now when they have the results in.

 

[schenks]

weren't they paying attention the last x times net neutrality has been brought up?

oh wait....

 

[Cannydog]

As a Comcast "customer" this sounds good to me!! I know, when they say they aren't trying to mess up EVERYONE using Any type of P2P, they are lying through their teeth. So I'm gratified that someone got the ear of their Senator.

Now, as to whether or not that does any good? We'll have to wait and see. My guess is that just hearing about a "probe" will result in some changes, though they will likely only be temporary. But that's all I need. I'll be switching to another ISP soon enough. (They're currently installing new Fiber lines in my network, so there will finally be an "alternative" to Comcast!)

 

[FLECOM]

This will probably be addressed with a non-binding resolution that declares that content blocking is bad and puppies are adorable. The vote will likely be split along party lines.

no, kitties are better than those evil terrorist puppies!!

hopefully they will accomplish something but i really doubt it

 

[InorganicMatter]

As a Comcast "customer" this sounds good to me!! I know, when they say they aren't trying to mess up EVERYONE using Any type of P2P, they are lying through their teeth. So I'm gratified that someone got the ear of their Senator.

Every time an ISP says they are trying to curb illegal downloading, they mean: "we've oversold our network resources, so instead of buying new hardware, we decided to cut the more bandwidth intensive applications." BitTorrent is being blocked under the guise of illegal use. I can't wait to see the excuses they come up with to block FTP, Newsgroups, and Social networks. Soon we'll have "high-usage" internet plans, and monthly rationed bandwidth, if something isn't done.

Now, as to whether or not that does any good? We'll have to wait and see. My guess is that just hearing about a "probe" will result in some changes, though they will likely only be temporary. But that's all I need. I'll be switching to another ISP soon enough. (They're currently installing new Fiber lines in my network, so there will finally be an "alternative" to Comcast!)

Yeah, same here. An AT&T salesman was at my door yesterday telling me that AT&T is now offering internet and TV services over the fiber lines that were buried in my backyard years and years ago. I think it may be time to look at AT&T.

 

[Tanis143]

You know, I agree that Comcast could have done this different, such as going after those that tend to hog up the bandwidth the most, however what they have done is not illegal. Yeah, it sucks, especially if you do use BT for legal use (what, maybe .05% of BT's use.. hehe), but fact of the matter is you pay your monthly rate to use their pipelines. Since they control those pipelines, they theoretically can do whatever they want with them.

Does that mean I support net neutrality, yes and no. I do believe that access to content should not depend on what level of service you pay for (though the speed of that access should), however I do see the need for ISP's to manage their network so that a certain percentage of people do not hog up the bandwidth for everyone else. And simply adding more hardware is not totally the answer, as that will increase the cost to the operator and would be passed down to the subscriber. I say there should be an independent group that monitors what ISP's can and can not do. But, it should not be a government agency because we know how that would go. I say charge all isp's 1 cent per subscriber per month to pay for this agency (can you imagine how much that would be?). Even if the ISP's raised their rate 1 cent to cover it, I doubt anyone would complain.

However, I doubt that would ever happen simply because in this land of democracy everyone wants it their way or no way, which means no compromise :/

 

[Nemesis999]

You know, I agree that Comcast could have done this different, such as going after those that tend to hog up the bandwidth the most, however what they have done is not illegal. Yeah, it sucks, especially if you do use BT for legal use (what, maybe .05% of BT's use.. hehe), but fact of the matter is you pay your monthly rate to use their pipelines. Since they control those pipelines, they theoretically can do whatever they want with them.

Does that mean I support net neutrality, yes and no. I do believe that access to content should not depend on what level of service you pay for (though the speed of that access should), however I do see the need for ISP's to manage their network so that a certain percentage of people do not hog up the bandwidth for everyone else. And simply adding more hardware is not totally the answer, as that will increase the cost to the operator and would be passed down to the subscriber. I say there should be an independent group that monitors what ISP's can and can not do. But, it should not be a government agency because we know how that would go. I say charge all isp's 1 cent per subscriber per month to pay for this agency (can you imagine how much that would be?). Even if the ISP's raised their rate 1 cent to cover it, I doubt anyone would complain.

However, I doubt that would ever happen simply because in this land of democracy everyone wants it their way or no way, which means no compromise :/

Really? Are there not laws in the US about network neutrality? There are plenty of legimate services that use P2P networks, including BT. The FCC even clearly stated that it is their policy to protect net neutrality.

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement
that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the
open and interconnected nature of public Internet: (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.
Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles
into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable
network management.
Action by the Commission August 5, 2005, by Policy Statement (FCC 05-151).
Chairman Martin, Commissioners Martin, Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein, with Chairman
Martin issuing a statement.

Hopefully someone at the FCC will grow a spine and fine Comcrap and all these other providers out the ass for blatantly violating FCC rules.

 

[bob]

You know, I agree that Comcast could have done this different, such as going after those that tend to hog up the bandwidth the most, however what they have done is not illegal. <snip>

Well, depending on which side you are on of this issue, net nuetrality laws might make a change as to what they legally can and cannot do. Though if ted stevens reflects the level of computer literacy in any part of the law system or government, it probably wont happen. Either that, or people will look at this as torrent only content blocking, and wont care.

Regardless, comcast should have handled this differently, by just shaping torrent traffic when and where it is needed. If people downloading pr0n (or linux) over bit-torrent are bogging down their crappy network, thats understandable. Throttling torrents, upload or download would make sense and accomplish just about the same thing as blocking the torrents, but wouldnt completley screw over the customer. If customers torrents were slowing down, would they honestly think "omgwtfbbq comcast is shaping it", or would they have been more likely to think "damn, the torrent swarm really sucks today" ?

 

[SmokeRngs]

If Comcast had actually shown proof that subscribers in their network were being "harmed" only by bittorrent use (and it was not also caused by them overselling their lines) as well as implemented a proper way of slowing down bittorrent traffic instead of completely killing bittorrent traffic, this might not be such a big deal.

I don't like the idea of Comcast filtering any internet service that is legal as it would set a bad precedent for all internet service providers; but they do have a requirement to provide good service for all of their customers and not just ones using bittorrent.

Before anyone jumps on me for that statement, I know bittorrent is used as a distribution model for perfectly legitimate software. I should know as it's the way I've gotten my Linux distros for the past year and I've gotten a lot of them as well as other software. In some cases, it's basically the only way to get some software without having to wait a long time or restart downloads due to overloaded servers. I love the idea of bittorrent and believe it's going to be a major distribution model as time goes on.

More than likely when you get down to the nitty gritty, it's not bittorrent that's necessarily causing the problem. The most likely culprit is that bittorrent is just having the effect of showing weaknesses in Comcast's network.

I will concede that "just adding more hardware" isn't the most cost efficient way of keeping a network running smoothly; it is necessary in the long run. Bandwidth usage is going to continually increase as more and more data is going to be transferred across the internet. More people each day get connected and more people are getting broadband connections as well as more services and products are being offered over the internet.

I highly doubt the problem is just a few people doing massive amounts of torrenting and I don't think all that many people are even torrenting "casually" at this point. If it was just a few people causing all the problems, they would just cut service to those people. It's a much simpler, cheaper and less image damaging solution than what is currently being implemented. As I'm sure many have already figured out, torrents are just being used as a scapegoat to cover up other problems.

 

[qbert95]

The fact is whether you think its right or wrong, Comcast spent millions building their network so if they want to place limits on how and what it is used for they have ever right to do so. Personally what scares me more is senators thinking that they have the constitutional authority to tell a private company how they should manage their property.

 

[Azhar]

The fact is whether you think its right or wrong, Comcast spent millions building their network so if they want to place limits on how and what it is used for they have ever right to do so. Personally what scares me more is senators thinking that they have the constitutional authority to tell a private company how they should manage their property.

It's not control, per se. It's enforcing the law. It's no different from having a cop stop you from doing 60 on 50 just because your car's capable of doing 100.

Congress passed Net Neutrality a few years back. Telecoms and Internet companies are violating it.

 

[Nemesis999]

The fact is whether you think its right or wrong, Comcast spent millions building their network so if they want to place limits on how and what it is used for they have ever right to do so. Personally what scares me more is senators thinking that they have the constitutional authority to tell a private company how they should manage their property.

Not at all true. Read the above quote from the FCC. Regulations clearly state that the consumer is entitled to the freedom to use their internet access however they want.

 

[AshleyG]

Part of the coming fight may also decide whether or not internet access is deemed a utility or simply a convenience.

 

[InorganicMatter]

It's not control, per se. It's enforcing the law. It's no different from having a cop stop you from doing 60 on 50 just because your car's capable of doing 100.

Uh, no. It's more like a poser cop "pulling you over" and harassing you (those from Genmay know what I mean ).

 

[qbert95]

It's not control, per se. It's enforcing the law. It's no different from having a cop stop you from doing 60 on 50 just because your car's capable of doing 100.

Congress passed Net Neutrality a few years back. Telecoms and Internet companies are violating it.

Congress didnt pass anything, it was the hypocritical FCC who censors the public airwaves which ruled that a private company does not have the right to do the same. The car analogy also isnt valid since driving a car is a privilege granted to you by the government and the roads you drive are built by the government so they can mandate laws for that.

Now i dont think its right for comcast to do this. I think the free market should decide whether or not Comcast should pay for this by consumers canceling their service, not government intervention.

 

[Azhar]

Congress didnt pass anything, it was the hypocritical FCC who censors the public airwaves which ruled that a private company does not have the right to do the same. The car analogy also isnt valid since driving a car is a privilege granted to you by the government and the roads you drive are built by the government so they can mandate laws for that.

Now i dont think its right for comcast to do this. I think the free market should decide whether or not Comcast should pay for this by consumers canceling their service, not government intervention.

you DO realize that most area only have one cable provider, and that it's likely to be Comcast, don't you? Like here in my area.

We don't have a choice. Thats the whole problem. They KNOW we don't have a choice.

 

[InorganicMatter]

you DO realize that most area only have one cable provider, and that it's likely to be Comcast, don't you? Like here in my area.

We don't have a choice. Thats the whole problem. They KNOW we don't have a choice.

Exactly. South of Houston, I get Comcast,or I get DSL (starting at 256kbps up to 1.5mbps down!!!)