Net Neutrality isn't the way to fix this. If the Net Neutrality bill were very very very very simple... like 1 page... maybe. But people think that Net Neutrality is what the bill is about ... but its more than just that. Its about controlling everything else, not just bandwidth.
Bottom line: Comcast sucks. But it means that 'gov-ment' needs to fix Comcast, not the entire internet.
@Sykozis, Level 3 is a company that provides content to the general internet, comcast is trying charge them to allow them to stream on the comcast network.
What I want to know is if this is a violation of the contract I signed as a business comcast user. I entered an agreement with them to get access to an unfettered internet connection, and this move suggests to me that the connection is in fact being regulated and filtered. I am a network engineer and realize every network has some reasonable quality of service measures to ensure good network experience for everyone, but this for me crosses the line into a slippery slope of corporate censorship, and violation of my want as a consumer to freely surf the net as I please. It also reminds me of the premium mail delivery scheme they tried to pass some time ago, which also violated net neutrality. I know it has to be hard for them to keep up profits and make the network faster, but I am not buying it that they can't figure out how to move traffic around their own network. This to me sounds like greed, and as a consumer it sounds like I will ultimately get the short end of the stick. If I bought bandwidth, you should honor that, and actually have the bandwidth available for me to use, not go pilfering it from other successful businesses.
Shame on Americans for keeping comcast in business. I would never give that company another dime after dealing with them for 6 months in college. And I've never once heard positive feedback from any other comcast customers for that matter. If FiOS is offered in your area (or any fiber optic service for that matter, startups are likely faster for the same price), I highly recommend it. I get 30Mbps down / 25Mbps up in the DC area for something like $50/month.
About 3 months ago I dropped my cable TV and I now watch all of my shows online at sites like Hulu and Netflix. Many customers have done this. So now Comcast is going to start charging these sites in order to recoup their losses.
In a logical world, if a company like Comcast is running out of bandwidth then the ONLY solution is to upgrade their networks. Let's face it- if you are completely out of bandwidth, then charging (or blocking) companies like Netflix isn't going to magically create more bandwidth. The problem will still remain. So what does this news mean? It means Comcast DOES have the bandwidth. They are just mad because Netflix is stealing their TV customers.
Unfortunately, Comcast is a monopoly. They are the ONLY cable provider in the region. The alternative for TV is Dish network, which I cannot use because trees are blocking the satellite signal. The alternative for high-speed Internet is DSL, which in my neighborhood has poor quality and slow speeds. I'd love to try FIOS, but they won't be coming to my region. They did a test in a poor, dangerous, drug and gang infested neighborhood in Pittsburgh and (surprise surprise) hardly anyone wanted the service. The area was so bad, the Google street-view cars wouldn't even drive the streets. So I'm stuck with Comcast, quite possibly the worst ISP in existence.
i wish there was a choice in my area.. but its comcat or dsl ... so comcast gets 115 a month for internet and cable . i looked into dish network and dsl but dsl is just not fast enough my neighbor has a "25 M connection" ... he has a 3.4M connection
and dish network doesn't cut it in florida where it raids 3 times a week which knocks otu the tv >_<