Opinion - Some companies are more equal than others.
FCC Slaps Comcast, But Lays Foundation For Future Bandwidth Restrictions : Read more
FCC Slaps Comcast, But Lays Foundation For Future Bandwidth Restrictions : Read more
FCC Slaps Comcast, But Lays Foundation For Future Bandwidth Restrictions
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Bandwidth
- Status
theclintstone
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2006
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
My cable provider (Charter Communications) still blocks all out going traffic on port 80 and 23. This blocks my ability to host a web site for something as simple as a home photo gallery for family and friends. Well I can always move to a different port but that adds some confusion. The companies claim is that they don't want user to be making money by using their bandwidth. I disagree its my bandwidth. I'm paying for it. They also reply that they supply web space for their customers, not that you can run PHP, PEARL, JAVA, or ASP.NET from those pages.
I haven't looked into how much they (Charter) throttle the connection of certain protocols, but I would be interested to find out. I personally don't use P2P apps very often. I think the last torrent I downloaded was the Diablo III video.
Course the bad part of this situation is that they may never have to stop blocking or limiting as long as they disclose what they are doing on some long form that you sign.
I haven't looked into how much they (Charter) throttle the connection of certain protocols, but I would be interested to find out. I personally don't use P2P apps very often. I think the last torrent I downloaded was the Diablo III video.
Course the bad part of this situation is that they may never have to stop blocking or limiting as long as they disclose what they are doing on some long form that you sign.
velocityg4
Distinguished
- Nov 21, 2006
- 503
- 1
- 20,015
Sometimes I wish for the olden days where this kind of practice could result in a mob with torches and pitch forks to burn down the companies headquarters and CEO's home
It would be more effective than FCC negotiations.
Though back then there were no computers and this would be some lord or robber baron getting his home sacked burned by angry villagers.
I would be fine with them doing this but they should have to list these limits in bold print at the beginning of the contract and on all commercials further they should not be able to do this with preexisting customers. By bold print on commercials I mean where you could read it from 10 feet away on a 13inch TV screen. Further it should be clear enough and displayed long enough for a person with a 2nd grade education to read and understand.
It would be more effective than FCC negotiations.Though back then there were no computers and this would be some lord or robber baron getting his home sacked burned by angry villagers.
I would be fine with them doing this but they should have to list these limits in bold print at the beginning of the contract and on all commercials further they should not be able to do this with preexisting customers. By bold print on commercials I mean where you could read it from 10 feet away on a 13inch TV screen. Further it should be clear enough and displayed long enough for a person with a 2nd grade education to read and understand.
sublifer
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2008
- 105
- 0
- 18,630
If you buy Comcast's 6mbps service then you should get 6mbps service. This throttling has to go. Their excuse of more users sharing the bandwidth on your block causing you to only get 600kbps is b.s. and has to go. If they advertise and sell 6mpbs then you should get just that. No more of that fine print trash "up to 6mbps" Thats like buying your groceries without knowing how much is in a package, buying a car and being told that you can get up to 80mpg and not being told that you're more likely to get 20mpg or any realistic quote. Internet guidelines and infrastructure needs to be laid out like any other service. I don't want to buy a cell phone service package and be told that I can get up to 600 minutes a month but they only let me have 150. I think we need to start a petition or something. Give me a thumbs up if you agree.
SomeJoe7777
Distinguished
- Apr 14, 2006
- 7
- 0
- 18,510
Let's hold up a minute. Two separate issues are getting confused here. The FCC hearings and ruling are about DISCRIMINATORY traffic management practices. i.e. Comcast is not allowed to treat some traffic with one set of policies and other traffic with a different set of policies.
The related, but separate practice, is traffic management in general. There are no rules against Comcast applying bandwidth throttling to traffic. But the FCC is making it clear that such a practice has to be applied without regard to the TYPE of traffic.
The case for/against traffic management as a whole will be fought out in the marketplace, where customers will choose a different internet provider if they don't like Comcast's bandwidth management policies.
Do not attempt to extend the FCC's ruling and decision to bandwidth management as a whole. That's not what it's about. And mixing that into this article shows a lack of understanding of the case.
The related, but separate practice, is traffic management in general. There are no rules against Comcast applying bandwidth throttling to traffic. But the FCC is making it clear that such a practice has to be applied without regard to the TYPE of traffic.
The case for/against traffic management as a whole will be fought out in the marketplace, where customers will choose a different internet provider if they don't like Comcast's bandwidth management policies.
Do not attempt to extend the FCC's ruling and decision to bandwidth management as a whole. That's not what it's about. And mixing that into this article shows a lack of understanding of the case.
The bastards have lied to congress about their practices for over a year and not a single corporate agent has been charge with purgury.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the hand slap because it's NOT coming.
The FCC is as crooked as Comcast and will sit idle while another mega corporation rapes the the American peoples wallets.
If Comcast cannot provide the bandwidth they advertise to their customers, thats their own god damn problem. They posted RECORD profits this quarter while essentially breaching contract with hundreds of thousands of their customers.
If they are not made an example of, every mega-isp in the world is going to follow suit and next thing you know our bandwidth will be actively monitor by some a-hole in Pakistan with the MPAA and RIAA on speed-dial.
This is both a breach of contract and an invasion of privacy.
We need solidarity and a voice - If every comcast customer who supports net neutrality was to open up their wifi or max out the downstreams for a day or two, I'm sure we could make a big enough stink to get the rest of the county to pay attention to whats going on.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the hand slap because it's NOT coming.
The FCC is as crooked as Comcast and will sit idle while another mega corporation rapes the the American peoples wallets.
If Comcast cannot provide the bandwidth they advertise to their customers, thats their own god damn problem. They posted RECORD profits this quarter while essentially breaching contract with hundreds of thousands of their customers.
If they are not made an example of, every mega-isp in the world is going to follow suit and next thing you know our bandwidth will be actively monitor by some a-hole in Pakistan with the MPAA and RIAA on speed-dial.
This is both a breach of contract and an invasion of privacy.
We need solidarity and a voice - If every comcast customer who supports net neutrality was to open up their wifi or max out the downstreams for a day or two, I'm sure we could make a big enough stink to get the rest of the county to pay attention to whats going on.
rich0325 - Not at all. The amount of bandwidth used for gaming is relatively small. They chose to block torrent traffic because they assumed people would be reluctant to speak up due to the content of their traffic.
I agree that this is confusing two issues... Comcast is as sleazy company for hiding their activities and misleading folks... not for acting to limit the ability of users to abuse their connections. I'm not a fan of bandwidth limits (like if you download more than 50GB in a month you pay some stupid penalty)... but throttling bandwidth hogs I see as TOTALLY APPROPRIATE if properly implemented.
If you're downloading 100gig of pron a month you're hogging bandwidth. Folks have this erroneous assumption that just because you've got a 10mbps link you're somehow ENTITLED to download at 10mbps for 24 hours a day 7 days a week... well you aren't! Go price out a network connection with a guaranteed 10mbps connection and you're going to get a surprise... it'll cost a TON of money... you want guaranteed bandwidth YOU pay the thousands of dollars a month it'll cost, otherwise just live with the fact that you're sharing and will be penalized if you don't share nicely.
Consumers paying 50 beans a month are buying a SHARED link... which means when the neighbor is hogging that link downloading warez they're abusing their share of the connection. I tend to be a bandwidth abuser myself (I probably average 50gb per month) so it's not like this is making me happy but it IS making the system more equitable.
If you're downloading 100gig of pron a month you're hogging bandwidth. Folks have this erroneous assumption that just because you've got a 10mbps link you're somehow ENTITLED to download at 10mbps for 24 hours a day 7 days a week... well you aren't! Go price out a network connection with a guaranteed 10mbps connection and you're going to get a surprise... it'll cost a TON of money... you want guaranteed bandwidth YOU pay the thousands of dollars a month it'll cost, otherwise just live with the fact that you're sharing and will be penalized if you don't share nicely.
Consumers paying 50 beans a month are buying a SHARED link... which means when the neighbor is hogging that link downloading warez they're abusing their share of the connection. I tend to be a bandwidth abuser myself (I probably average 50gb per month) so it's not like this is making me happy but it IS making the system more equitable.
gm0n3y
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2006
- 1,548
- 0
- 19,730
I totally second sublifer's comment. The ISPs should have to supply a minimum level of service and that should be their advertised rate. So if they say 10Mbps then that should be the slowest speed you will get.
Also, @SomeJoe7777, your idea that the customers will choose whether or not they want bandwidth throttling is great in theory, but with the virtual monopolies that these companies have this doesn't work. Not to mention that EVERY major ISP is going to throttle traffic so there is no choice.
Also, @SomeJoe7777, your idea that the customers will choose whether or not they want bandwidth throttling is great in theory, but with the virtual monopolies that these companies have this doesn't work. Not to mention that EVERY major ISP is going to throttle traffic so there is no choice.
itadakimasu
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2008
- 102
- 0
- 18,630
i'm against the idea of bandwidth throttling but at the same time, if i'm stuck with timewarner / comcast being my only isp option...
i really don't want to get home and find my internet crawling because there are thousands of 16 year olds dl'ing mass amounts of god knows what and using up most of the available bandwidth.
i really don't want to get home and find my internet crawling because there are thousands of 16 year olds dl'ing mass amounts of god knows what and using up most of the available bandwidth.
gm0n3y Those are my feelings summed up pretty well. If you can't supply the service you are selling all the time, then you should not be allowed to advertise that as a service of yours.
It's like going to a restaurant who has prime rib on the menu but, when you order it they are all out.Instead of telling you and giving you a choice they just bring out what ever hunk of steak they have left, and stick you with the bill for the prime rib. Now if ISPs were more like restaurants you would simply leave them and never return. Unfortunately the ISP is likely your only steak house in the area and you are stuck with them.
It's like going to a restaurant who has prime rib on the menu but, when you order it they are all out.Instead of telling you and giving you a choice they just bring out what ever hunk of steak they have left, and stick you with the bill for the prime rib. Now if ISPs were more like restaurants you would simply leave them and never return. Unfortunately the ISP is likely your only steak house in the area and you are stuck with them.
crosshares
Distinguished
- Apr 30, 2008
- 34
- 0
- 18,580
This issue would be nonexistent if Comcast would actually TRY to improve the infrastructure, instead of improving it and have it ready for years to come they decide to take the easy route and throttle us, unfortunately its like putting a band-aid on a large cut, it does little and will end up costing more in the long run.
How bout you buy some iPhones while you're at it, they're cheaper up front, only you'll be paying more in the end.
FCC, you fail.......epically.
How bout you buy some iPhones while you're at it, they're cheaper up front, only you'll be paying more in the end.
FCC, you fail.......epically.
I think the key thing is that Comcast and all the other ISP's should be telling people EXACTLY what they're delivering. If they throttle they should tell you when and why. They tell folks that they're getting blazing fast internet, they quote the bandwidth of the connection without telling people that that connection is really a shared one and they may sometimes get all of it but they sometimes will be sharing it with a lot of neighbors.
It seems like they go out of their way to AVOID transparency, trying to keep us in the dark regarding their management policies... and the result is that they're seriously pissing off a lot of people. They really need to get their act together.
It seems like they go out of their way to AVOID transparency, trying to keep us in the dark regarding their management policies... and the result is that they're seriously pissing off a lot of people. They really need to get their act together.
I live in Stockton,Calif and I'm a Comcast customer. The thing that PISS ME OFF is that Comcast BLOCK other IP company from serving my area like SureWest in Sacramento,Calif. SureWest has a 10mbps Up/Down for $39.99. I have a friend that lives in Sacramento and has SureWest 10mbps plan. He say that he gets at least 9.5mbps every day. Comcast what to monopolize the market...talk about anti-trust law being broke. The problem is Comcast has to much influence with the Public Utilities Commission(PUC) in California. That why they get away with what they do.
waffle911
Distinguished
- Dec 12, 2007
- 108
- 0
- 18,630
Where I live AT&T and Charter Communications have monopolies on land-based communications. Otherwise we'd be using Comcast for cable HD TV service, and Verizon FiOS for internet, but we're stuck with satellite (Which is no good during frequent thunderstorms) and Charter broadband (which, while Charter as a company and its customer support branch both totally suck, the broadband is more than we're used to- we used to live in a Comcast area).
As it stands, the FCC should lay out a plan for network performance requirements, and should bar area monopolies for different types of service.
Why can't we just get cheap broadband like Luxemburg, Japan, or South Korea?
Because the ISP's have too many customers they can screw over for more money. I can't tell you how many times I couldn't download a software patch on Comcast because the download started at a blazing 786kb/s (WTF 6Mb/s my @$$) and then THROTTLED DOWN TO 152kb/s. What should have been a 3 minute download turns into something like 3 HOURS.
IF nothing else, this action by the FCC will get Comcast to make it plain and clear what to expect for bandwidth, not the whole under-handed "performance varies as per network conditions". I would allow a little variance, but this was lying to customer's faces.
As it stands, the FCC should lay out a plan for network performance requirements, and should bar area monopolies for different types of service.
Why can't we just get cheap broadband like Luxemburg, Japan, or South Korea?
Because the ISP's have too many customers they can screw over for more money. I can't tell you how many times I couldn't download a software patch on Comcast because the download started at a blazing 786kb/s (WTF 6Mb/s my @$$) and then THROTTLED DOWN TO 152kb/s. What should have been a 3 minute download turns into something like 3 HOURS.
IF nothing else, this action by the FCC will get Comcast to make it plain and clear what to expect for bandwidth, not the whole under-handed "performance varies as per network conditions". I would allow a little variance, but this was lying to customer's faces.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter