FCC's Martin: Comcast Blocking Was Widespread

A net neurality law would probably freeze Internet technology in place.

This reminds me of all the problems we were having with comcast around the same time, now that I think about it.

I remember calling and complaining, and was told that at times there were certain limits to net usage. On our computer, 3 people uses it at times, so net usage can/could be for 8+ hours for us. I told the comcast rep. that, and she apologized for the inconvience. Shortly after that, it returned to almost normal, where it only goes out like once every two weeks for 15-30 minutes. Which to me, a service SHOULD not do, but I figure it works out.

However, we don't use peer-to-peer software that I'm aware of- so I wonder if this isn't even more widespread? It going out like it does at times, would make me think that possibly this is not just for peer to peer, and if they are doing this, then it is kind of disgraceful. I don't know anything about internet running though, so I don't know if it's a necessity or not.

Interesting, though. I don't know what to think about the rest of this. Comcast internet already stinks at times, they definitely don't need this kind of thing happening for them on top of it.

I wish our area had better internet providers, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

~Amanda

So don't use Comcast.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
So don't use Comcast.

Kind of hard to do when it's the only broadband provider available to many of us.

The trend that is occurring with ISP's is that they are wanting to control the content that their customers can access, and this doesn't only apply to illegal material (that's a different issue). What they are wanting to do is lock you into their network so that you cannot use VOIP phone services of competing companies or video services like Hulu, Joost, or VUZE. I know Vonage is fighting for network neutrality because their business depends on it. These ISP companies want to make you use their phone services and their video services (and charge you extra, of course).

AT&T has already announced they plan on working with the MPAA and RIAA in blocking bittorrent from their network all together. They want to block a protocol that many people use for legitimate and legal reasons. Not only would this hurt individuals, but it would put some companies out of business (like Vuze). It is anti-competitive for AT&T or Comcast to decide who is allowed to compete with them. Do you not agree? I have no problem with them pushing their own services for a competitive price, but if they are going to offer Internet access, they should offer access to the WHOLE Internet. I don't think the argument of "it's our private network and we will do as we please" works when they are running a utility that many people depend on for economic reasons.

I am usually a libertarian on most issues, but I do think that the government should either enact a Net Neutrality law, or allow more competition in the broadband market. Many of these cable and phone companies have contracts with certain locales which prevents other companies from running cable or phone line in the area. This is monopolistic and should not be allowed, yet the government has indeed allowed this practice ever since the days that AT&T was first declared a monopoly. AT&T, to my understanding, agreed to government regulation if they could "lock out" competitors in certain areas. Cable companies jumped on the bandwagon later and worked out similar deals between themselves.

I think the arguments of the laissez-faire capitalists on this forum such as those like, "If you don't like it don't use it" are applicable only to certain areas of the economy. For instance, the argument works quite well for food and consumer goods. I can choose Kroger over Publix or K-Mart over Target. The choices are many. But for utilities it doesn't work the same way, mainly because utility companies (and I am putting phone and Internet in this category) have monopolies in many areas. On top of that, there is known collaboration between these companies in setting prices and in general regulation practice. For example, if Comcast is allowed to get away with blocking certain services on their network, AT&T, Time Warner, Quest and everyone else will DEFINITELY follow. This is bad for everyone.

Net Neutrality does not stifle innovation, but corporate monopolies will (as they always have). You have it backwards, Howard.

I think this is an issue most people are oblivious to, but it could change the future of the Internet drastically -- either you will have freedom or you will be locked into what your ISP wants you to access.

The cable companies don't need to worry about providing customers with high quality service because they have a virtual monopoly on the service. Why our government allows them to continue to operate as a monopoly has to do with their immense lobbying influence in Washington. Don't think for a minute that is because of anything else. These guys pay off the politicians to keep their monopoly going.

I wish the government would open up broadband and cable services like they've done with the phone services. Remember the days when the monopoly phone company in your area would charge you #3.00 a minute to make a long distance call in the US? Then all of a sudden they opened the phone companies up to competition and now you can make the same call for 5 or 10 cents a minute.

As far as limitations, you're only speaking for rural areas and small towns. In the larger cities and urban areas, they are numerous.

A friend of mine that used to live in Tampa, FL had Verizon's Fiber Optic service installed at his house and he loved it. Internet speeds way faster than the cable company's broadband.

Look, if it means that much to you, check out Hughes Net. No cable, just a satellite dish on your house for both upload and download. If we don't return to the shoals within the next few months (possibility!) we'll do it here. If we do return, we'll hook it up there. In addition, Verizon has a pretty good cellular modem. There are alternatives; it's just a matter of how much those alternatives are worth to you.

quote:

Originally posted by *~*Manda*~*:


I remember calling and complaining, and was told that at times there were certain limits to net usage. On our computer, 3 people uses it at times, so net usage can/could be for 8+ hours for us.

~Amanda

Cable has the disadvantage of slowing down when a lot of people are using it. This not only includes your own household, but everyone who is on the same cable. If you have a lot of people in your neighborhood that all have Comcast internet, and they are all using it, you could see some degradation in the speed.

If you have telephone service, you can always switch to DSL, which I believe doesn't have this problem, but is slower.

We have Comcast at home, and DSL at the office, and unless I am doing something that is very download intensive, I really can't tell the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
A net neurality law would probably freeze Internet technology in place.

The same thing would occur if it was done away with. Do you think vonage would exist if Comcast of AT&T could reduce speeds enough to make it unusable? If it did, it would be the same price as both would charge enough get a large piece of the pie. The only reason why AT&T and Comcast is complaining now is because the internet as a whole is starting to eat into their bottom line (phone and cable service) Not because its costing them millions to constantly upgrade the lines.

Net neutrality would result in what happened a few years back with web based mail services. One company will break the ranks and upgrade, and cause people to switch and the others will follow.

Amanda,

I'm sorry you were having issues but I can assure you it has nothing to do with Comcast's blocking of P2P. Common usage should not be slowing you down even if you had ten people using a standard Comcast connection. When I say common usage I mean web surfing, email, streaming video, steaming audio(like Rhapsody), 10MB or smaller file downlaods, etc.

As for net neutrality, the issue is more complicated than most make it out to be. Companies like AT&T and Comcast are already extremely powerful and we don't want to stifle competition by making the Internet a toll road. However, there can be middleground that is fair to all and keeps consumer prices low while maintaining the value of your service.

AT&T and Comcast spend billions every year on new infrastructure, maintenance, and R&D. Many ISPs believe that they should have the right to have a certain amount of control over their own networks. I would say that's reasonable, would you? If left unregulated, P2P services could be end up using a considerable amount of space on their networks causing network congestion. It will cost companies money to keep up with the bandwidth demands. Even though there may be less than 10% of customers using P2P, 100% of them will end up paying higher prices. Blocking P2P served the interestes of the majority. I call that fair.

Comcast is now teaming up with bittorent to make a more network friendly version of the software. In a recent interview, the creator of Bittorrent even admitted that he wrote the software to use as much of ISP's bandwidth as possible and as ineffeciently as possible. That doesn't even make since for P2P users...

And as far as other ISP options:

FiOS is great, IF you can get it. Cable has launched its new cable modem technology in the Twin Cities and will outpace FiOS in less than 24 months nationwide.(150mb/150mb capable using existing cable infrastructure)

DSL is available at decent prices but it is only a decent service. A major drawback is that it requires a primary phone line. For cell only users this can be a deal breaker. I've heard that since the AT&T merger you can get it by itself but the rates are higher at around $50+. I believe you can get it without a contract it can be very cheap at around $30/month for their economy tier.

Verizon wireless speeds are very slow at about 400kb/sec. They claim it does 1.2mb+ but it doesn't. I got the service for my mom for Christmas and it has never tested faster than 450kb. That's roughly 40 times slower than my Comcast connection(16mb) even without taking PowerBoost into consideration(22mb+). Maybe it is faster in other areas but not in the Shoals. The service is also pricey at $60/month. At least the card is only $60. It automatically logs off after 23 1/2 hours regardless of activity. It also has monthly bandwidth limits. And the final drawback is that a 1 year contract is required and a 2 year contract is required to get the card for $60.

Satellite is very expensive to had installed at $300-4600 dollars. A 2-3 contract is required. Service can be unreliable because data is more sensitive than TV signal. It is also costly at $60/month for ~600kb/128kb speeds. Only good as a last resort to dial-up.

quote:

Originally posted by Jumunji the JoJo:
Amanda,

AT&T and Comcast spend billions every year on new infrastructure, maintenance, and R&D.

Is that so? Verizon's FIOS is smoking all the competition. Verizon is spending billions more than either AT&T or Comcast due to this project. If it ever comes here I will drop Comcast in a second. Copper will never be able to compete with FTTH. Comcast has DOCSIS 3.0 rolling out this year, but only 20% will have it. This will be a nice upgrade, but DOCSIS is not as future proof as FTTH even with multiple channel bonding.

quote:

Many ISPs believe that they should have the right to have a certain amount of control over their own networks. I would say that's reasonable, would you?

If this throttling is protocol agnostic, then I agree. The problem Comcast has is that they 1) Denied throttling was happening, 2) After Rob Toploski (a guy who posts over on BBR) exposed Comcast's reset packet scheme, Comcast LIED and still said no throttling was happening. And 3) Comcast will terminate the service of "bandwidth hogs" without providing any warning and without explaining what the bandwidth limitations are. This is shady and bad business.

quote:

Blocking P2P served the interestes of the majority. I call that fair.

How about VUZE and other companies which rely solely on P2P for their business model? How about professional people who use Lotus Notes and upload them via P2P? How about people exchanging legitimate files? The truth is, the ISP's are going to have to wake up (like Verizon has) and realize that the Internet is no longer just ASCII and JPEG images. Netflix is launching streaming HD movies soon, as are other companies. When this happens, all hell will break loose unless the ISP's open up capacity and upgrade to 100% fiber.

quote:

Originally posted by Jumunji the JoJo:

That's roughly 40 times slower than my Comcast connection(16mb) even without taking PowerBoost into consideration(22mb+).

You don't have 16Mb if you also have powerboost. "Blast!" is the Comcast 16 Mb tier, but it DOES NOT come with Powerboost.

I am in the Shoals and I have Comcast's highest tier -- 8 Mb with Powerboost. Blast is not in this area yet. Or is it? if it is, I am pretty angry they haven't upgraded me yet (it is supposed to be an auto upgrade since I am on the highest $70 tier).

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:

quote:

Originally posted by Jumunji the JoJo:

That's roughly 40 times slower than my Comcast connection(16mb) even without taking PowerBoost into consideration(22mb+).

You don't have 16Mb if you also have powerboost. "Blast!" is the Comcast 16 Mb tier, but it DOES NOT come with Powerboost.

I am in the Shoals and I have Comcast's highest tier -- 8 Mb with Powerboost. Blast is not in this area yet. Or is it? if it is, I am pretty angry they haven't upgraded me yet (it is supposed to be an auto upgrade since I am on the highest $70 tier).

I have a business account and it is 16mb + PowerBoost. It launched last Wednesday and is available for $89/month. I don't think the residential 16mb tier is available in the Shoals yet. If you want some more info, call Joel Peeples @ 768-4165. He's the local business account rep for Comcast.

quote:

Originally posted by Jumunji the JoJo:
Amanda,

AT&T and Comcast spend billions every year on new infrastructure, maintenance, and R&D.

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
Is that so? Verizon's FIOS is smoking all the competition. Verizon is spending billions more than either AT&T or Comcast due to this project. If it ever comes here I will drop Comcast in a second. Copper will never be able to compete with FTTH. Comcast has DOCSIS 3.0 rolling out this year, but only 20% will have it. This will be a nice upgrade, but DOCSIS is not as future proof as FTTH even with multiple channel bonding.

I agree wiht you that FIOS has limitless possibilities. However, it is only being rolled out in select areas of major cities. I could be wrong, but I don't think you will see Verizon in Alabama anytime soon and I don't think you will ever see it in the Shoals. I'm believe that WiMAX or another type of technology will come along or Comcast or AT&T will do fiber to the home using their existing 100's if not 1000's of miles of fiber.

What Comcast is offering now is awesome. Just ask anyone that lives in the Charter area... See my attachment for my D.C. Speed test.

quote:

Originally posted by Jumunji the JoJo:
Many ISPs believe that they should have the right to have a certain amount of control over their own networks. I would say that's reasonable, would you?

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
If this throttling is protocol agnostic, then I agree. The problem Comcast has is that they 1) Denied throttling was happening, 2) After Rob Toploski (a guy who posts over on BBR) exposed Comcast's reset packet scheme, Comcast LIED and still said no throttling was happening. And 3) Comcast will terminate the service of "bandwidth hogs" without providing any warning and without explaining what the bandwidth limitations are. This is shady and bad business.

I do agree on 1 and 2 but 3 is not true. Comcast does notify those customers and asks them to throttle back. If they do not then they can be disconnected.

quote:

Originally posted by Jumunji the JoJo:
Blocking P2P served the interestes of the majority. I call that fair.

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
How about VUZE and other companies which rely solely on P2P for their business model? How about professional people who use Lotus Notes and upload them via P2P? How about people exchanging legitimate files? The truth is, the ISP's are going to have to wake up (like Verizon has) and realize that the Internet is no longer just ASCII and JPEG images. Netflix is launching streaming HD movies soon, as are other companies. When this happens, all hell will break loose unless the ISP's open up capacity and upgrade to 100% fiber.

Who is going to pay for the increase in backbone bandwidth? Companies such as Level3 depend on Comcast and AT&T. Are Comcast and AT&T going to pay them for more backbone so that other companies such as Netflix and VUZE can not only use it for free but make a nice profit? If they want to make money using others' networks, I think they should pay for their used bandwidth. I don't see a difference in that and how you pay a web host for used bandwidth.