Comcast Says FCC Powerless to Stop P2P Blocking

Nanoboy writes "Even if the FCC finds that Comcast has violated its Internet Policy Statement, it's utterly powerless to do anything about it, according to a recent filing by the cable giant. Comcast argues that Congress has not given the FCC the authority to act, that the Internet Policy Statement doesn't give it the right to deal with the issue, and that any FCC action would violate the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. '"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," concludes Comcast VP David L. Cohen's thinly-veiled warning to the FCC, filed on March 11. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority."'"

Comcast

[Ancient123 (724901)]

Damn corporations always find a lookhole to continue exploiting their customers.... (fp?)

Re:Comcast

[Doctor_Jest (688315)]

Well, this loophole they seem to crow about (which is horse feathers to me, since the FCC has regulatory authority when it comes to denial of services by a communications provider... phone or otherwise...) is most likely trumped by the recently passed Internet Security Fun and Excitement Act (I forgot the name off the top of my head) that makes this fakery they're doing, impersonating _you_ (your machine, specifically) illegal and possibly a felony. As I understand it from the other discussions on this subject... Comcast's guilty of "hacking".... ;) For lack of a better term, legal-wise.

So, no, the FCC may not have the power to stop Comcast (but I suspect they can levy a fine, but that's another discussion entirely), but I'd suspect the FBI does... and someone might do time for it. ;) ...I know... wishful thinking...

Re:Comcast

[electrictroy (912290)]

SUCH ARROGANCE BY COMCAST!

In a different age and under a different president (Jimmy Carter), the FCC chairman could simply pick up his phone & ask his buddy in the white house to apply Antitrust Legislation to the Comcast monopoly..... thereby breaking apart the cable tv and internet arms into competing forces..... as was done with AT&T.

Who knows. Perhaps the next president will do exactly that.

Re:Comcast

[AmaDaden (794446)]

Correct me if I'm wrong but could this work? 1)Start new ISP that does not filter 2)Get help from the FCC because they are a bit pissed at Comcast for their "nah nah nah You cant get us!" crap 3)When Comcast tries to buy you out/stomp you in to oblivion use antitrust laws to stay alive. 4)Grow to a reasonable size because you have some idea of how the internet works and will not be a dick to your customers. 5)???? 6)profit

Re:Comcast

[liquidpele (663430)]

Right. If you get the $5+ Billion needed to run cable to homes all over Comcast's area nationwide, I'll get the backbone connection and the routers, and we'll be in business. AT&T and Comcast were regulated because they were monopolies due to their infrastructure. Now they compete in this one area, which is good, but more competition is still needed in my opinion.

Re:Comcast

[plague3106 (71849)]

This is exactly why all communications lines must be seized as property of the public. We have public roads, public water, public electricity, and it's time we have public ownership of data lines.

I'm glad my city decided it wouldn't wait for Comcast or Verizon, and instead went and laid their own fiber network. Guess who has the best internet, phone and cable TV prices and service now?

Re:Comcast

[phizix (1143711)]

I for one like private companies owning the lines as it is one more barrier to improper spying by the government.

Especially companies like AT&T...

Re:Comcast

[Mr2001 (90979)]

I for one like private companies owning the lines as it is one more barrier to improper spying by the government.

It could be exactly the opposite. Remember, the Fourth Amendment only restricts the government, not private companies. The government can, and has, asked private companies to do the kind of snooping that the government itself is forbidden to do.

Re:Comcast

[LeafOnTheWind (1066228)]

Actually, our country has the largest highway system in the world (by far) and it is widely regarded as a modern marvel of engineering. "There's already pointless speed limits when everyone wants to go much faster" is the stupidest argument I have ever heard and potholes happen - the fact that the US government successfully manages a transcontinental system of 45,400 km in length through some of the most varied terrain in the world speaks to its efficacy. If you want to argue about government monopolies, you should probably pick something less successful.

Re:Comcast

[plague3106 (71849)]

Care to give me a couple layman-worthy cites?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_percentile_rule [wikipedia.org]
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/ [motorists.org]

If your going to talk about things like the Autobaun, don't bother, since that isn't geared towards the Big Gulp and Taco, Cellphone, Hair Drying, and Novel Reading American Driver. We're too busy doing other things to be fully trusted to our own means. If there are valid studies, taking into account the unique American character of road use and vehicular philosophy, I will cede your point, barring that I'm sure (guessing here) that there are other studies, equally valid in method, that say otherwise.

Well, perhaps you should do society a favor, and turn in your license. Your argument is that the average American (which you are, and we can't assume otherwise) can't handle making reasonable judgement calls. It stands to reason that you can't either, so make us all safer and stop driving.

The only studies I'm aware of which contradict the civil engineers are done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Guess who fundes them? The same people can will raise rates if you get a ticket.. so they have a vested intrerest in making sure you get a ticket. Besides, the accident rates don't lie; rates do not increase as speed limits are increased, and in many cases accident rates actually drop.

We can agree on the mob-rule thing, though I wouldn't go so far as calling democracy (en toto) mob-rule, and thus bad, there is something to be said for a group of people having the right to represent themselves.

Of course there are issues that don't matter; for example, buying alcohol on Sunday, and other blue laws. These laws may be backed by a majority, but so what? Why should they take the rights of the minorirty that disagree?

I do find benefits in the idea of Philosopher Kings or meritocracy, but generally these go wrong, since those who claim the right to rule generally look out for themselves, to the detriment of the polis. We generally forget that government is here for the sake of the governed, and not for that of the governors.

Generally? Try "always." It's not that we "forget," it's that invariably once government starts regulating things, they tend not to stop. Our Consitution was supposed to stop or slow this, but unfortunately many state and certainly the Federal governments are overstepping their legal bounds. But that's ok, because the mob says its "for our safety."

Actually the ideal form of government, IMHO, would be mob-rule (ala democracy) with an informed public, and a large body of empowered experts within advisory roles in the government. Sadly, here in the US we have an ignorant and apathetic public, and corporate interests (and scientists who are willing sell their standards to said interests) represented in government. I digress.

Again though, the mob tramples the rights of the minority, so we must allow the minority to stop the mob from doing so. The only way to really stop all the issues you bring up is to simply remove most government intervention.

But, interestingly, the g-g-parent said something along the lines of "most people don't want speed limits, but they are enforced for revenue only". This IS a statement FOR mob-rule, the term "most people" confirms it.

I disagree with that statement; it seems to me that "most people don't want speed limits for themselves, but think that they should apply to everyone else." Also, I'm not arguing that we should remove speed limits because that's what people want; my argument is that speed limits are freedoms being limited illegally, not only because there's no proof that there is an "overwhelming societal need to do so (i.e. safety)," the opposite is true: speed limits make roads MORE unsafe. My argument has nothing to do with the OPs content

Re:Comcast

[electrictroy (912290)]

I doubt that my local government (Lancaster PA) would allow me to set-up a second cable company. They've already made up their minds to only string ONE cable to the city homes, and therefore a new startup is blocked from entry.

It's a regulated monopoly.

And being a monopoly, Comcast can do whatever they want (like block access to Itunes) as long as Comcast keeps bribing the Lancaster politicians to keep quiet.

Re:Comcast

[Lumpy (12016)]

This bribe is called a "franchise fee" it allows the local government to take a substantial kickback from a cable company to ensure they are the only game in town. The locality must drop the franchise fee if there are two companies in town so they generally want to keep that steady bribe coming in they make sure that competition can not come in without a larger bag of money.

Gotta love how local government find ways of doing what the Mob has done forever.

Re:Comcast

[Fatal67 (244371)]

If I were comcast, I would just completely block P2P uploading as it violates the TOS. Not a popular answer I know, but my terms do say that I cannot run a server on my residential connection. P2P seeding should qualify as a file server. Comcast made the mistake of letting customers do something that was against the TOS for far too long. Not that there is a time limit on enforcing TOS, but it is always harder to give someone something and then take it away than it is to not give them something to begin with.

Re:Comcast

[Shakrai (717556)]

If I were comcast, I would just completely block P2P uploading as it violates the TOS. Not a popular answer I know, but my terms do say that I cannot run a server on my residential connection. P2P seeding should qualify as a file server

Actually, it's only a server (in the classical sense) if it accepts incoming connections and most P2P apps (Bittorrent included) will function just fine without this ability, albeit with a reduced number of peers that it can reach.

Re:Comcast

[Tanktalus (794810)]

Uploading isn't prohibited. Waiting for, accepting, and responding to incoming requests on any port is. (Nevermind that ftp kinda works that way for non-passive connections.) Thus, putting your photos on a webserver or your video on youtube is fine. Your webcam probably isn't, though you might be hard-pressed to find a techie at comcast that understands why, or why blanket policies are bad policy.

Re:Comcast

[sm62704 (957197)]

someone might do time for it

Dream on. In America a rich powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there. The rule of law is worthless when legislators are bought and sold like cattle.

For instance, how many Sony executives went to prison for the XCP rootkit? [wikipedia.org] That's right, none. Nobody from Comcast will serve time either, and if they donated enough money to the campaigns of the "elected" officials and legislators they'll continue to be able to abuse their customers.

And now for something completely [uncyclopedia.org] different: [uncyclopedia.org]

-mcgrew

Call the *AA?

[Lucan Varo (974578)]

The Federal Communications Commission has made clear, Cohen writes, that cable service is not a common carrier and therefore is not subject to common carrier guidelines.

So that means they're responsible for what passes over their lines, right? Gonna be interesting.

Re:Call the *AA?

[Attila Dimedici (1036002)]

The Federal Communications Commission has made clear, Cohen writes, that cable service is not a common carrier and therefore is not subject to common carrier guidelines.

So that means they're responsible for what passes over their lines, right? Gonna be interesting.

No, it doesn't. As has been discussed here on /. before there is a law that specifically exempts ISP's from being legally responsible for what passes over their lines. However, by choosing to block certain traffic, Comcast may be voluntarily giving up that exemption (the law in question exempts ISP's that do not regulate the content that they transmit, once they start regulating what content they transmit ,at some point they stop qualifying for the exemption. Exactly what constitutes losing the exemption has yet to be ruled by a court).

Re:Call the *AA?

[isaac (2852)]

Incorrect.

[snip]

In other words Comcast's denial of common carrier status is a big mistake, because they are opening themselves to many, many lawsuits because their lines were used (by the customers) to conduct illegal activities.

Christ, this is 100% wrong. ISPs in the USA ARE NOT COMMON CARRIERS!

Please stop propagating this myth!

ISP immunity for subscriber traffic/content comes from Section 230 CDA (yep, that CDA) and the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA. They don't need or want common carrier status.

The FCC explicitly classified cable (in 2002) and DSL (in 2005) ISPs as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services" in order to remove any doubt that they were common carriers.

-Isaac

yea right

[by Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Comcast doesn't decide how to interpret the laws. Judges do.

Second of all, the FCC has been using powers that they weren't directly given (given through court cases that interpreted the laws as giving them such authority) for years, what makes Comcast think this will change for them?

Re:yea right

[rootofevil (188401)]

if comcast can convince the FCC not to bring it before a judge, they most certainly get to interpret the law however they would like.

Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[nweaver (113078)]

Now, I sympathize with Comcast. Many ISPs, not just Comcast, are disrupting P2P sessions, and these sessions are in clear violation of most ISP's Terms of Service. And P2P is horribly disruptive, a single user can easily transmit 20 GB of data in a day.

Yet Comcast seems intent on making people WANT to regulate them. Its like they are deliberately behaving stupid?

They aren't agressive at pointing out all the other ISPs, to get the heat off.

They do stupid things like pack FCC hearing, say that the results won't matter, etc.

Who's running that place?

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[bitbiter (632065)]

They aren't stupid. This is the Standard MO of most US companies. Screw the customer, till you get caught and then say opps and pay a little fine.

Don't you know by now that most companies in the US sit down and think this out. "Lets see, we can make this much money (A) while screwing the customer. It will take this long (B) to get caught. We will make this much (C = (A X B)). When we get caught it will cost us this much (D) in legal fees and fines. So if C > D then it's what they do."

This is not going to change anytime soon. When the punishments never add up even close to what they make.
Welcome to the Corporate United States Of America.

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[Dutch Gun (899105)]

This is the Standard MO of most US companies.

No, this is the standard MO of companies (or any entity) which grows to monopoly-size. Competition brings out the best in companies, because one can simply switch to a competitor if the service gets too bad. The capitalist approach typically falters when:

a) The government sticks its nose in and creates or sanctions a monopoly
b) The government doesn't stick its nose in to break up an illegal monopoly
c) It's the government itself that's providing the service.
d) The company gets too big to care about customers anymore, and implode under the weight of their own bureaucracy.

From companies that have to compete fiercely for my business, I tend to get great service. Abusive and underhanded practices won't keep a company going long, because the negative PR will eventually drive other customers away. It's simple Darwinism - those that don't just don't survive long. Capitalism may not always be pretty, but it sure beats the living hell out of any other system the human race has tried thus far.
 

Re:

[asterix404 (1240192)]

Comcast doesn't put an upload/download limit in their terms of service, you are paying for a service. What happens if you want to download 5 linux distros to try them out? They already cap bandwidth so that you don't ever get the 4mbps that you are "promised" I get 750KB/s download and 125KB/s upload, called them up and asked why and basically got the runaround with an answer eventually saying on because we can. The the FCC can't get them then the better business bureau may be able to for breaking a contrac

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[j79zlr (930600)]

the 4mbps that you are "promised" I get 750KB/s download and 125KB/s upload

750 kB/s == 6 mbps. So you are getting more than you promised, will you be sending Comcast a thank you card?

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[GweeDo (127172)]

"so that you don't ever get the 4mbps that you are "promised" I get 750KB/s download and 125KB/s upload"

You do know that 750KBps is 5.859375 Mbps right?

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[bensode (203634)]

Let me be the first to say F*CK Comcast. I moved to southern PA recently only to get gouged with a $70 monthly internet bill. I don't have the option to switch to DSL/FIOS so my only other option is dial-up. No thank you. It's funny my neighbors (a lot of them) have a $24.99 monthly Comcast bill. The local ISP just before I moved in (SusCom) was bought out by Comcast http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6279636.html [multichannel.com] and they get grandfathered into the same price. Any "new" service REQUIRES cable TV + $50 a month internet, totaling $70 a month. I'm an avid DirectTV subscriber because the Comcast cable tv service is absolutely terrible here. So I have to pay for cable tv, internet and DirectTV.

You know what Comcast told me when I complained about the price, lack of options and their crappy service? "Move". Isn't that wonderful customer service ...

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

"a single user can easily transmit 20 GB of data in a day."

Only if he is freely provided with the bandwidth promised by the ISP. Now are you saying he should not be able to use this bandwidth? There are plenty of legal uses for P2P so your sweeping statements just come across as ridiculous and ignorant.

The problem is simple: the company has made bandwidth promises to more people than it can handle on its lines. This is analogous to an airline promising everyone a seat on a plane in exchange for X dollars, but then when everyone who was promised a seat actually shows up for the flight (*gasp*), the airline kicks off the fat people, and tells everyone else to share seats. Now at this point any reasonable person would demand a refund and go to another airline. The problem in this situation is that there is no other airline. Your only option is to pick up and move to another location. Ask the government how this situation came about.

Re:Just how STUPID IS Comcast?

[TubeSteak (669689)]

And P2P is horribly disruptive, a single user can easily transmit 20 GB of data in a day.

Sure, if they max out 2Mbps of upload bandwidth for 24 hours straight.
What *Comcast/Verizon/AT&T connection do you have that does a steady 2Mbps up?

Last I checked, non-business connections were either 384 kbps or 768 kbps, which is about 4GB & 8GB per day respectively. I limit this discussion to Comcast/Verizon/AT&T because those are usually the only options for the vast majority of people in the USA.

So who are these non-business/non-FIOS users transmitting 20 GB per day?

http://www.google.com/search?q=20+GB+per+day+in+Kbps [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=384+kbps+in+GB+per+day [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=768+kbps+in+GB+per+day [google.com]

*non-business & non-fiber since comcast can't exactly blame fiber users for running up their bandwidth bill.

A cable company in favor of 'the market'?

[mgkimsal2 (200677)]

Isn't this the same Comcast which runs cable service in markets which usually has a local government-granted monopoly for cable service in those regions? Funny that now they want to say "let the market decide" when cable companies generally won't invest in the infrastructure unless granted a monopoly on providing cable service. I'm remembering back a long time - perhaps this isn't the case any more. If broadband options were available everywhere, I'd certainly say "let the market decide" - many people (myself included) only have one option for broadband, and it's often cable.

In other news...

[sweatyboatman (457800)]

...Car thieves have declared the police have no legal authority to prevent them from stealing cars.

Good luck with that.

I don't really understand what Comcast hopes to get out of such an "above the law" argument. It's just bound to piss off the FCC regulators even more and make them more committed to enforcing whatever decision they make against Comcast. Just to show all the other cable companies and telcos that they aren't to be messed with.

What bullshit

[Coopjust (872796)]

I honestly can't believe the amount of crap coming from Comcast.

The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful,"

Yeah, right. Which is why US broadband penetration continues to rank lower and lower worldwide despite $200 Billion from the government. And people are protesting traffic filtering. And your company is so afraid of actual people sitting at an FCC public hearing that they pay people to hold seats for employees, busing the employees in, and locking the public out from the meeting.

What Comcast is doing with the sandvine filtering is forging packets. That's fraud.

Challenge

[whisper_jeff (680366)]

That sounds like a challenge to me. I'll be interested to see if the FCC accepts the challenge and shows Comcast that it's the government, not corporations that run things, despite what many (including Comcast, obviously) may think.

Now I may be a mutated hyper chicken

[techpawn (969834)]

Comcast argues that Congress has not given the FCC the authority to act...

Then who gave the FCC authority in the first place to do anything?

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a United States government agency, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. 151 and 47 U.S.C. 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current president.
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States.

So it was congress who gave them the authority to act and then took it away with another act?

Competition

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful,"

Comcast's "marketplace" justification doesn't work. Their implication is that having a market means you have competition. But Comcast has a licensed monopoly on the cable network, and some telephone company has a monopoly on the telephone network. That's a market with, at the very most, one competitor.

I Agree With Comcast

[superid (46543)]

"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," - Cohen

I agree completely and will move my "customer experience" from Comcast to Verizon FioS ASAP.

Re:I Agree With Comcast

[Bryansix (761547)]

Now if only FiOS was available in my area.

Re:I Agree With Comcast

[rusty0101 (565565)]

I would note that it is up to the FCC to determine if Internet service over Cable is a mature technology to the point that it should be opened to providers other than the company that owns the cable plant. If the FCC decides that it is, then Comcast, Time Warner, and other cable companies will be required to open their plant to third party internet service providers, just as Qwest, Verizon and AT&T do for DSL service.

Comcast's monopoly techniques and customer complaints to the FCC are likely to result in a review of their decision a few years back that allowed them to get to the position they are in at this time. I tend to suspect that there is a significant percentage of the Comcast subscriber base who would consider an ISP connection cost of $20 a month across their cable plant to be a significant improvement over the current $100+ a month fees. (Sure Internet service is only a $50 part of that bill, unless you decide not to have cable TV service in which case it becomes a $75 a month charge.)

I.e. there's a 250% mark up compared to DSL with possibly double the bandwidth potentially available, and the opportunity to have your P2P sessions interfered with.

A reminder, the reason Comcast has been interfering with P2P sessions is that they have not built the capacity in their plant to handle the volume of customer traffic. They may be really happy to announce that they are now looking at rolling out DOCIS 3 with it's 100 meg to the customer bandwidth, but it appears they have not built the backbone to allow customers to make use of it. Lots of luck there.

Enforced monopoly should answer to a reg. body

[bishiraver (707931)]

They gave up their rights to rely on the marketplace when they signed on to government-endorsed monopoly status.

I would have absolutely NO qualms about allowing the marketplace to sort this out - unfortunately, the marketplace is artificially sparse.

If a power company with government-mandated monopoly was blocking power to your electric oven because it sucked down too much juice and you ran it all the time, the government would get involved.

If an internet company with government-mandated monopoly blocks bits to a piece of software because it uses too much bandwidth, the regluatory body (FCC) should get involved.

That's how it should work. If you want the government to keep you in power, you gotta make sure your services don't fuck people over. If you don't like it, have fun competing and - well - making consumers happy by striving to have the best and least expensive service. Common fucking sense. Unfortunately there's nothing common about it..

(For those of you who don't think this is an enforced monopoly - Right now I only have one choice for broadband - optimum. Time warner services buildings two blocks from me, but I'm in a different district in brooklyn and TW is legally restricted from servicing the area -- because it's optimum's area.)

Comcast is in Big Trouble

[HermMunster (972336)]

Comcast may think they have the right to do what they are doing but this is all bad publicity. That though is the normalized side of things. They'll loose lots of business.

What Comcast may not be understanding is that shitting on the FCC now means the FCC will shit on them later. Guaranteed. Comcast is burning bridges.

They need to disassociate their activities completely with any blocking and open the network and become neutral. What the FCC will probably do is give everyone the right to sue Comcast over what the consumer does on line. Essentially they are removing their own neutrality.

Comcast is far to simplistic in their thinking and dangerous in their actions.

The next thing you know...

[MikeURL (890801)]

...Comcast will be arguing that the IRS has no power to promulgate regulations regarding taxation.

That will put digg users on the side of Comcast and the world will promptly explode.

Software should fight back!

[John Sokol (109591)]

Is there any reason the virus's and worms can get through the P2P can't?

  Bit Torrent is already showing it's age.

  I would like to get some team together to create on based on erasure codes, ECIP http://www.ecip.com/ [ecip.com]
  or LT Code, the Luby Transform (Michael Luby), Fountain Codes (from Digital Fountain), network codes, Tornado codes, Online Codes, and Raptor codes.

  In addition the P2P engine should morph and change it's communications similar to stealth viruses do.
  So no static filtering scheme could work.

  And it should also detect networks that attempt to block them and immediately launch a DOS attack against the router and infrastructure that attempts to block them. Let's not call is DOS attack, but basically by attempting to slow or stop P2P transfers to conserver bandwidth the system just starts to pour on the traffic even higher.

  back in 1996 to 1999 Aryeh Friedman and myself worked on what we called Rude protocols, SPAC.
  the basic idea was to provide a guaranteed data throughput on the receiver side without any regard to how much it had to send on the sending side.

This is critical for fix rate video transmission if you are to get good quality and is a very different approach to the QOS RSVP where your begging ISP's to allow your traffic to have a higher priority. We just Take it very rudely.

  In 1997 we did a broadcast with Sir Arthur C. Clarke (who died yesterday) from Sri Lanka to the US.
  It was over the Island of Sri lanka's only internet connection and 64K line that had 90% packet loss.
  By pushing out almost 1 Mbps at the 64K like we were able to get a clean 60Kbps at the receive side for a live streaming video event! We had permission from the country's ISP at that time since the event lasted only for 1 hour.
http://www.livecamserver.com/ [livecamserver.com] and http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/clarke.html [dnull.com]

  But during ours test in So Cal, we were on a Dual T3 Circuit that went into Mae West, Large data interchange, pushing 10Mbps video and the network had some small outage and we pummeled the entire California internet down to an almost complete outage, 1997. this only lasted for maybe 10 minutes or so as almost every network Backbone admin was scrambled to try to stem the 100Mbps flood of UDP packets that our protocol started to push down the line.
  We took a lot of flack for that out, lost our Co-Lo at that location.

    Anyhow since that time we just added some cap's on the maximum.

  Point being, that any deliberate attempts to stem the flow would in a sense create back pressure, that would only force an increase of the data being sent, and so creating network blockages would have the opposite of the desired effect by costing them even more bandwidth instead of saving it.

  Wouldn't that be a fun thing ;)

 

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[sconeu (64226)]

IANAL, but...

Comcast: "The FCC can bite my shiny metal ass. Nyah, nyah, nyah!!!!"

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[jollyreaper (513215)]

Hah. My favorite version of that line.

[someone slips and falls]

me: Is there a lawyer in the house?

lawyer: [stands up, raises hand] Here, good sir!

me: *BANG!*

lawyer: Gah! [drops dead]

me: Now do we have anyone from marketing?

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Comcast: "Hey, FCC, I know that you're generally not wanting to regulate us cable companies, so why not just let us go?"

FCC: "Hmm, any chance of backing that up with a law somewhere?"

Comcast: "How about this one? Just say we're being regulated by 'market forces'."

FCC: "But you're a regulated monopoly! That'll never fly!"

Comcast: "Weren't you going to run for office? Here's a 'donation' to your 'exploratory committee'."

FCC: "Sounds good. The free market wins again!"

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[explosivejared (1186049)]

I'm no lawyer, but here's the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on the act in question. Seems to me new ground is being tread here, so I'm not sure how a court would rule. However, such hubris can't make things easier on Comcast. They'd have to be pretty sure to call out the FCC like this. I personally hope Comcast is wrong, but that is another matter.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[CubeRootOf (849787)]

The FCC has no standing to police what comcast does or does not do to its customers because congress has not given the FCC that power.

Additionally, sometime during President Truman's last term, a statement was issued that essentially said 'We are not communists! See - we like the free market, and we will regulate as little as possible', which WAS approved by congress, and is currently active.

Comcast is essentially telling the FCC to not bother, as whatever finding they come to, Comcast will believe it illigit and not comply unless congress gets involved and changes the laws, or issues a new guidance.

Essentially - this is big political news, and if this goes forward we can expect to see a new set of good laws ( or bad) coming out of congress to address issues like this.

My bet? Be prepared for congress to give the go head to throttle down P2P as a public service.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Shakrai (717556)]

But that's complete bullshit, Comcast has been granted monopolies in the cable market, so they HAVE meddled with the free market

And the people to bitch to about that would be your state and/or local politicians, because that's who granted the monopolies in the first place. I've never heard of a Federal cable franchise agreement......

Re:

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

the US internet will look like Communist China's

Except for the cable company not being the government, and therefore divorced from a lot of the other power bases. Oh, and that the blocking likely won't get too far because there's another choice. And that Comcast won't be investigating people and then making them "disappear" because they're dissidents.

Other than that, yeah, the internet will be just like China's. I'm glad someone's finally had the balls to stand up and make an erroneous, inflammatory and completely unique critique of the state of fre