FCC Hints At New Traffic Shaping GuidelinesBut how far will the agency really go? ( old news - 01:05PM Monday Feb 25 2008) tags: fcc · bandwidth · Politics · networkingWith the FCC holding a hearing today at Harvard Law School on traffic shaping and network management, the NY Times reports the agency is "considering taking steps to discourage cable and telephone companies from discriminating against content providers" and is "considering new rules and enforcement." As we've discussed ad nauseum, the agency's current network neutrality guidelines are so flimsy that any ISP lawyer worth a damn could easily argue that everything but an outright block of a competing content provider is reasonable. "They must be conducted in an open and transparent way," said Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, at a hearing on network neutrality and network management here Monday. "While networks may have reasonable practices, they obviously cannot operate without taking some reasonable steps but that does not mean they can arbitrarily block access to certain services." Again, it should be interesting to see if the FCC's Martin is simply paying lip service, given his preference toward hands-off regulatory policy if the decision impacts baby bell operators. While it's likely the FCC boss won't impose new network neutrality rules, it's possible he could pass guidelines that force ISPs to be more transparent with the precise nature of their traffic shaping, giving broadband customers an easier time comparing providers. Then again, the FCC could heed the call of companies like Verizon and do absolutely nothing, trusting in their claim that the ISPs themselves will do the right thing or face the competitive consequence. Of course Verizon is in the competitive sweet spot with FiOS, and doesn't thottle p2p traffic or boot high-consumption users like Comcast. Related:- Don't Get Too Excited About The FCC's Comcast 'Investigation'
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- AT&T Front Group Claims Internet End Is Nigh
|
  newview Ex .. Ex .. Exactly Premium join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD
·Vonage
| Tell the TRUTH quote: "They must be conducted in an open and transparent way," said Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission".
That means no more lying, Comcast. -- Ö¿Ö The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
|  |  Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Tell the TRUTH Seriously. If they just made the rules, that you had to report it EVERY time you used "network management", and there would be a big fine/penalty if you didn't and were caught.
Then, if the actions survive the light of day, at least things can be reviewed in a fair and honest way. It's impossible to right regulation/legislation to cover every instance for an evolving technology. | |
|  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20 | Re: Tell the TRUTH Fair?
It would be nice if they would just come out and reinforce "no servers" and add to it, "No BT Uploading" allowed. That would end this problem over night. | |
|  |  |  |   NOCMan Verizon Fios User Premium join:2004-09-30 Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Tell the TRUTH You mean BT downloading? Nobody in the US uploads, it's too easy to be prosecuted.
And no blocking it is not the answer.
ISP's should immediately prioritize all http, ssh, vpn, smpt, pop/imap, and regulate all bittorrent traffic down to bulk priority. Everything else gets first chomp at the pipe and the bulk gets there when it gets there.
The tools are there. Nobody has to guarantee timely delivery of bulk traffic, you get it when it gets there and deal with it.
Does anyone not remember downloading doom at 2400 baud? | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Tell the TRUTH said by NOCMan :ISP's should immediately prioritize all http, ssh, vpn, smpt, pop/imap, and regulate all bittorrent traffic down to bulk priority. Everything else gets first chomp at the pipe and the bulk gets there when it gets there. Agreed. It's relatively easy for ISPs to look at traffic patterns, determine most used, least "dangerous", and time sensitive protocols, and then set priority weights as appropriate. I would guess that it costs less for hardware to implement QoS than it does for hardware to conduct deep level inspection of traffic. | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| If what you are saying is correct, then what's the issue?
So far, Comcast has only blocked UPLOADS on torrents, not downloads. If downloads are bing impaired, it's because another user's upload is being shaped.
Also, the moment someone has their traffic prioritized, you know darn well the net-watchers will cry foul and anti-competitive and all the rest. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Tell the TRUTH said by fiberguy :Also, the moment someone has their traffic prioritized, you know darn well the net-watchers will cry foul and anti-competitive and all the rest. You will always have complainers, but they have little grounds moan if the QoS is done equally across the board and doesn't prioritize a competing service lower than the ISP's service (e.g. VoIP). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   RARPSL
join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY
| said by fiberguy :So far, Comcast has only blocked UPLOADS on torrents, not downloads. If downloads are bing impaired, it's because another user's upload is being shaped. I think you should look again at how BT works. Failure to upload (when you have needed pieces) or dropping uploading sessions will cause the peers at the other end to disconnect you or at least stop talking to you. Once a peer requests a piece from you, failure to supply it will cause the requesting peer to stop sending you pieces (ie: Choke you). This means that what Comcast is doing by blocking Uploads is ALSO blocking downloads since there will be no data to be downloaded (due to you being choked by the other peers). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Tell the TRUTH said by RARPSL :said by fiberguy :So far, Comcast has only blocked UPLOADS on torrents, not downloads. If downloads are bing impaired, it's because another user's upload is being shaped. I think you should look again at how BT works. Failure to upload (when you have needed pieces) or dropping uploading sessions will cause the peers at the other end to disconnect you or at least stop talking to you. Once a peer requests a piece from you, failure to supply it will cause the requesting peer to stop sending you pieces (ie: Choke you). This means that what Comcast is doing by blocking Uploads is ALSO blocking downloads since there will be no data to be downloaded (due to you being choked by the other peers). Then let those pushing out versions of bittorrent change that, so slow uploading peers aren't choked. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |  |  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000
| "ISP's should immediately prioritize all http, ssh, vpn, smpt, pop/imap, and regulate all bittorrent traffic down to bulk priority."
That would work great if the BT crowd followed the rules. When ISPs start doing this then the BT crowd finds a way to make their traffic look like legit traffic. If they did this then BT would begin to look like SSH or VPN traffic.
BT is just as guilty as the ISPs. IF they were not trying to get around the ISP's traffic policies then the ISPs would not resort to things like forging packets. Neither side is in the right, they are BOTH wrong. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Tell the TRUTH said by battleop :BT is just as guilty as the ISPs. IF they were not trying to get around the ISP's traffic policies then the ISPs would not resort to things like forging packets. Neither side is in the right, they are BOTH wrong. An ISP isn't supposed to have traffic policies. If they're selling "the Internet," they're supposed to follow Internet Standards.
There have been two, and will soon be three, technologies added to BitTorrent to thwart ISPs.
1. Protocol Obfuscation
2. Message Stream Encryption
3. Tracker Obfuscation (in draft)
In all three cases, it is because ISPs broke Internet Standards and attacked the protocol, even though the protocol was following the rules.
In all three cases, the new BitTorrent technologies that were added were pre-announced and built on open specifications for anyone to read. ISPs can and should know how their network is being used so that they can support their users.
BitTorrent doesn't want a fight with the ISPs, they just want what's right. BitTorrent has acted above-board each time -- and some of the ISPs have, too -- but not Comcast in this instance. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000
| Re: Tell the TRUTH "An ISP isn't supposed to have traffic policies. If they're selling "the Internet," they're supposed to follow Internet Standards."
So ISPs should allow the free flow of spam, spy ware, any virus, or anything else that might come down the pipe. They should allow DDOS attacks as well as port scans and anything else that might inhibit your true unfiltered access to the internet? Maybe they should just bypass their firewalls all together and let the chaos flow. After all we can't have ISPs running around having traffic polices.
Could you care to point out what RFC says that ISPs are not to protect their networks? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Tell the TRUTH Every example that you mention -is- a violation of Network Neutrality. They are also:
1. Clearly and prominently publicized by the ISP -- it's easy to find out from Comcast what ports that they block and why.
2. Considered rare exceptions to the normal expected behavior of the Internet, which is why ISPs traditionally publicize their list of blocked ports.
3. Nearly universally considered either of no effect or valuable by the ISPs customers, so much so that never once (that I know of) has any customer ever complained or sought redress. In some cases, ISPs will also let subscribers "opt out" of certain blocks (such as outgoing port 25 or outgoing volume mail restrictions).
That said -- how long has it been since Comcast added any ports to its list of blocked ports? I cannot remember anything new being added within the past 2-3 years.
So, yeah, I'll grant you that exception to my rather global statement. It exists, and I even support it. It is, however, simply an exception to the rule. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000
| Re: Tell the TRUTH Comcast should have been up front with their customers about screwing with BT traffic. However they have apparently corrected that by making changes to their AUP. I think that as long as they are doing the "All or None" approach they will stay out of trouble. Once they get into screwing with specific destinations like screwing with a competing VoIP provider they are in a lot of trouble.
Perhaps this was a way to test the waters to see what would happen. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | You claim that something BattleOP said is violation of Network Neutrality. What is it actually and what is a violation? Nothing has been set in stone for it and nothing will be. So how can one violate something that doesnt exist? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit: February 27th, @12:24AM
| Re: Tell the TRUTH Hi Kyle,
Network Neutrality is a principle, and that principle has existed since the beginning of the Internet.
That doesn't mean to say that we've never had a Network Neutrality violation until recently, it simply means that the principle has been around since the beginning.
A principle stands above laws and rules. Sometimes they are organizers to other principles: Honesty is a principle under which principles such as respect for the truth, fair dealing, and honoring the property of others. Sometimes they are the principles that organize our written and common laws: robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, and forgery.
Getting pulled over and having your pockets searched by a policeman is a violation of your privacy. However, the word violation in an of itself does not mean it is actionable. The officer's reasonable concern for his own safety might justify the brief and limited roadside search.
The principles of Honesty, Privacy, and Network Neutrality are not nebulous. We know what they are, and we know when they are violated -- even if there are no written laws or rules telling us so.
As battleop noted above, there are Network Neutrality violations that almost everyone accepts (and many appreciate). But I think we can agree that those examples are exceptions, and that despite those exceptions, the Internet is expected to be Neutral. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| said by NOCMan :ISP's should immediately prioritize all http, ssh, vpn, smpt, pop/imap, and regulate all bittorrent traffic down to bulk priority. Everything else gets first chomp at the pipe and the bulk gets there when it gets there. ISPs have no business worrying about HTTP, SSH, VPN, SMTP -- blah blah blah.
ISPs should worry about one thing: I.P. -- Internet Protocol
Any protocol above that level is really not the ISPs concern!
How do you write transport-layer or application-layer network software and predict how it will behave on the Internet if every ISP has their hand on a knob tuning the protocols to their specific liking?
If VOIP doesn't work in the presence of BitTorrent (it does), then let's have the software and network engineers figure out one OPEN and PUBLISHED solution that will work world-wide instead of a bunch of ISPs and transit providers who insist on working in secret. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | Re: Tell the TRUTH If you don't like the way an ISP operates its business then START YOUR OWN | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA | Re: Tell the TRUTH What a helpful comment, thanks for adding! | |
|  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| No.. I think that means something TOTALLY different.. So far, I still believe my predictions WILL come true... (pending the fact that the FCC caves and actually cows to the torrent whiners)
it's possible he could pass guidelines that force ISPs to be more transparent with the precise nature of their traffic shaping, giving broadband customers an easier time comparing providers. What this translates into is simple: You buy this tier, you get 40gig transfer.. buy the other, you get 80gig transfer. Again, welcome to punishing everyone in order to control the small amount of problem children.
However, at this time, I don't think the FCC will do anything.. for not only do they not have the ability to, no rules have been broken, nothing has been violated.. the ISPs have a right to manage their networks. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| FCC is pwned by the telcos While it's likely the FCC boss won't impose new network neutrality rules, it's possible he could pass guidelines that force ISPs to be more transparent with the precise nature of their traffic shaping, giving broadband customers an easier time comparing providers.
That means we can look forward to some half-assed 6 or 7 sentence statement with sufficiently large loopholes and ambiguous terms to drive a bus through. | |
|  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | Re: FCC is pwned by the telcos I thought this concern was with the cablecos...which the FCC appears to lack a certain amount of affection for. So based on your logic, we should see some heavy-handed regulation today towards the cableco ISPs. | |
|  |  |  SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: FCC is pwned by the telcos said by openbox9 : So based on your logic, we should see some heavy-handed regulation today towards the cableco ISPs. Actually, that's your logic, not mine. And your words, not mine, but thanks for trying to tell me otherwise, bubba.
It is highly doubtful there will be any kind of meaningful regs coming from the FCC because anything the cablecos have to adhere the telcos will also have to adhere to. | |
|  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | Re: FCC is pwned by the telcos I didn't tell you otherwise, just merely expounding upon your logic.
I also agree that the FCC most likely won't provide any reg/policy based on this meeting, but I also don't believe that any is required at this time. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   RadioDoc Sortofadog Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: FCC is pwned by the telcos That's right. Remember eight years ago when the FCC completely deregulated cable high speed Internet as an "information service" to free the MSOs from line sharing requirements while the telcos were still required to allow access to all comers?
The cable apologists here conveniently forget the recent past when the pendulum was decidedly swung in their favor. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|   LegoPower77 Abecedarian Premium join:2002-08-03 Arlington, VA
| No kidding It's possible [the FCC] could pass guidelines that force ISPs to be more transparent with the precise nature of their traffic shaping, giving broadband customers an easier time comparing providers. You mean it will be individual consumers making the choices rather than a politics-driven bureaucracy? Where's the freedom in that? I want to be free from having to worry about making decisions and possibly not getting the best deal. -- "It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."James Madison It's right, it's free. | |
|  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| This sounds reasonable if the rule is that an ISP can "manage" network traffic (e.g. throttle BitTorrent) as long as they are OPEN about what they are doing...
that sounds reasonable to me. Consumers can then choose based on the reality of what the ISP is doing.
The only problem I see for ComCast is that they may consider secrecy part of their network management regime. If they are very open about what they are doing, and they are not allowed to change their network management regimes without going through regulatory cycles, then they won't be able to keep up with changes in the BitTorrent clients, encryption, etc.
And, I think this is essentially what the EFF is asking for. Don't discriminate against a particular traffic generator, if you are looking to manage network traffic. Discriminate based on overall statistics, like the amount of upload over time, for example. | |
|  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: This sounds reasonable said by MyDogHsFleas :The only problem I see for ComCast is that they may consider secrecy part of their network management regime. If they are very open about what they are doing, and they are not allowed to change their network management regimes without going through regulatory cycles, then they won't be able to keep up with changes in the BitTorrent clients, encryption, etc. Not that I see any new regulation/policy coming from the FCC, I think your statement is key. An open release of management practices could prove challenging to some ISPs that are truly protecting their network. Furthermore, if ISPs aren't allowed to actively manage their networks without "mother may I" permission, customers may see a decrease in service quality. It certainly won't be the first time that good intentions have caused ill-will. | |
|  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| said by MyDogHsFleas : Consumers can then choose based on the reality of what the ISP is doing. Since cable doesn't require a contract, what's the point in this? Most providers offer a money back guarantee. Get the product, it doesn't work for you, leave them. DSL also is often not requiring a contract either... and if they do, you have 30 days to leave.
I think it's riding a very greasy rail to have to "disclose" every bit of network management, and unreasonable to boot. What does this do to the infrustructure of providing the service? Every time someone can't log into Yahoo, MySpace, or eBay.. send an email, run their servers.. are they going to call support, file a complaint about traffic shaping? In all honesty, people do that to date. The moment they can't send one email, or their email program shows a send/receive error, they are OFTEN on the phone to the ISP/HOST within minutes instead of giving the error a minute or two to self correct.
Also, in your "don't discriminate against a particular traffic" - they already do. Many, INCLUDING FiOS, don't allow servers.. MANY simply block port 80. This is all an attempt for some advocacy group to force their ways on to a company and their private networks to suit their needs; I disagree.
Congress already made it clear that don't want this legislation, and since daddy said no, now they ask mommy. | |
|  |  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 jvanbrecht
join:2007-01-08 Bowie, MD
| Give them the option to.... Well, give them the option, they can filter all they want, but they lose all common carrier status and can be held liable for anything and everything that crosses their network, or they leave all the traffic alone period, except for network management (and no leaving giant loopholes either) and allow them to keep their pseudo immune status. | |
|  |  awesomepatro
join:2008-01-02 | Re: Give them the option to.... Cable is not a common carrier. . . . | |
|  |  |  |   jwersan R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and RichK1957 Premium join:2004-12-20 Port Jefferson Station, NY clubs:
·Optimum Online
| Simple solution.. All ISP's and network connection providers MUST allow all "packets" to pass unencumbered, period.
With the exception of "load balancing" schemes that keep any one user(s) from monopolising the available bandwidth, they should NOT be allowed to "tune" any connection or "traffic" over another "users".
They also must be held accountable that the bandwidth that they "advertise" and sell to a "usr" must actually exist, so to speak, and not be "theoretical" at best, if they can't or won't deliver that amount of bandwidth then they must be forced to list what actually can be used, no more "upto" games...
If the "Packet" comes from Microsoft or "Joe Blow" down the street, they should be forced to give both equal priority on the network. -- RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!! In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|  |  See 29 replies to this post | |
 datwell1
join:2002-01-08 Falls Church, VA | Fortunately Fortunately, Verizon's FiOS doesn't seem to have this problem. And I hope it stays like that too.
--Doug | |
|   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| NYTIMES -- Comments heard at the meeting --»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/2···chnology
Yochai Benkler, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the current difficulties are a consequence of the lack of meaningful competition among the broadband companies.
If you have no competition, you have to get into setting standards because abuses follow.'
David L. Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast, began his testimony recognizing that in a room full of critics, Comcast was facing an uphill fight.
Its a pleasure to be here as a participant and hopefully not the main course for your meal,' he said. He said the company has and always will be committed to giving all of our customers a superior internet experience.' If our customers want it, the Comcast network will deliver it,'
He emphasized repeatedly that Comcast was not blocking any application and that on a very limited basis' Comcast was delaying traffic in limited areas when there is heavy traffic.
Dont let the rhetoric of some of the critics scare you there is nothing wrong with network management,' he said. Every network is managed.'
We believe we have chosen the least intrusive method to help the vast majority of our high speed internet suers to service degradation.'
Tom Tauke, an executive Vice President at Verizon, said that his company did not face the same problem for now because it had greater capacity. He agreed that there is nothing improper about reasonable network management and said that the industry has a responsibility to establish sound industry practices for the benefit of customers.'
Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, encapsulated the difficulties facing regulators.
I went to law school here,' he said. I have this terrible fear we are going to have an exam after this on what is reasonable network management. And we are all going to fail.'
UPDATE:
In his questioning of industry executives, Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, hinted that he is considering taking strong action against Comcast. He suggested the commission had the authority to take steps, and asked the executives from Comcast and Verizon whether they believed the agency had the authority to impose a fine on Comcast or order it to stop blocking access to any applications.
Mr. Cohen said he did not believe the agency had the authority to enforce its Internet principles.
Mr. Tauke said there was no need for Congressional legislation because the commission has exercised its jurisdiction.' -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  bunklung
join:2002-07-13 Northampton, MA
| FIOS FTW! "Tom Tauke, executive vice president at Verizon, said his company does not handle bottlenecks in the same way because its network architecture is configured differently than Comcast's, making such management steps unnecessary." | |
|  Mike_27 Premium join:2004-05-15 Gardiner, MT | Give them the option to....Pay by the byte! Problem solved
Mike | |
|  jmallory
join:2005-11-02 Clawson, MI
| My solution is When a customer is put on the network give them two choices...
1.) You can go on with the normal users and agree to have your p2p traffic managed by Sandvine or...
2.) You can go on a "special port" on the CMTS with all the other p2p users in the area and you will be given the email addresses of all the other people on that port and you can figure out how best to share the bandwidth amongst yourselves.
I don't think QoS is all that effective in the Cable world because QoS has to be done at ingress and that is your cable modem and I don't believe they are that intelligent. You can deploy QoS at the CMTS but if you are on the same port with a more than a few p2p users, it is going to suck to be you. | |
|  |  PCDEC
join:2004-10-12 Allentown, PA
| Re: My solution is What about stuff other than p2p traffic that they shape? I remember it being mentioned that it affects newsgoups and VOIP as well.
If they offer services like cable and phone and they shape streaming media and VOIP on their network it will hurt the competition only, because their traditional services won't be affected. That's why what they are doing should net be allowed. | |
|   LeeRich
@myvzw.com
| Sensitive Information What about information that is more sensitive to lags in the network than others. For example VoIP and YouTube (due to the streaming video) are more sensitive to latencies in the network than other types of traffic. By managing their network ISPs are attempting to handle this issue when the network is congested by intense peer to peer file sharing.
The FCC knows this, which is why it allows for "reasonable network management." It seems unnecessary to me to create new regulations and enforcement mechanisms in order to force ISPs NOT to manage their networks. While it may alleviate some criticism from some users, others are going to be looking at a very different Internet. | |
|  |  ELRefugee
join:2002-02-07 Boulder Creek, CA
·Comcast
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Sensitive Information This debate is truly ridiculous, and exists only because Comcast's network apparently isn't up to the task of providing its advertised speeds to its customers.
We pay $40/month for unlimited telephone service, and we've never received a complaint from AT&T that we're using the service too much.
Comcast should either start charging by the byte, or shut the hell up and stop advertising speeds they can't deliver without playing traffic nanny. | |
|  | |  |
|
|