The internet is over!

[xoxoxoBruce]

You've got to admit it's got a righteous ring to it though.

[tw]

From ComputerWorld of 12 Mar 2007:

Comcast: We'll blackball big downloaders with no warning
Comcast has begun canceling the accounts of people who perform lots of downloads, but the ISP refuses to reveal exactly what its download limits are. The Boston Globe {of 12 Mar 2007 Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users } reports that an increasing number of users are kicked off of Comcast for exceeding bandwidth limits. What are those limits exactly...or even approximately? Don't bother asking, because if you do, you'll feel you ended up in a Kafka novel.

According to the Globe, Amanda Lee of Cambridge, MA received a call from Comcast, warning her that she had to cut back on her downloading, or else the ISP would cancel her account for a year. Lee wanted to know how much she could download, so asked what the limit was.

The Globe reports, "When she asked what the download limit was, she was told there was no limit, that she was just downloading too much."

Then, one month later, he account was canceled for -- you guessed it -- exceeding the download limits, even though Comcast refused to tell her what those limits were.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It'll continue until enough people take them to court.

I disagree with that title

[tw]

From the NY Times of 26 Feb 2008:

F.C.C. Weighing Limits on Slowing Web Traffic
The head of the Federal Communications Commission and other senior officials said on Monday that they were considering taking steps to discourage cable and telephone companies from delaying the downloads and uploads of heavy Internet users. ...

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, has been the subject of a complaint after it acknowledged that it slowed down some Internet traffic of BitTorrent, a file-sharing service, because of heavy use of video-sharing applications.

If you are a heavy downloader on Comcast (ie listen to radio webcasts constantly), then Comcast may terminate your service without any explanation. This has been reported on NPR. If three users consume that much bandwidth, then the other 24 users who share the same coaxial cable will suffer diminished service. Comcast's solution is reported as to terminate heavy user service.

In a free market, Comcast would simply increase bandwidth or make other plans for the so many more who will be demanding more of the internet. Instead, Comcast suggests surcharges for services such as Google.

Earlier in this thread was software purchased by Comcast that can identify packets so as to delay them. Skype was a possible target cited by IEEE Spectrum. NY Times identifies another target - BitTorrent.

[toranokaze]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[mbpark]

TW,

The reason why for Skype: They already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.

The reason why for BitTorrent: They're getting major pressure from the MPAA and RIAA over pirated movies. Even though there are legit uses for BitTorrent, I figure at least 90% of it is for transmitting pirated software and movies.

The reason why for all of this, instead of spending money on technology: MBAs that underestimate the will of people to avoid paying for intangible things and get around artificial technology blocks.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

The reason why for Skype: They already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.

The way I read that:
The reason why restrictions on Skype: Comcast already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.

[Undertoad]

That's two years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Be sure and hit the tip jar before it goes.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's two years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true.

It was not my conclusion. It was a problem noted by IEEE Spectrum in Oct 2005 when the problem was being created.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It'll continue until enough people take them to court.

From the NY Times of 28 Mar 2008 - or about 12 months after Bruce posted this:

Comcast Adjusts Way It Manages Internet Traffic
Comcast ... said on Thursday that it would take a more equitable approach toward managing the ever-expanding flow of Web traffic on its network.

The cable company ... has been under relentless pressure from the Federal Communications Commission and public interest groups after media reports last year that it was blocking some Internet traffic of customers who used online software based on the popular peer-to-peer BitTorrent protocol.

Comcast said it would change its fundamental approach to playing Internet traffic cop. Instead of interfering with specific online applications, it will manage traffic by slowing the Internet speeds of its most bandwidth-hogging users when traffic is busiest. ...

The change was part of an announcement by Comcast on Thursday that it had been working with BitTorrent ...

The companies said they have been working together for the last year on ways to optimize BitTorrent applications for the Comcast network. They said they would publish their findings to Web forums and standards groups so that other software makers, peer-to-peer services and I.S.P.’s could adopt them. ...

Comcast and BitTorrent said their collaboration showed the corrective power of the market and obviated the need for further federal oversight. But in a public statement, the commission chairman, Kevin J. Martin, vowed continued scrutiny and expressed concern that the old filtering practice would continue at least through the end of the year.

Marvin Ammori, general counsel at Free Press, ... “The only reason Comcast came to the table and made a deal with BitTorrent is because of the unrelenting pressure,” he said.

[tw]

From the BBC of 18 April 2008:

Action urged to keep net neutral
The meeting was called by the FCC in reaction to the news that US net firm Comcast had been exposed as managing traffic by stopping some of its 13m customers uploading files to BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer networks.

The FCC has started a formal investigation to see if Comcast merits a fine for its actions.

In response to the publicity surrounding its actions, Comcast has said it would change its policy.

A fast bit rate does not necessary mean a fast packet rate.

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 23 Apr 2008:

Comcast's Network Practices Need Scrutiny, FCC Chief Says
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin ... said in his testimony that it appeared Comcast had singled out content for delay over its network, even when the network may not have been congested with overuse. He also said he doubted the company's statements that it would stop some of its practices by the end of the year.

Why does Comcast just not turn off the software today? Why wait 8 months to stop filtering network content?

The entertainment industry, meanwhile, is divided on net neutrality. Yesterday's panel included Hollywood writers and actors who testified in favor of regulations that would prevent media companies and cable and telecommunications carriers from controlling content over the Internet networks.

"The Internet holds incredible potential to resurrect a vibrant industry of independent creators with free access to, and distribution of . . . content," Patric M. Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West, said in his testimony yesterday.

But groups such as the Songwriters Guild of America have argued against net neutrality, saying a network without controls would effectively enable rampant piracy and copyright infringement.

[tw]

For most part, the computer industry has been responsible. Therefore little government regulation was required. Comcast is a repeated exception. Comcast was even caught subverting Skype packets to self serving purposes. Comcast has bought NBC for reasons that include controlling another potential threat to its business - interactive TV. Ongoing is a Comcast lawsuit.
From the Washington Post of 15 Jan 2009:

FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access
The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.

The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers' access to legal Web content -- the concept known as net neutrality -- and throw into doubt the agency's ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.