RSSFCC finds Comcast in violation of net neutrality rules for BitTorrent blocking
By Tim Conneally | Published August 1, 2008, 5:20 PM
The Federal Communications Commission has concluded its vote on Comcast, finding the cable operator in violation of net neutrality rules by a margin of 3-2, but it will not issue fines.
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, as well as Republican chairman Kevin Martin were reported earlier this week to have voted in favor of taking action against Comcast for secretly degrading or blocking peer-to-peer traffic -- specifically that used by BitTorrent.
The FCC served Comcast with a cease-and-desist order, demanding it end its throttling of BitTorrent traffic, and requiring the cable provider inform subscribers of its traffic management policies. For its part, Comcast said it hasn't been throttling or blocking traffic since March, and only did so to protect the integrity of its network.
FCC Chairman Kevin Marin said, "Consumers deserve to know that the commitment [to stop arbitrary blocking] is backed up by legal enforcement."
This is the first ever violation of net neutrality rules, and details of the case will not be available for some time. Dissenting commissioner Robert McDowell, however, believes this ruling will be "doomed" in appeal.
Comcast Senior Director of Corporate Communications and Government Affairs Sena Fitzmaurice today issued a statement regarding the FCC's ruling, saying: "[We] believe that the Commission's order raises significant due process concerns and a variety of substantive legal questions. We are considering all our legal options and are disappointed that the commission rejected our attempts to settle this issue without further delays."
What concerns me isn't the fact that they block or degrade certain types of traffic, because they could hire enough lawyers to turn enough laws inside out until it is established that they do have the right to do that, because they own the lines, equipment, etc. The big thing that bothers me is that they did that secretly without telling their customers. It's kind of like going to the store and paying for a 2L bottle of Pepsi, just to find out you can't get any more from the bottle after pouring out 1.5L of it.
ISPs should be required by law to inform their customers about these practices BEFORE they sign up for the service or if they start doing it to existing customers, those customer should be informed well BEFORE they start doing this. Of course no ISP wants to do that, because their customers would start leaving faster than rats leave a sinking ship. At least this would be the case in areas where people have a choice. People who don't have a choice are going to get screwed either way. If companies like Comcast are not allowed to throttle, they'll find other ways to stick it in your poop hole. Things like monthly bandwidth limits and such.
Score: 0
its a start no??
i mean its not a big victory for the little guy...but it is a victory...
Score: 0
I agree. If we had a choice of providers, they
could never pull these things. Monopoly = license to do whatever they want.
Score: 0
I wish they were fined a lot of money and that fine would come in the form of rebates to their customers.
I also wish consumers had more options when it comes to Cable providers. Many areas have granted Comcast exclusive rights for cable service and there is no competition.
And now that many new housing developments don't even get standard copper telephone wires (FIOS or Cable only) there is even less competition because they can't even GET DSL at all.
Score: 0
This issue comes down to the basic economics of a natural monopoly. A huge investment is required from the cable or telco to build the necessary infrastructure.
This is also the reason why FIOS has only been rolled out in very specific neighborhoods. A return on the investment is desired.
Score: 0
Good ruling. Who cares if no fines.. You are acting as if the fine money goes to your pocket.
A warning. Everyone is entitled to that.
Next time Comcast will not do it.
Score: 0
They should have known better to begin with. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?
Score: 0
They sure showed Comcast. No fines or anything, just a slap on a wrist. "Don't do that again, or we'll take another five months to give you another stern warning."
Score: 0
McDowell is smoking weed. There is no way any reasonable judge will rule for Comcast for secretly throttling traffic.
Score: 0
Sorry but weed doesn't make people that delusional.
Score: 0
Well, given the current administration and its dependence on the big money, after all all they are responsible for ruining the US financially, I do wonder that some judges seem to have retained their independence. (or they just have remembered, what their real job is instead of bowing to their political masters)
Score: 0