RSSFCC to push for Comcast sanctions over throttling
By Ed Oswald | Published July 11, 2008, 1:05 PM
Chairman Kevin Martin says that the cable provider has run afoul of regulations that guarantee open access to the Internet, and should be punished.
Martin used a September 2005 policy statement from the Federal Communications Commission as the basis for his position, which was intended to ensure that broadband networks were open and affordable. It did however allow for "reasonable network management."
The FCC chairman argues that Comcast is blocking traffic arbitrarily, regardless of how much bandwidth is being used, and is failing to inform consumers of its actions. Its move is a result of an earlier complaint that users of BitTorrent were being blocked from using the service.
A proposal to sanction Comcast was put on the table Friday by Martin, with a vote scheduled at an August 1 open meeting.
Interest group FreePress filed that complaint with the regulatory body in November 2007 (PDF available here). While it mentioned other P2P applications, the focus of its argument seemed to center around BitTorrent.
"Amid online rumors and reports, Comcast lied to both the press and the [Electronic Frontier Foundation], claiming it did not interfere with peer-to-peer traffic," it argued. "Lying to the public about consumer allegations is inherently deceptive."
Comcast had already appeared in a hearing in February with the FCC, where it denied that it blocked any kind of "Web site, application, or Web protocol." However, numerous studies have shown otherwise -- many of which were cited by Free Press in its complaint.
Of course, the cable company denies any wrongdoing, and argues that it is acting lawfully in managing its bandwidth to ensure that all customers are being served properly. It also claims the 2005 policy statement is not enforceable, adding "reasonable" management has never been defined by the agency.
If the FCC approves the sanctions, it could set a precedent where others accused of throttling could face similar penalties. While it is not yet known exactly what they would entail, it likely would be enough for other ISPs to rethink their practices.
"The FCC order, if passed, is a major victory," Free Press said on its site. But the organization said it expected the ISPs to fight back "with their money, lawyers and phony grassroots groups to try to take control of the Internet and establish themselves as gatekeepers."
5:02 pm EDT July 11, 2008 - FCC Chairman Kevin Martin may be backing off somewhat on earlier comments surrounding possible sanctions against Comcast. At a press conference discussing the proposal, he said he would not seek a monetary fine, but rather a policy change. The cable provider would be given a set amount of time to comply, likely until the end of this year.
Comcast vowed to challenge the ruling if it is approved by a majority of commissioners.
PUNISH!
Still happy I switched to WOW all those years ago too.
Score: 0
Yeah... huge fines and all that... which will be passed right on to us poor people who have no options for broadband because verizon isnt in our town so no fios and qwest is too damn lazy to fix old lines so no dsl. Yeah. Jack our cable bills even more.
Maybe a better idea would be to force them to send a rebate to us customers for screwing with our bandwidth.
Score: 0
pleaze.....
when cable was first marketed there were to be no commercials if people paid for the service.
cable companies and lying go hand in hand.
the unwritten policy is:
"LIE LIE LIE, BUT DON'T GET CAUGHT OR YOUR FIRED AND BE THE PATSY"
Score: 0
Supposed to!=promised.
Supposed to, in fact, usually equals " I was really hoping they'd..."
Why not b**** about actual lies....like where they denied doing it. *That* was a mistake.
They should be fined for that one.
As for the actual management of their network, well, that should really be up to them. Their network, after all.
Score: 0
Here it was the way it was sold. "No commercials" was one of the selling points. Now we almost have more than in open TV. -_-;
Score: 0
oh yeah..., they make money coming and going.
not only are they charging millions to the advertisers, they are also charging the customers.
basically, the customers/subscribers are paying to watch the commercials.
in perspective, the shows are just mediums for the advertisers to promote products.
if you clock the minutes of advertisement during any 30 minute period, you will find that the 30 minute shows have no real value.
the audacity of former senator graham saying that Americans are whiners. it is the corporations that lined his coffers that are whiners.
they always want the government to bail them out and demand for tax credits and corporate welfare and yet they seem to have lot's of money for executive salaries and campaign contributions.
funny but many do not realize that digital t.v. is the result of advertisers and corporations whining.
they also whine congress to push for daylight savings to begin earlier in spring.
Score: 0
there network its are networks we paid for them and then they charged use to use what is are's
Score: 0
Learn to generate proper sentences and we'll talk, sparky.
Score: 0
YES PLEASE. Slap them with a huge fine too those azz fuks
Score: 0
Get 'em.
But Web Neutrality legislation would sure make more sense.
On wonders where the Democat dominated Congress has been on this issue since they regained control. ...We know where their collective head has been. And they disparately need a window installed in their abdomen to see where they are going!
Score: 0
U.S. Senate (2006 Elections)
Republican - 49
Democrat -49
Independent -2
With a Democratic majority such as this, one would think the Democrats would be making earthshaking changes to Congress.
Right.
Score: 0
Congress = House and Senate.
Good try, though.
Score: 0
Zenarcher has a valid point. The "Democat dominated Congress" is a Republican myth since bills need to pass both House AND Senate.
Democrats dominating the House is meaningless if they can't do anything in the Senate.
http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/cong.html
Score: 0
I never argued that point. Please re-read the thread again.
He stated the congress wasn't democrat controlled and then used only the numbers from the Senate to back that up. I simply informed the young gentleman that the Congress is made up of both the Senate *and* the House.
See? Nothing there about who "controls" what.
Control, at this point is moot. It's so close in both that no-one's doing anything *to* control.
That said, I have noticed how Pelosi's grand statements about finally being able to get things done now that *her* party was in control way back when they won the majority in the House seemed to have simply been forgotten... how convenient now then, that it apparently doesn't matter....
Score: 0
If Satan has a human form, it is Pelosi.
Score: 0
If she were Satan, everyone would adore her. As it is, she's just a poor excuse for a human, meaning, a decent politician. ;)
Score: 0