Drop Comcast Now!

[Cephius]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations and U.S. broadband expansion plans into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.

The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which allows users to swap big files such as movies over the Internet. But public interest groups stressed that the ramifications of Tuesday's ruling are much broader. That's because it undercuts the FCC's ability to prevent broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers for many kinds of online services, potentially including Internet phone programs and software that runs in a Web browser.

"Today's appeals court decision means there are no protections in the law for consumers' broadband services," Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others."

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies ... on a solid legal foundation."

Comcast welcomed the decision, saying "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."

At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.

But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Genachowski is now trying to formalize those rules.

The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.

The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including net neutrality rules.

Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.

With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.

But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.

The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.

"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."

The battle over the FCC's legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast's cable TV business.

But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to manage their systems to offer premium services and prevent high-bandwidth applications such as BitTorrent from hogging capacity.

For its part, the FCC offered no details on its next step, but stressed that it remains committed to the principle of net neutrality.

"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."

If you remember awhile back, Comcast would throttle people who they identified as "high bandwidth users" meaning, they would shit on your internet speeds if they caught you torrenting. The FCC then stepped in and said they couldn't stop people from using their services just because they downloaded more than other users.

Now comes an appeals court decision that the FCC has no right to interfere and push Net Neutrality on Comcast. ARGH! If this ruling serves as a precedent... well "free internet for all" was just dealt a serious blow.

tl;dr

Comcast is now once again free to fuck you in the ass if they detect you using torrents. Send a message and drop them! And hope that Verizon, AT&T, etc don't follow suit

[Pharaun]

I was just reading this article and was going to post it. It may not be all bad though, at least if you look at this portion of the article.

The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally...

The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.

"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."

[CalaisDL]

"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."

I'm trying to picture how someone could swing an ax, cut through somebody's arm, and then somehow hit themselves in the back with it in one motion. On a more serious note, I had comcast when I lived in Sacramento and it was shit. Torrenting speeds were always terrible and I disconnected all the time.

[Pikarya]

God I love Comcast. They just love to destroy everything that is good. I really don't think in the companies 10+ years of customer-level internet services, has EVER did anything positive but give headaches.

[Yabby]

God I love Comcast. They just love to destroy everything that is good. I really don't think in the companies 10+ years of customer-level internet services, has EVER did anything positive but give headaches.

I can upload at 6+ MBPS... used to be 1.1 a year ago.

[Fistandantilus]

Ugh, I've been trying to convince my Dad to drop comcast for so long, even with FiOS available he still isn't convinced that it will be any faster than our shitty comcast speeds.

[Meian]

Father had DSL a while then went back to Comcast after not noticing a real difference. To be fair, I didn't notice a difference either except occasionally during peak hours.

Any alternatives in mind? Father was looking into Clear but I couldn't give him my opinion considering how little I know of it or anyone who has it.

[Gwynplaine]

I'm no fan of Comcast specifically (or most of the tech companies who screw themselves), but Net-Neutrality and "free internet" would destroy the internet.

The real problem that is frustrating internet users lies in the way infrastructure and regulations are handled. Right now the ISP market is pretty stagnant as the massive amount of resources and infrastructure required has set up an establishment of only a few companies (Comcast, ATT, etc.). Ideally under a free market there would be many types of competing companies that would offer all kinds of packages.

If you wanted a flat rate maybe you could get that. Or if you love to consume tons of bandwidth and media you could pay for a high bandwidth pack. Or anything in between. But the fact remains that while some coding and products can be shared for "free", the infrastructure and physical equipment are private property of those companies. And no matter how much your feelings dislike having to pay for using more bandwidth, services cost real time and money. If you want more of something, it's gonna cost more. That's just how everything works and legislating according to your wishes won't change that.

[Tymon]

I'd love to leave Comcast, but they're the only option other than slow DSL that I've had worse experience with.

I hope I move into an area with U-Verse or FiOS, but damn, I don't have much of a choice right now.

[Cephius]

I'm no fan of Comcast specifically (or most of the tech companies who screw themselves), but Net-Neutrality and "free internet" would destroy the internet.

The real problem that is frustrating internet users lies in the way infrastructure and regulations are handled. Right now the ISP market is pretty stagnant as the massive amount of resources and infrastructure required has set up an establishment of only a few companies (Comcast, ATT, etc.). Ideally under a free market there would be many types of competing companies that would offer all kinds of packages.

If you wanted a flat rate maybe you could get that. Or if you love to consume tons of bandwidth and media you could pay for a high bandwidth pack. Or anything in between. But the fact remains that while some coding and products can be shared for "free", the infrastructure and physical equipment are private property of those companies. And no matter how much your feelings dislike having to pay for using more bandwidth, services cost real time and money. If you want more of something, it's gonna cost more. That's just how everything works and legislating according to your wishes won't change that.

There is simply no way the minority (torrent users) suck up enough bandwidth to outweigh the majority (people who just surf the net) who don't even come close to capping out their bandwidth. This is a simple case of a company trying to cut out users who suck up a disproportionate amount of resources. They can't advertise "unlimited" internet or certain levels of bandwidth and then turn around and say "yeah, but you can't use it all the time!"

That's why the FCC got involved in the first place. If they offer a fair price increase for true unlimited internet, then so be it, that's economics for you. But right now it's just an unfair singling out of heavy bandwidth users.

[Fistandantilus]

I wouldn't mind paying more for a high-bandwidth package at all, when I was looking into FiOS they had a few options and the one I suggested my Dad get was one of the higher speed options. Like Ceph said, the issue is that comcast advertises one speed and gives you about a third of that. Not only does it suck, but it makes it impossible to convince people who aren't tech savvy that comcast speeds suck. I've tried to show my Dad the speed tests on our connection, and how they are nowhere near what comcast says we are getting but his logic is "Well, I am not sure if that's true but if Comcast is doing it then Verizion FiOS will probably do the exact same thing so why bother switching".

Gah! Rage!

[6souls]

With FiOS you're not sharing your bandwith with others in the community. Like I live in an apartment for instance and Comcast has the lock-down on service for this building, even though FiOS is available to houses in the neighborhood, and during "Prime time," the speeds will drop and stay low until almost midnight. I have never gotten the advertised speed, but it is my only option outside of DSL.

Example;

6-18-2008
http://www.speedtest.net/result/285530969.png

3-4-2010
http://www.speedtest.net/result/737579774.png

[Eticket]

We have FIOs at our current place. Sadly, we're moving at it's not in the new area yet. I said fuck it and just switched to Verizon DSL so I didn't have to go back to Comcast.

[Omniyoji]

Ugh, I've been trying to convince my Dad to drop comcast for so long, even with FiOS available he still isn't convinced that it will be any faster than our shitty comcast speeds.

I wouldn't mind paying more for a high-bandwidth package at all, when I was looking into FiOS they had a few options and the one I suggested my Dad get was one of the higher speed options. Like Ceph said, the issue is that comcast advertises one speed and gives you about a third of that. Not only does it suck, but it makes it impossible to convince people who aren't tech savvy that comcast speeds suck. I've tried to show my Dad the speed tests on our connection, and how they are nowhere near what comcast says we are getting but his logic is "Well, I am not sure if that's true but if Comcast is doing it then Verizion FiOS will probably do the exact same thing so why bother switching".

Gah! Rage!

LMAO, Oh man you have FiOs in your area and still using Comcast!?!?!?
That's beyond suck...
/comfort

I'm waiting for Verizon to expand in my location so I can switch.

[Ruiner]

I would if FiOS came to my area. It's that simple. Otherwise, Comcast is the only option pretty much.

[Yabby]

I never had problems with comcast and speed.

http://www.armadalinkshell.com/yabai.../speedtest.PNG

It does suck they that are doing from OP but i've never had any problem with comcast besides that shit a few years back about connecting to FFXI.

That said i would change to fIOS if i could, but its ether comcast or DSL...

[#686578]

What ever happened to buying a contracted service and getting what you signed for?

If my service contract says that I have 1TB download per month, then I should have 1TB download per month no matter what type of traffic it is.

Fuck saying the FCC cant regulate the broadband service because of how it's classified, someone should just sue Comcast for either 1) Not honoring their contracts or 2) Misrepresenting their contracts.

[aers]

Like Ceph said, the issue is that comcast advertises one speed and gives you about a third of that.

Sorry to interrupt all the Comcast bashing, but what? There are no Comcast speed tiers provisioned at 1/3rd the advertised rate. There's a couple close to 2/3rd - and yes, this is due to PowerBoost tomfoolery - but that's going to go away, according to the FCC's broadband plan (ha ha).

Any area upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 (should be most, if not all, of Comcast's footprint by the end of 2010, and is quite a large amount of it now - there are some large population areas without it still, and some areas still on DOCSIS 1.1, but this is a whole different story..) has seen free speed boosts recently, too.

As for the "cable is shared, speeds drop at prime time" spiel, that simply isn't true in areas with upgraded networks.

While I would love to drop Comcast for a capless ISP, until someone can compete (I live in an AT&T service area and Verizon has frozen new FIOS deployments anyway), it's just not happening. I don't download/upload a lot, but when I do, I need the speed. And no, I don't consider U-Verse VDSL competition. Maybe if it was VDSL2..

http://results.speedtest.comcast.net...t/35716382.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/735988235.png

(62/20 is powerboosted, I sustain 50/10 easily)

re: throttling, etc - its not done now. The cap is there, but the throttling is gone. If it comes back, this is relevant. Also, they do offer the ability to pay more for uncapped internet - it's called Comcast Business. It's roughly double the cost, though.

I really don't want to sound like a gung-ho Comcast supporter, but a lot of the bad rep they get regarding speeds/etc comes from a few years ago and from people not realizing that the network isnt the same everywhere. It sucks living in an area with bad cable, but it WILL be upgraded. Be glad Comcast is one of a very few "large" cable ISPs actually upgrading their entire network - Time Warner & co are doing it only in areas where they actually have competition. I consider Comcast the least "evil" of the large cable ISPs. There are some smaller cable ISPs fully on DOCSIS 3.0 now and I applaud them.

[Tythera]

Ditching Comcast when I move to my new place in 2 weeks, I get this for $66 currently

http://www.speedtest.net/result/774043136.png

And I'll be getting 20/4 from a local fiber ISP for $49. The real reason is so I can stop skirting the 250GB limit though.

I wish the fiber ISP wasn't so pricey on the higher plans though, they offer 100mbit/50mbit but it's $199 a month

[mightyg]

I'm trying to picture how someone could swing an ax, cut through somebody's arm, and then somehow hit themselves in the back with it in one motion. On a more serious note, I had comcast when I lived in Sacramento and it was shit. Torrenting speeds were always terrible and I disconnected all the time.

Portal Gun.