Breaking News: FCC loses Comcast challenge

[cadillac880]

.............

 

[Gerry]

I read the story earlier when it came out.

It really sucks for the consumer. We are the losers here with no regulation in fees, providers free to block any programming or another carrier, and by not providing access to competitor sites.

 

[Gerry]

NPR broadcast on what this all means.

Very educational.

Very troubling.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125658265

 

[Donald Aquilano]

The FCC had no jurisdiction in this case and thats why they lost.

 

[draggar]

I don't see how the general public can't take this to court claiming it's a violation of freedom of speech.

Edit: Link in the OP requires registration.

 

[DomainsInc]

and big business continues to kick the consumers ass and do what they want, not what the consumer wants.

 

[Donald Aquilano]

Many of you seem to think that business doesn't have any rights. There were Comcast customers who complained that their internet service was slow at certain times and it's because of all the bit torrent downloads hogging so much of the bandwidth. So if you want to play video games and download a lot of bit torrents than you will pay more for their service. Comcast is just one provider if you don't like what they do than move on to someone else. Its really that simple.

---------- Post added at 07:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 AM ----------

I would also add that I am a Comcast customer and fairly happy with their service. I only have the broadband through them since I think their cable TV service sucks.

 

[DomainsInc]

Many of you seem to think that business doesn't have any rights. There were Comcast customers who complained that their internet service was slow at certain times and it's because of all the bit torrent downloads hogging so much of the bandwidth. So if you want to play video games and download a lot of bit torrents than you will pay more for their service. Comcast is just one provider if you don't like what they do than move on to someone else. Its really that simple.

---------- Post added at 07:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 AM ----------

I would also add that I am a Comcast customer and fairly happy with their service. I only have the broadband through them since I think their cable TV service sucks.

if you have done any research on the subject you would know that is not what they want to do. they want companies to pay them ensure their sites load fast while everyone who doesn't pay them a "bribe" would be put in a "slow lane" for lack of a better word.

 

[south]

This is a great business opportunity for someone.

"Does your cable internet service want to charge you overage charges, or make you extra for the speed they advertised?"
"Buy our service! No restrictions on blah blah blah, for only $$ a month!"

 

[Gerry]

if you have done any research on the subject you would know that is not what they want to do. they want companies to pay them ensure their sites load fast while everyone who doesn't pay them a "bribe" would be put in a "slow lane" for lack of a better word.

Love the little twist of bd77 you responded to if you don't like what they do than move on to someone else.

What a stupid point...I read that and all I want to add is Hey Dumbass! No. You can't move on to someone else. That is what the entire case was about! and then goes on to say their cable service sucks?

What a poor, poor conflicted person. Gee, he must have went on to someone else. Did he not read or hear what could happen? You would have fewer if any other options at all. This ruling provides each service to lay out claims to grids to the map and not allow any other service into the area. And, if anyone has their doubts, I can now bundle services of TV, phone, mobile phone through one provider - and, amazingly, it is each one of those providers offering me the bundle. Right now, I could select ATT, Alltel, Windstream, Time Warner, DirectTV, DishNetwork to be all of those - TV, Phone, and mobile phone provider. Why??? Because they have incentives to share access to the consumer. This new ruling says, I don't have to share anything. Not only do I not have to share towers, I don't have to share access.

You are witnessing something very close to censuring by corporation. If PLAN A has a contract with Bing or Yahoo, PLAN A could block or not provide access to Google, YouTube, or any other channel owned by google.

That is what this means - limiting or blocking access to other channels or competitors.

 

[draggar]

Many of you seem to think that business doesn't have any rights. There were Comcast customers who complained that their internet service was slow at certain times and it's because of all the bit torrent downloads hogging so much of the bandwidth. So if you want to play video games and download a lot of bit torrents than you will pay more for their service. Comcast is just one provider if you don't like what they do than move on to someone else. Its really that simple

Some of us don't have a choice. AT&T service is at about 1MbpS where I live and more expensive than Comcast at 6 MbpS. Also, this ruling is for ALL ISPs, Comcast was just the first one to be called out on it. While I'm no fan of Comcast (very poorly managed network here), I'm not putting all the blame on them - they were just the flashpoint. Now, companies can legally tell us what we can and can't see on the internet - the same exact thing that our government complains about with other countries (China, Iran, etc..). While I understand the ruling, it is time for the US citizens to stand up and say "this isn't right". We should start contacting our alleged "representatives"in regards to this.

IMO a business has no business telling us what we should and shouldn't see. If the content's legality is in question, then it should be up to the government (mainly the legislative branch) to decide if it should be legal or not and the executive branch (including the police, FBI etc..) to enforce it.

This is a great business opportunity for someone.

"Does your cable internet service want to charge you overage charges, or make you extra for the speed they advertised?"
"Buy our service! No restrictions on blah blah blah, for only $$ a month!"

When my cell service provider releases 4Gin my area (4-6MbpS) I will seirously consider switching to them.

Domainsinc also has a good point - ISPs can hold traffic for ransom. "Pay us or we won't show your site". This can potentially be devistating to everyone on this forum.

 

[mr-x]

What a stupid point...I read that and all I want to add is Hey Dumbass! No. .... What a poor, poor conflicted person. Gee, ....

Do you ever respond to a contrary opinion without a personal attack?

 

[Gerry]

Do you ever respond to a contrary opinion without a personal attack?

I sure do.

See?

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------

There is no love lost between the two of us. Anything I say will immediately be contrary to what he and a few of his butt buddies would say.

But, there is always the option of that ignore button if you find me annoying...

 

[Donald Aquilano]

if you have done any research on the subject you would know that is not what they want to do. they want companies to pay them ensure their sites load fast while everyone who doesn't pay them a "bribe" would be put in a "slow lane" for lack of a better word.

If you want faster internet then you pay for it. What the hell is wrong with that? You act like Comcast should be forced to provide their service at the same cost to everyone no matter how much bandwidth they use.

 

[mr-x]

If you want faster internet then you pay for it. What the hell is wrong with that? You act like Comcast should be forced to provide their service at the same cost to everyone no matter how much bandwidth they use.

That's not what net NN is about. They want to charge "Web Company A" for letting Comcast customers see "Web Company A" website at full speed. It also prevents Comcast from blocking a competors website. Or "Web Company A" from signing an exclusive contract with Comast that provides full speed access to their own website but limits the connection speed to their competitor "Web Company B".

Think about Sprint only allowing 50% of their customers to call "Company B" between 9am and 5pm because "Company A" paid them for preferred use of that time period.

I don't think it will matter much in the long run as technology and market forces create more choices for Internet access .

 

[Gerry]

Am I the only one that sees the irony in this statement?

Comcast is just one provider if you don't like what they do than move on to someone else. Its really that simple.

I would also add that I am a Comcast customer and fairly happy with their service. I only have the broadband through them since I think their cable TV service sucks.

So, you had a choice and could choose your carrier if you were not happy.

The whole point of the article is, in the future, you may NOT have those choices.

If Comcast did not want to allow you to have a choice of another provider or share access of you with another provider, you may end up being stuck with their crappy services.

What the hell happened with auctioning the bandwidths? That's what all this is about...having equal access.

I'm afraid this is going down the road of limiting services and blocking out competitors and not having options.

 

[south]

If they really want to require the website to "pay for protection", the website owners should not pay up. Let the ISP's customer go without some of their favorite sites for awhile. See how long it takes for their customer base to flood their phone lines demanding to see such & such website. Oh wait! sorry, I forgot the American population has turned into a bunch of sheep now.. Never mind.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

I don't think it will matter much in the long run as technology and market forces create more choices for Internet access .

Correct. As long as it remains a free country / market.

 

[Donald Aquilano]

This whole decision came down to whether the FCC has the power to enforce so called net neutrality on Comcast. The court ruled that they do not. If you don't like it call your Congressman and tell them to give the FCC the authority to enforce so called net neutrality.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

Surprise!!! Some notable people who don't support net neutrality.....

Robert Kahn - He is referred to as the "Father of the internet"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

David Farber - he is sometimes called "grandfather of the Internet"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5578594

 

[DomainsInc]

If you want faster internet then you pay for it. What the hell is wrong with that? You act like Comcast should be forced to provide their service at the same cost to everyone no matter how much bandwidth they use.

As tres pointed out, that is not what i am talking about at all. Here in canada we have bandwidth limits. My plan limits me to 90 gigs a month. If I go over, I have to pay. I have no problems with blocking torrents either. Most canadian isps have been doing it for years (though there are apparently ways to get around it, at least last time I heard). Net Neutrality (as I understand it) is about equal access for all WEBSITES, not users. For example. Bestbuy's website will load blazing fast but my rock news site will be slow as I don't pay them to ensure its kept in with the "big business" sites, not to mention blocking competeition

 

[draggar]

If they really want to require the website to "pay for protection", the website owners should not pay up. Let the ISP's customer go without some of their favorite sites for awhile. See how long it takes for their customer base to flood their phone lines demanding to see such & such website. Oh wait! sorry, I forgot the American population has turned into a bunch of sheep now.. Never mind.

But a lot of sites will. I'm sure Amazon, eBay, Google, Facebook, and many other sites would gladly pay to have an 'edge" on their competition but this also means that, eventually, they'll have to pay every ISP for this service or else we'll have like what I mentioned above (with cable providers buying towns). ISP 1,2,3 may get paid from Amazon but then A,B,C won't so then those people would have to go though a different option.

Correct. As long as it remains a free country / market.

Not today. We're seeing what John D Rockerfeller did to amass his empire only in several industries. Larger corporations buying out smaller ones for pennies on the dollar or pushing them out of business and buying out "inventors" who may be their competition in the future for a fraction of what their inventions are truly worth. Small businesses have a very hard time competing with large corporations now. I've seen this shift drastically over the past 20 years.

The only silver lining I see now is that wireless providers are constantly improving their networks and are now getting speeds comparible to high speed networks (I know people who can hit 6-8MbpS with wireless networks) but even these will have the ability to censor their customers.