I say again, the scumbags at Comcast and all the rest, have no right to block the access of users to information or files from anywhere. They are selling access and bandwidth, not content, period. Any copyright issues, which are merely a smokescreen in this case, are between the copyright owner and the individual who violates them. The argument you put up is like sueing the manufacturer of CD-burners because it allows people to copy copyrighted disks. It's ridiculous. Comcast should be slapped with a serious punitive fine that will discourage other ISPs from engaging in this type of activity.

Sorry, but the type of action against Comcast discussed above is not to protect the public. It is to give one group a competitive advantage over another. That is the antithesis of proper government regulation. That type of regulation is what causes disasters. The government can tell companies what to offer, and how to perform their services. But that usually results in the big companies having all of the advantages, mostly because they are the only ones who can afford the overhead related to compliance. Government regulation should create a fair and balanced playing field and protect those that need protection. Asking an agncy to come down on a company for not offfering services that could get them sued does not meet that definition. As I said before, if you don't like Comcasts services go to another vendor. They have no obligation to offer anything they don't want to offer. As long as they are not perpetrating a fraud on the public or using there service for some nefarious or discriminatory purpose they don't need regulating. Discriminatory refers to the constitutionally defined rights (race, national origin, sex, relegion, etc.). I will say it again the only purpose of getting the Feds involved in this issue is to give one group a competitive advantage over another, and that is an improper use of regulation.

celalawyer05, the real problem encountered by not regulating the ISPs, comes when they consolidate and merge to become a monopoly or duopoly, as the cell phone companies are doing as we speak. This is also happening now in the ISPs, search engines and content providers. Rules and regs for the companies to operate within are absolutely needed to protect the public.

P.S. Non-business telephone service from the Bell's got so cheap because it was subsidized by business and long distance for 50 years. Carriers have done away with most long distance today because it is bundled into the monthly fee. Last time I looked the average home owner was paying about $45 a month for typical phone service. This is up from $15 to $20 a month in the 1980s. As AT&T has reconstitutied the Bell companies through mergers the price has steadily risen, and the PUCs have done nothing as most consider the telephone industry to be basicaly unregulated. SInce then the PUCs have steadily moved to allowing the market to control the industry. As for regulation, you can't just regulate for one parties benefit - it doesn't work. The carriers will demand benefits, and they will get them, or they will take their money and leave. Nobody stays in business to lose money.

Right, you have hit on the correct answer. The real answer then is to just switch vendors. That single message will tell Comcast what you really want. The Internet as we know it today is an invention of the market. Either trust the market or trust the regulators - you can't regulate just for one groups benefit. Because the Bushies attempted to regulate for the benefit of the bankers and the oil companies we are now approaching a depression. If you want to trust the regulators then they will be forced to regulate both sides. Most telephony regulations actually benefit the telephone companies - allowing them to make profits over the long term with little or no risk. For example, access fees and equipment depreciation schedules. If the regulators tell the carriers how to operate then they are going to tell the users how to operate - for instance identification registration, similar to a driver's license. So either trust the market or trust the regulators, but don't whine. Personally, I would prefer the regulators and welcome a strict form of registration that would identify the user. That would get rid of most of the SPAM, fraud, scams, etc. that are prevasive in the current internet (i.e similar to how the cell phone industry was fixed - the cellular industry was incurring a 30% fraud rate in the 1980s, only by creating industry wide anti-fraud associations and fixed ESN registration was the fraud eliminated).

celalawyer05- "If you want to cry to the federal government, then you are going to get what you are asking for - a regulated Internet and all that goes with it."

No, what we want is regulated Internet Service Providers, like Comcast, just like we regulated the phone companies to allow connection of private equipment to the line. A little regulation can be a good thing! It sure made those Bell phones a lot cheaper! Just ask Enron shareholders, and a host of others, if they wouldn't have prefered a little regulation as opposed to losing their life savings!

celalawyer05, you are the one who has it wrong.
Customers pay for a certain speed or bandwidth level of internet service from any number of different ISPs. Those ISPs(internet service providers) should have no say with regard to which sites you visit, which ones are served at high speed or what files you transfer. Tranfer of copyrighted files is a matter between the copyright owner and the individual. Once the customer pays for access, all traffic should be treated the same. In the old days, even if you were paying for a phone line, you were forced to use the providing phone company equipment. You could not connect your own phone. What we are seeing now is a scheme by the internet gatekeepers to rape the public and control content.

I must say that I disagree entirely with the premise discussed above. As one of the people who helped work on the Internet since its creation I believe there is an incredible misunderstanding about the Internet. First it is not comparable to radio frequency, in any manner. Radio frequency is a publicly held resource by the federal government that lets leases to use certain bandwidths. The federal government manages the resources for the public's benefit. Those leasing that bandwidth are required to follow certain rules that are intended to benefit the general public and maintain stability. The Internet is owned by the companies who provide the servers, communication lines and network computers. The Internet is not owned by anyone else. The FTC and FCC have only limited statutorily granted rights concerning what occurs on the Internet - e,g, the CAN SPAM Act. Very similar to how the telephone system was losely regullated prior to the 1930s - almost none. ICANN, a private corporation commissioned by the U.S. Department of Commerce, has almost no legal control over anything happening on the Internet - they get to make suggestions and can take away the right to sell domain names - and not much else. What this means is that everyone who works, plays, commmunicates, etc. on the Internet are within the control of the actual owners - if they don't like it they can go and try to build their own Internet. Most of the rules that govern the Internet are in place because they benefit the people who put up the money to build the Internet - including rules concerning interoperability. (Most of the original work done regarding operation of the Internet beyond arpanet was done by engineers working for Verizon, AT&T, COMCAST, etc. and the big vendors Microsoft, Netscape, etc.) If it does not benefit the owners they will change the rules, as is their right. Because of this ownership right, agencies such as the FTC or the FCC have very little to say about the Internet. Therefore, to change this the Congress must give the FTC some authority over the Internet that they don't currently have - this might incent the owning companies to inflict even harcher restrictions in order to protect their investments. Currently the FTC and FCC have limited authority to prevent what are defined as illegal actions or unfair trade practices. This does not allow the FTC or FCC to tell the owners of the Internet what they can and can not do with their property. If folks are upset that they cannot upload or download certain types of files or use certain software, that they feel should be allowed by their purchase of access from a vendor like Comcast, then they should be suing Comcast for breach of contract. Not whining to the FTC or FCC. What is more, if the files they are trying to share are owned by someone else, such as music files, they may find themselves being prosecuted by the U.S. attorney for theft or the owner for copyright infringment. The point is you can't have it both ways. If you want an Internet that is not regulated and has the current freedoms, then you have to show the folks who own the equipment why it is in their benefit to allow or support your behaviors. If you want to cry to the federal government, then you are going to get what you are asking for - a regulated Internet and all that goes with it.

Must we turn EVERYTHING into a pissing contest about Obama/Nader/McCain? This is an issue that goes beyond anything election related. Net Neutrality is CRITICAL to the internet remaining the vast source of knowledge. Those large 'communications' companies want to turn it into something like cable tv where you buy a package and have access to these sites, or a different package for different sites. So basically, the corporations want to kill the internet. Don't let them!

And then for my 2 cents worth... fuck Obama, fuck McCain... you guys are screwed no matter how you look at it.

Daniel David July 12th, 2008 12:43 pm

If you come back, you and others seem to be for Obama. Could you tell me why you think he is joining with big business for cheap labor and against the American workers and even recent immigrants that are trying to get a foothold?

No rtdrury, what we are saying is that the corporation has no legitimate right to deceive the public into paying for a service that they will never get the full advertised speed out of, and also the corporation has no legitimate right to slow down or stop competitor's media offerings that traverse the Comcast network.

Stop trying to distract from the real issue by changing the subject.

Of course the corporation has no legitimate right to contest the public will.

Danieldavid "McCain was last reported to not be much a user of computers" he does not use a computer, period. I respect mccain's time as a POW, but that was a long time ago. and he has chosen not to keep up with the world since then. There is no choice. Obama is our hope and our chance in the world.

hellodarling, jclientelle, and papananook:

Kudos to you three for mentioning Nader, Leahy and McKinney's names. :)

They're highly principled; each having stood up and fought for justice and equality for ordinary US citizens - unlike that shiftless Obama, two-faced McCain, gutless wonder Bush, or dead-eyed Dick(less) Cheney et al.

rtb:

I deeply appreciate that you took the time to explain to a nonengineer type like me, what's at stake, not just with Comcast, but the entire `Netcomm industry. Graci! :)

A 6 foot cockroach would be better than McPain...but who wants a 6 foot cockroach for Preznut? Kafka, anyone? The Obama Metamorphosis...wake up one morning and a 6 ft. insect is your leader.

No, but you might consider voting for McKinney (someone with REAL integrity) in the Green Party--this scares the Dems very much and pisses them off, to boot. If we never stop holding our noses when we vote "lesser of 2 evils" we will always end up with a stinking bad bunch of leaders. And Obama does stink when he votes for FISA, asks you to give money to Hillary, and watch--will change his end the war in Iraq promises to make the Pentagon happy!. Just you freakin' watch! He'll just send all the tired troops to Afghanistan, the "GOOD WAR" and keep as many bases open in Iraq as allocated by the MIC profiteers. This whole election is a circus, toddly-tooty-toot!

Thank you all for the education on Obama. He had my vote because he isn't Bush-McCain. But I see here that he's every bit as bad as B/Mc. Might as well sit this one out.

Too bad the board and officers of the company can't do a year in a real prison and skip the fine of the shareholders. The shareholders and lower level employees did not do this. Besides in 30 years the EXTREME COURT will cut the fine to chicken feed before they actually pay it.

ezeflyer July 13th, 2008 11:33 am

I'm unconditionally against Bush/McCain/Repugs.
======================

Good!

But less good is the fact that you, and many others, automatically equate that to having to support Obama no matter what, even if he breaks his promise, shreds our constitution, continues funding the illegal war, etc. That's a self inflicted limitation you are creating for us. By doing so you are boxing yourself (and us) in a hopeless situation.

People will tell me we have no other options. I disagree. Without going into specifics let me tell you three things that I believe in:

WE MAY NOT GET ALL THE OPTIONS WE WANT, BUT WE'LL NEVER GET THE ONES WE HAVE ALREADY SAID WE DO NOT HAVE

ONE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS TO TRY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECT A DIFFERENT OUTCOME

COMPROMISE IS PART OF REALPOLITIK, BUT COMPROMISE COMES AT THE END NOT AT THE BEGINNING. Obama supporters have already surrendered all expectations and have put up a yard sign "Go ahead, master, kick me again, I am not worthy of anything better"

Ah yes, Comcast, a dues paying member of the MIMIC.
We should change the acronym from -
MIC (Military-Industrial-Complex) to -
MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex),
as MIMIC is much more desciptive in both contexts.
Try using the new acronym - MIMIC
If the MIMIC is allowed control over the internet, the game is truly over!

Comcast is doing the same thing with email downloads I have discovered. They are blocking email to me from friends and saying they are blocking spam ISPs.

I complained and they said I would have to get all the people who might want to email me to contact their ISPs and have them fill out a form to let email through to me.

I complained this is passing a net problem onto the backs of individual consumers. It is like a phone company telling customers to get all that might want to call them to pre-register so the call can go through. You can see the impact of this being the same as blocking downloads.

So, I complained again and they then told me, maybe to shut me up, or maybe for real that they would have to send a technician to my home to look at my computer and if there was no problem they could find then I would have to pay for the tech visit.

I find this almost Kafakaisqe except it is real in light of the uploading blockage.

I still do not know who might be trying to email me and their messages are bounced back and I know nothing of it.

I think you need to include this as part of the approach to Comcast.

What do you think?

Sincerely,
Bob Anderson

Albuquerque, NM 87106
505-858-0882
citizen@comcast.net

I hope this explanation has been helpful. Please educate your friends but most importantly, if you can, educate the public about the real issue by raising this issue in any possible public forum. Comcast would like you to believe that they have a right to "reasonably manage" their network. WRONG. That's not the real issue, it's a manufactured issue Comcast wants the news media to carry and repeat. The real issue is that as a customer, you should have the right to a traffic contract and get every last bit of data your rate permits.

I am a network engineer by trade. I design, implement, and support networks like Comcast's.

Comcast sells far more bandwidth to customers then their transport infrastructure can ever simultaneously support.

Rather than expand their transport capacity to adequately handle all of the customer data under a peak condition, they choose to rate limit (slow down) customers, and customers are seldom aware that it's even happening.

If you're paying for a certain speed then you will only ever be able to utilize it in short bursts, depending on what other customers are doing.

A non technical way to describe it would be to imagine if you will, driving down a 30 million highway and having one lane all to yourself for some distance, but then suddenly those 30 million lanes converge into only 5 million lanes inside comcast's core network, because Comcast is too cheap to build out the proper infrastructure to support all 30 million at full speed.

In the private corporate world, voice and data networks are never ever built this way. When you have a dozen or more remote offices connected to a headquarters office the network is designed so that there is never ever a bottle neck at any point. If a remote office is engineered to have 3.0 megabits per second of internet, e-mail, and other corporate computer access, then that's exactly what that office gets, all the way through, no matter what the other offices are using. The headquarters office connection is provisioned large enough to all ALL the offices to simultaneously transmit at their fastest rates.

Of course it's very expensive, and some cheap companies try to cut corners if the remote office can endure some slowness. You've all heard the call center lady say, "oh my computer's so slow today" Well it's most likely not HER computer. There is a central computer that is hundreds or thousands of miles away and it is not slow either. It's the network connection in between that's being shared with other offices that's actually slow.

What is needed is for the FCC and Congress to pass laws that state that the telecommunications carrier must provide a service level guarantee. That is, if you buy a certain speed at home, then you are guaranteed that speed all the way through the carrier's network. This is known as a traffic rate contract and is a binding legal agreement.

When I, for example, buy a 6 Mbps pipe from AT&T to go from point A to point B, then I know for a fact that I will get every last bit of that capacity. It's mine. I bought it.

As a home internet user, you get whatever Comcast wants to give you, regardless of the service level you paid for. They may say you get "up to" some amount, but they are not legally obligated to ever give you it at all.

Customers, lawmakers, pundits, columnists, etc. don't realize that the REAL issue is Comcast refusing to invest in enough infrastructure to guarantee customers what they pay for. There should never be a need to "manage" their network capacity if the capacity is there to begin with.

I hope this explanation has been helpful. Please educate your friends but most importantly, if you can, educate the public by raising this issue in any possible public forum. We need to get the news media to pick up and carry the "real issue" not the "manufactured issue" that Comcast promulgates. And what is that ? Simply that Comcast would like you to believe that they have a right to "reasonably manage" their network. WRONG. As a customer you need to demand that you have the right to a traffic contract and get every last bit of data your rate permits.

I'm not "unconditionally devoted to Obama..." I'm unconditionally against Bush/McCain/Repugs.

ezeflyer July 12th, 2008 5:39 pm

Since you are so unconditionally devoted to Obama, I propose you put up the following yard sign

"Go ahead, master, kick me again, I am not worthy of anything better"

(copied from H2O from a different thread)

It appears with this thread that the cliche joke of liberals forming into a circular firing squad has proven itself. Back to the actual topic, Timothy Karr is quite correct to point out that this is merely one victory in a long war against a formidable opponent who's outcome is very much yet to be determined. No one politician or activist will singlehandedly "lead" us to victory. It will have to be a mass movement of ever vigilant folks who vote with their money ever time the big telecoms get greedy.

Let's not stereotype old white men. Patrick Leahy (Senator from the People's Republic of Vermont) has been paying attention and cares about the problems of democracy in cyberspace, and on the ground as well.

---"Obama is your best bet on this. He has some idea what the Internet is and what it can do (such as enable the small-donor fundraising for his own historic candidacy, for instance.) McCain was last reported to not be much a user of computers."

Yes, I'm sure a Harvard educated expert in constitutional law that doesn't blink an eye at stripping the fourth amendment as well as article 1, section 9 of the constitution will make a wonderful defender of net neutrality. Get a freaking clue.

Thanks for the Comcast article, Tim Karr.
You seem to be on the sane side of things, so I'm wondering whatever possessed you to say(at the end of pp 4) that this apparent setback for a single corporate predator sub class

"...mark[ed] another defeat for entrenched corporate interests in Washington...." -? Another???

Assuming the full FCC formalizes this particular reg, it'll be real good. Sure.
But let's not get giddy about the bigger reality. Corporate predators still control 90% of the economic and political activity in this country, and 90% of the time average people still loose their battles against them.

"Obama is your best bet on this." -Daniel David

that's incorrect. RALPH NADER is the best bet on this on. and you can quote me if you want.

I posted this last noight, I hate end runs, just tell me you are a spying, Treasonous, Complicit TELECOM@!
_____________________________________________________________________

Turce July 11th, 2008 3:08 pm
Hell, they're one of the most blatant violators of the Amendment the criminals in Congress just redacted. I normally throw out the bazillions of dead trees[insers re;special on…buy this and get 10% off]they include with my bill, that one month I said something is very odd, it was a damn pamphlet so I read the entire mini-spy-on-you insert.
One excerpt:3.ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON COMCAST'S LIABILITY FOR HSI
b. Monitoring of Postings ..snippet..However, You acknowledge and agree that Comcast and its agents have the right to monitor, from time to time, any such postings and transmissions, including without limitations e-mail, newsgroups, chat, IP audio and video, and Web space content.
The next is,- c.Eavesdropping, the whole thing aws more of this an dhow we couls never, forever and ever hold them liable. Now, no one reads these things, so you know how you DO comply? Simply pay your bill.

Turce July 11th, 2008 3:09 pm
I think I should make a few more spelling errors, yeah?

Wow, DD never misses a chance to promote the policies and teachings of his lord Obama. One wonders if he's actively working in his campaign. If not, he should be. There's no shame in being a shill as long as you don't try the hide the fact. If not, than he should temper that enthusiasm with some realism; otherwise, stormy waters of disillusionment lie ahead. Not much different than what happened with many of the religious right and Bush.

There are additional problems with Comcast. The Congress and the FCC have given the cable companies the right to 'bundle'. That is like going into a grocery store for a loaf of bread and being told that in order to get the bread you also have to buy 100 pounds of hamburger.

Recently Comcast re-bundled and took C-Span2 out. In order to continue to get it, additional charges would be billed.

Until we all vote the repubs/dems out of Congress, life in the US will continue to deteriorate.

Actually, in 2 years the internet will be toast.

http://www.americanfr**press.n*t/html/canada_n*t_c*nsorship.html

* = e (otherwise it gets blocked)

" A net-neutrality activist group has uncovered plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada. By 2012, the group says, the trend will be global.

snip

"We had inside sources from bigger companies who gave us the information on how exclusivity deals are being made at this moment between ISPs and big content providers (like TV production studios and major video game publishers) to decide which web sites will be in the 'standard package' offered to their customers, leaving all the rest of the Internet unreachable unless you pay extra subscription fees per every 'non-standard' site you visit,"

snip

The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.

snip

"By 2012 ISPs all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet," Leysen said. "

Obama will be all for this.

Those sites who want to be part of the basic subscription site will be mainstream, or controlled dissident sites. Too critical of the government, or allow comments that cross the rubicon, and get threatened with being kicked off the basic subscrition plan.

These are the same Dems that voted for the FISA bill, they will be loving it. You won't, but you will not have any choice.

Repug Obama bashing shills here know very well that if you keep repeating things, they will stick. It's a kind of "winning by attrition" strategy.

I don't like what Obama did. But I won't put Bush/McCain into power for it instead.

Just what do you think Obama will do. I know he will lie about taking this on and saving the internet.

Then he run to Washington hold a fund raiser with the Comcast and vote to over rule the FCC.

Just how many times does a man have to lie to you before you find out he is a LIAR?

Obama says he wants to "revisit" FISA after he is in office. I'd much rather have seen him vote No now AND to have seen every Democrat in the Senate support Feingold and Dodd in their attempt to stop this really, really bad bill.

Re: Net Neutrality -- On June 16 the St. Paul Pioneer Press reprinted a NY Times article about Comcast "slowing down the connections of the heaviest users" and Warner Cable beginning "a trial of Internet metering in one Texas City early this month [June], asking customers to select a monthly plan and pay surcharges when they exceed their bandwidth limit." AT&T, says the article, "says limits on heavy use are inevitable, and it was considering pricing based on data volume."

This sounds like they are all floating trial balloons to see what reaction they get from their customers, the FCC and the Congress.

Long time critics of the Democrats like myself, suddenly faced with the easy decision of an Obama or McCain Presidency, might be surprised at finding ourselves siding with Daniel David who has defended the Dems all along.

Got to roll with the punches.

DD, you are PISS WEAK. You've been flagged, tagged, and bagged. You will say anything you are told to say and like some button sorting fundamentalist, FACTS are NEVER your friend.

Obama has demonstrated with FISA vote where he stands relative to big telecom corporations. Should I say more Mr. Daniel David?

Oh the clueless Sheeple....

Obama is not the best bet for this; he's part of the fascist govorporation. Watch for the telecoms to dump more money into the other arms of the system to influence the decision makers. The corporate arm of the govorporation will consistently lie for extended periods of time for a myriad of reasons; wear down the people; let the people forget; out spend the people; bribe the policy makers. The Korporats consistently mouth the lie that they are in favor of the free market. The Korporates say they favor the free market, and yet they consistently and without any deviation in their plans drive towards monopoly.

Oh my, Kevin Martin is "getting tough" on Comcast, by refusing to even fine the law breakers! Comcast is a tyrant that's way too cozy with politicians near you, can't get in the way of their revenue. Comcast might not contribute to the campaign of an illegitmate candidate like Barack if they get wrist slapped for f&*king people over.
Don't pay your bill, vote for the lesser evil, "Satellite".

Prepare yourselves for the big whine-fest from Comcast about providing equal service to ALL of their customers, and their claimed need to balance bandwidth among heavy users and casual surfers. Blah, blah, blah.
It's all horseshit. Comcast's infrastructure model is cable internet, which was a cheap way into becoming an ISP, but is technologically inferior to what pretty much the rest of the world has adopted as a de facto standard.
Cry me a river, Comcast. Go ahead. But then go drown yourself in it.

Obama is your best bet on this. He has some idea what the Internet is and what it can do (such as enable the small-donor fundraising for his own historic candidacy, for instance.) McCain was last reported to not be much a user of computers.