Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Comcast appeals FCC ruling, triggering battle over web traffic

JOHN DUNBAR

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 5:00 PM EST 05/09/08

Legal decision could determine the extent of the U.S. government's authority to regulate the Internet ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Peter Zahoruk from Toronto, Canada writes: The next 10 years will be filled with many court decisions about the shaping of internet traffic. This will present a great many challenges to politicians.
  2. Thomas McCabe from Toronto, Canada writes: Interesting that their proposed cap is 250 gigs when Rogers here imposes a cap of only 69 gigs - we should be so lucky
  3. El Gran Chico from Etobicoke, Canada writes: Agree with Peter above. The decisions in the next while are going to determine the long term fate of the internet.
  4. Patrick F from Canada writes: Looks like the FCC is doing the right thing. What Comcast was doing was FORGING packets. If this was done by a hacker and not a company they'd be thrown in jail for committing crimes.
  5. the catholic church from Purgatory, Canada writes: It's staggering that the CRTC isn't as interested in protecting net-neutrality as the FCC. Bell and Rogers were both cited for a similar practice as Comcast earlier this year, and yet nothing came of it.
  6. Mikey Dee from Canada writes: just prove what I've said all along...the IP's are ALL bad......collusion perhaps??? Free market here does not work...they all need regulations!
  7. Kitty Burgers from Hamilton, Canada writes: Just what is the CRTC to do in this country? They don't have any powers to do anything regarding Bell and Rogers.

    It will probably come down to metered usage, just like any other utility. In any case, the matter will have to be dealt with in the coming years.
  8. slapdash dapoint from trawna, Canada writes: this is so stupid. i'm pretty dumb by every standard, and to me i see 2 major issues that everyone is dancing around(not to say the copyright issues aren't major):

    1) if i pay for 60, 100 or 250 gigs of bandwidth/month, why is it being impeded before i reach that cap? i can plug in as many lights or tv's as i want, hydro doesn't dim the lights, rogers doesn't degrade the signal.

    2) the obvious conflict of interest (bell shaping streaming video from third parties but offering it unfettered from their own service, as an example).

    the crtc has no b@lls, and i don't see them striving for any. industry players on their way out, looking for an easy ride and additional pension are not the people who will be looking out for the consumer.

    the FCC is a bi-polar skitzo organisation at best.

    why bother complaining? i see the (real) 'net taking on some fabled pirate persona that was the english radio scene of the 80's. offshore, urban gems, rural vanguards all broadcasting clandestine signals of freedom, all in an effort of simple human connection be the means what they may.

    one more beer... one more j... and i sign off... i don't know if i can vote conservative again

    :|
  9. parklane 47 from Washington, D.C., United States writes: Couldn't you argue this decision into Canada through long arm statutes?
  10. ali mansur from Etobicoke, Canada writes: There is no reason for an ISP to limit traffic based on content. If they want to limit traffic, they should limit it based on quantity only.

    Whether a person streams 250GB of astronomical data or porn videos makes no difference to the ISP. Therefore, they should limit the quantity of downloads without looking into what is downloaded.

    ISPs are targeting bittorrent traffic to set a precedent. Once they establish a precedent, ISPs will slow down traffic to competitors, or make them pay. Imagine if calls routed via competing telephone providers were randomly cut-off "to improve service for everyone else."
  11. Rob Swanson from Edmonton, Canada writes: ali mansur has it right. The only way the ISP's can make this arbitrary change to a contract midstream is to go after the low hanging fruit of torrent traffic.

    The same way you are "perceived" to be of intent to commit a crime when you purchase a blank recordable CD, you are perceived to be intending to commit a crime using P2P file sharing. Thus, an arbitrary change to an existing contract has even a chance in court. Even as we now see the Fed slapping them with regulatory power. The CRTC is the biggest joke in a federal system that includes the gun registry, and that is saying something.

    The difference is that in the States they value their rights and fight for them through the regulator, and in Canada we get cutoff at the knees for even thinking about standing up for ours.
  12. Simon Cohen from Toronto, Canada writes: These comments reveal a lot unfounded opinions. No Canadian ISPs are limiting bandwidth based on content. In fact they aren't limiting bandwidth at all. They are limiting how much bandwidth is consumed by apps like BitTorrent so that other apps like streaming video don't get slowed to the point of being unusable. Moreover, they only do it during peak hours.

    BTW Slapdash - Bell doesn't shape streaming video at all. And your hydro comparison isn't accurate. If everyone maxed out their potential hydro consumption simultaneously, you'd get a brown out at the least and possibly a blackout. P2P usage can have the same effect on a network. No infrastructure can handle 100% potential utilization.
  13. Rob Swanson from Edmonton, Canada writes: Hey Simon Cohen;

    this is for you.

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51200805153.htm

    A nice summation here;

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/14/bell    canadathrottlingand_privacy/

    Then read the article again about which ISP is told not to, and which gets a free pass.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top