Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government United States Politics Your Rights Online

Senators Call For Hearing On Carrier Content Blocking 152

HangingChad writes "Two Senators on Friday called for a congressional hearing to investigate reports that phone and cable companies are unfairly stifling communications over the Internet and on cell phones. Now that the Senate is getting into the act, Comcast will probably want to come up with some new talking points as their old ones were leaked."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Call For Hearing On Carrier Content Blocking

Comments Filter:
  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @06:44PM (#21143531) Homepage
    Comcast will probably want to come up with some new talking points as their old ones were leaked.

    Well, leaks happen when your whole infrastructure is nothing but a series of tubes.
    • by RobertM1968 ( 951074 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @08:17PM (#21144085) Homepage Journal

      Here's the best part that no one seems to have mentioned, but ComCast is 100% telling the truth. Please read their WORDING.

      I read that Comcast is limiting customer access to BitTorrent. Is this true?

      Respond:
      No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent. We also respect our customers' privacy and don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

      Note that ComCast states that they "do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent" (emphasis mine). They do NOT at all answer the question of whether they are throttling or limiting BitTorrent traffic. And if that's their standard form response to everyone, it means they can tell the truth - by simply not answering the real question (and hoping they mislead the questioner into believing they have).

      It's much like the cheap hamburger patties that are made with 100% real beef - as opposed to the ones that are 100% real beef. One statement claims that the beef portion in the patties are 100% real, while the other states that the patties are 100% real beef.

      Semantics is/are a wonderful thing.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jesseck ( 942036 )
        Very accurate. I never saw anything in there was an out-right denial of throttling traffic. Phrases like "individual user" translate to "we watch everyone, as a whole". Website tracking... that is wrong, and they don't do it. They do watch packets, because that is what they are concerned with- moving packets. I smell a rat...
      • by salahx ( 100975 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @09:42PM (#21144513)
        It may, in some sense, be literally true, but Cocmast's statement amount to little more than Equivocation [wikipedia.org].Keep in mind we impeached a President over the same kind of equivocation [wikipedia.org], for an issue far less material then Comcast's one.

        Which is part of the reason why everyone's so mad - Comcast has been caught with the cigar in the dame, its time for them to come clean (which they should have done even before they were caught).
        • I agree with you in sentiment... but ComCast is telling the customers that answer... a little different than being in court or in front of a congressional hearing. Of course, when that time comes...

          Well, when that time comes, with the courts flip-flopping over supporting stuff like the RIAA's games, who knows? I know what SHOULD happen (or at least what I think should happen), but I guess that's irreleant, no matter how much we agree about that topic.

        • by sunwukong ( 412560 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @12:21AM (#21145391)

          Comcast has been caught with the cigar in the dame, its time for them to come clean
          How I wish that part of my brain that completes metaphors wasn't working when I read this.
          • Comcast has been caught with the cigar in the dame, its time for them to come clean
            How I wish that part of my brain that completes metaphors wasn't working when I read this.
            Protip: When completing metaphors, do not imagine yourself or close family members wearing the blue dress.

        • by fm6 ( 162816 )
          In other words, Comcast used ambiguous language to dodge this issue. Not a uncommon practice. And calling it "an equivocation fallacy" doesn't maker it any more serious. Indeed, dressing your argument up in fancy jargon is itself a kind of fallacy.

          Also note that "we" did not impeach anybody for equivocation. At least I didn't. It was a bunch of right-wing politicians who think that it's unconstitutional for a liberal to be president. If speaking ambiguously was grounds for removing someone from office, ever
      • Actually ... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PhxBlue ( 562201 )

        ComCast is 100% telling the truth. Please read their WORDING.

        I did. They say they're not limiting customer access to BitTorrent, but they are. That's not 100-percent truth, in my book.

        • Re-read the statement.

          No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.

          They side-stepped the question. The original question was "I read comcast is limiting bittorrent", in which case their reply was "no, we don't block bittorrent". There's a big difference between limiting and blocking.

        • No, actually, that isnt what they said. I even quoted them directly. You still are misreading it.

          No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.

          They state NOTHING about traffic. They state they are not blocking access to any APPLICATIONS, including BitTorrent.

          Here's another example. If I put a wheel lock on your car's tire, I can truthfully state I am not blocking your access to any car, including your Ford Pinto. I am not. I'm blocking your ability to DRIVE it... but in no way am hindering your ACCESS to it.

          The issue shouldnt be whether they ar

      • It's much like the cheap hamburger patties that are made with 100% real beef - as opposed to the ones that are 100% real beef.
        I once saw a package of 12-grain bread that advertised that it was made with 100% whole wheat. I'll see if I can find the picture.
  • The Senate is going concerned about bitorrent? Im surprised they understand the implications, or care about them..
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jaredmauch ( 633928 )
      There are intelligent staffers on the hill that understand these issues. They're what helps. If you noticed, it was suggested that the distinguished senator from alaska had folks calling for him to get some tech staffers after the grandpa simpson 'tubes' incident.
    • Re:Whaaa!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:16PM (#21143761)
      I think somebody explained if they can turn off bittorrent, they can selectively limit (or spy on) anything they want to. Many congress critters might not understand internet, but they understand the idea of open communications and what it means even if companies are starting with "bad guy". This could go either way though. On one hand it could put a stop to things like private cell only SMS and web as well as blocking services on DSL or Cable like bittorrent. On the other hand, it could be the "foot in the door" for regulations... the RIAA could step in and get a regulation for dangerous pirates and then it quietly becomes 100% legal and consumers argue about the details. That's how these big companies work, they know how to get a small concession as law and parlay that into making what they want "official" mandate for whatever they want to do. If somebody explains "net neutrality" as "reading your email" while transferring it then congress might get the hint. Bittorrent is a bad choice to argue about because it's more like bait to allow filtering than fight it.
      • If somebody explains "net neutrality" as "reading your email" while transferring it then congress might get the hint. Bittorrent is a bad choice to argue about because it's more like bait to allow filtering than fight it.

        AT&T are already giving the NSA full access to all the systems, not just the phone systems, the NSA have full access to AT&Ts customers' web-browsing and email already. Comcast will hand over all data of a user live via wiretap for $1000, no questions asked. Congress, as a whole, do
        • "The days of privacy in the US are rapidly disappearing"

          You seem to be assuming that they existed at one time. The "right to privacy" has been under dispute for a long time, at least back to the 1890's. The 14th amendment is now cited but current Supreme Court justices (Thomas and Roberts in particular) questioned about it have denied that there is a general right to privacy, although they admit privacy rights under specific circumstances.

          In any case, phone and internet companies have the belief that all c
  • Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
    or not the public wants their internet and mobile
    communications blocked or censored?
    btw I know that in some areas carriers have a total
    monopoly over internet access, but still...
    • by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:03PM (#21143665)
      Fine by me. As long as Comcast and company are open and clear about what they're doing. That's the sort of industry regulation I'm in favor of -- require it to be very clear to consumers exactly what service they're buying, and require the provider to actually provide the service as advertised. If, with all parties aware of what's happening, Comcast wants to sell a bittorrent-limiting service, and customers want to buy it, then more power to them.
      • by churchcomposer ( 976157 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:06PM (#21144959)
        If Comcast is selling " x megabits down and y kilobits upload", I DO NOT agree that they can do what they are doing, which is deliberately and deceptively killing specific uploads. It ought to be illegal - it is interfering with interstate commerce, or it is deliberate interference and disruption to an existing business relationship, or with an existing contractual relationship, that exists between whoever is sitting at the two peers. Especially since there ARE commercial, LEGAL, file transfers that take place using bittorrent, and they purchased Comcast's service for that purpose (among others). I think the bittorrent folks need to come up with a revision to their software that includes, in the datastream, a peer-to-peer message, properly encrypted, that tells the other peer, in effect: "this stream IS continuing, it has NOT been terminated, regardless of what you may receive to the contrary - any status message you receive that is NOT properly authenticated through encryption is bogus, so continue the transfer".
        • "this stream IS continuing, it has NOT been terminated, regardless of what you may receive to the contrary - any status message you receive that is NOT properly authenticated through encryption is bogus, so continue the transfer"

          You are suggesting an extension to the TCP and UDP protocols?

          -:sigma.SB

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 3vi1 ( 544505 )
          You don't yet understand how the sandvine works: It's not forging bittorent packets; it's adding the RST bits to the packets at the network layer. There's nothing you can do at the application layer to stop the underlying connection from being dropped, and the application can't continue to use the session after it's been torn down by the OS - it has to start the connection all over.

          If you're using Linux, you can drop the RST flags with a few iptables entries. But, as I suspect Comcast's setup turns on RST
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jc42 ( 318812 )
          I think the bittorrent folks need to come up with a revision to their software that includes, in the datastream, a peer-to-peer message, properly encrypted, that tells the other peer, in effect: "this stream IS continuing, it has NOT been terminated, regardless of what you may receive to the contrary - any status message you receive that is NOT properly authenticated through encryption is bogus, so continue the transfer".

          Since the very early days of computer communiciation, the security guys have been telli
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arkhan_jg ( 618674 )
        Comcast et al built their infrastructrure with public money on public land, and now government regulation allows them to not share it with anybody else. There are huge barriers of entry for others to build alternative infrastructure alongside. This means that many of the providers have a natural monopoly in a given area, and a de-facto monopoly down to cost in others.

        The free market can only operate in the absence of monopolies, which is why there needs to be regulation. Government created the regional mono
    • you just signed a multi year agreement to get that "great service"
    • How the hell does that get flagged "interesting"? It's a false question.

      • How does GP get flagged troll? He asked a serious question: "Why not let market forces decide?"
        Heck, he even answered his own question by noting that in some cases the carrier had a monopoly, which of course spoils the functioning of a market.
        That's hardly a troll

        IMHO, someone is modding down an opinion just because he doesn't agree with it.
    • by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig@hogger.gmail@com> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:49PM (#21143921) Journal

      Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether or not the public wants their internet and mobile communications blocked or censored?
      Market forces can decide for such things only in a truly open market.

      However, given barriers to entry (last-milers don't have to open their infrastructure to competition), it is far from being a free, open market.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      If this were a little ISP with a totally privately-owned infrastructure, I'd agree with you.

      It's not, its' a huge one, with monopoly-like size and operating on concessions and right-of-ways granted by the people in order to let them to operate their business for the benefit of all.

      They aren't just blocking, or censoring.. they are actively forging traffic to appear as if it is something it is not in order to trick software into not functioning as the end users expect it to.

      If you don't want your customers r
      • If comcast went on TV and asked it's customers to not use Bittorrent over a certain bandwidth between 7-9 AM and 7-9 PM i'd just program my bitorrent client accordingly; but forging traffic and lying about it is dastardly.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether or not the public wants their internet and mobile communications blocked or censored?

      You know, that sounds like a great idea. In fact, you know what I want? An internet service that censors child pornography, bestiality, and any other information that could get me into legal trouble as well as blocks spam. I mean, the fact that Comcast *isn't* ofering to block child porn *right now* sure seems to indicate that Comcast is a willful accessory to commer

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether or not the public wants their internet and mobile communications blocked or censored?

      No.

      Telco service is a natural monopoly, as well as a legally granted one. Beyond the market failure, there is still the issue that I do not believe companies (should) have unfettered access to do whatever is most profitable. I think that the richer you are, the more responsibilites you have and the governemnt has a right to enforce that. Cue progressive taxation, ant

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
      or not the public wants their internet and mobile
      communications blocked or censored?


      Most of the "market" isn't even aware there is a problem.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Wylfing ( 144940 )

      Another point that sibling posts haven't made in response to your idiotic remarks is that the U.S. federal government has given billions of dollars and special anti-competitive protections to these companies. At no point were the telcos operating in a marketplace free of government influence. So to suggest the market be allowed to sort out service issues is complete nonsense. There is no "market" at work here.

      You may simply be too young to remember it, but there is a reason we used to joke: "We don't have

    • And as I will be moving into a new home and setting up high-speed service, there is no way in hell I'm going with Comcast. I just downloaded the new OpenSuse images using BitTorrent over Comcast and it was slow as a pig. I can personally attest to the fact that something was throttling my packets and these latest revelations fit.

      I will be going back to DSL with Qwest. Maybe the peak speeds aren't quite as high as cable, but at least they are consistently high. I never noticed any monkey business with my
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Free market (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Froze ( 398171 )
      This reply is not so much directed at you as the doctrine of free market. Many people bring forth the argument that the free market can solve all the problems the plague the economic interactions of humanity. However, one thing that most people don't pay attention to is that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is only possible when the buyer is fully aware of the product or service they are purchasing. Since big corporations tend to keep as much of their business behind closed doors as possible, and indeed often b
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 )
      Of course.

      And part of market forces is aggressively identifying when a marketer is lying about what they are selling.

      And part of market forces is trying to get them fined if they are engaging in fraud.
    • by Alsee ( 515537 )
      I know there are plenty arguments here over the proper definition of "free market" and the proper role of government in maintaining and protecting free markets, but how about we all come together and agree on a very very simple starting point. That everyone participating in society and wishing to participate in a free market, including companies, are first and foremost obligated to obey run-of-the-mill criminal laws. That companies cannot engage in theft fraud extortion murder rape or any of a number of oth
    • Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether

      That would requiring the abolishment of the FCC and forcing the Telcos and Cable companies to pay back the millions the government gave them to build their backbones.
    • by jc42 ( 318812 )
      Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
      or not the public wants their internet and mobile
      communications blocked or censored?
      btw I know that in some areas carriers have a total
      monopoly over internet access, but still...


      Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any place in the world where the comm companies aren't regulated and kept to a small number (often 1) by the government? I don't think I've ever heard of such a place, unless you count International Waters. Even there, you aren't exactly "
    • Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
      or not the public wants their internet and mobile
      communications blocked or censored?


      Assuming fair competition was occuring, sure. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with natural monopolies (and yes, ISPs are natural monopolies, due to the near insurmountable barriers of entry, both financial and regulatory), free market economics tends to fall on it's face.

      Worse, last I checked, the FCC was easing (or flat out eliminating, I don't recall which) requiremen
  • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @06:49PM (#21143573)

    The telco execs can lie to congress all day long and they won't get so much as a slap on the wrist for it.

    For the same reason, congress ultimately won't do anything about the telcos and cable companies blocking content -- they're paid (bribed, in various forms, most of which are almost certainly not on the record) not to.

    Not only are they paid not to by the telcos, they're paid not to by the RIAA, MPAA, and the media corporations. That latter is especially important because without the support of the media, you will not win an election campaign, period.

    Big corporations rule the U.S. these days, and there's no stopping it now. There's no way to, even including violent revolution. We're way past the point of no return. And it's not just the U.S., either, but most of the rest of the world as well.

    Historically, totalitarianism of one form or another has been by far the preferred form of government, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the people who have ever lived have lived under it. The experiment with freedom in the world is tiny in comparison.

    Well, it was nice while it lasted. I'm going to miss it.

    • Historically, totalitarianism of one form or another has been by far the preferred form of government, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the people who have ever lived have lived under it.
      Do you have evidence of this assertion? Or is it just conjecture?
      • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @08:20PM (#21144097)

        Historically, totalitarianism of one form or another has been by far the preferred form of government, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the people who have ever lived have lived under it.
        Do you have evidence of this assertion? Or is it just conjecture?

        You're kidding, right?

        Look at the history of the world. The entirety of China has never lived under anything other than a totalitarian form of government (the specific form of totalitarianism has changed over time but the fact that the form has been totalitarian has not). The entirety of Russia has similarly done so except for the relatively brief period of time after the Berlin Wall fell. Those two countries alone are probably enough to make my case, but there's a lot more. India was totalitarian for its entire history until 1950. The entirety of Europe was totalitarian until the mid to late 1700s. The Roman Republic and the lands it represented were briefly nontotalitarian (for about 450 years) but were totalitarian otherwise -- the Republic lasted until the advent of the Roman Empire, which itself lasted about the same amount of time. After that, it was ruled by one empire or monarchy or another until about 1950. After that, it's been democratic (the specific time that any given territory of the Roman Empire went with democracy depends, but very few appear to have done so earlier than about 1800). And then, of course, you have the Egyptian Empire, which lasted longer than any other government ever.

        See a pattern here? Throughout history and throughout the world, totalitarianism is the norm. Freedom and self-determination are very much the exception. Real democracy as a form of government (where the people have a real say in their government) isn't new at all, but it's rare.

    • by TheVelvetFlamebait ( 986083 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @09:30PM (#21144447) Journal

      Big corporations rule the U.S. these days, and there's no stopping it now. There's no way to, even including violent revolution. We're way past the point of no return. And it's not just the U.S., either, but most of the rest of the world as well.
      How about getting on a soap-box and start raising these issues? How about organising a group, dedicated to spreading the message far and wide? I'd probably donate.

      How about actually taking some responsibility for how your democratic republic has turned out? It is still democratic. You still vote. Other people still vote. You have a voice that you can use to convince others. The failing is yours that you have allowed your democracy to become so unrepresentative.

      Or is it? Perhaps people like the economic benefits of having a business-friendly government. Perhaps if it wasn't, you wouldn't have the internet connection you enjoy, or the income you enjoy, or the local infrastructure, etc, etc. Or are people not allowed to believe that, and any pro-business decisions have to be a result of corruption?
      • How about getting on a soap-box and start raising these issues? How about organising a group, dedicated to spreading the message far and wide? I'd probably donate.

        You would do far better donating to an organization like Singularity Institute [singinst.org] which would change far more than just politics if they acheive their goals. Otherwise... Playing the political game achieves nothing.

        How about actually taking some responsibility for how your democratic republic has turned out? It is still democratic. You still vote. Ot
      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        It is still democratic. You still vote.
        How many times do I have to vote Libertarian before the Libertarians win?

        Other people still vote.
        For whomever the TV tells them to.

        The failing is yours that you have allowed your democracy to become so unrepresentative.
        The fundamental shift happened long before I became old enough to vote.
        • It is still democratic. You still vote.

          How many times do I have to vote Libertarian before the Libertarians win?

          It's not all about your vote, or how many times you vote for them, it's the number of people you convince to vote libertarian.

          Other people still vote.

          For whomever the TV tells them to.

          So maybe your first step is to buy some TV time? Or perhaps no matter how much TV time you buy, people still won't agree with libertarian policy, in which case you should probably move to a place with a government

    • Sure, socially things may be bad, but until things in the U.S. get like Burma, there isn't a NEED for violence. Ironic as it may sound, at that point, violence becomes justified to necessitate survival.
  • wait until next year (Score:3, Interesting)

    by westlake ( 615356 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @06:50PM (#21143577)
    anyone calling himself HangingChad should know that no significant policy changes in telecommunications - or anything else, for that matter - are going to come out of Congress until after next year's Presidential elections.
  • by balsy2001 ( 941953 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:06PM (#21143689)
    I like to call Comcast, Fraudcast. When I had service with them I took me six months to get a bill that was for the service that I originally ordered. Each month I would explain that I didn't order/want/get/use the extra services they were charging me for (like digital cable). Each month they would assure me that they had fixed the billing problems and my next bill would be correct. Rinse and repeat for six months. To top it off, when I moved and switched to DSL (no problems with verizon billing in over a year) they send my account to a collection agency when they owed me money. I also seemed to have very frequent network outages too. Don't know if that was a first generation attempt to reduce peoples bandwidth usage. My own experience using Fraudcast is that they throttled anything I did that required any bandwidth what so ever. I would start with a very high download rate and about 30 sec in always get cut back to something stupid like 8 kbs. I wasn't even on Bit torrent when that happened. Just my 2 cents.
    • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:42PM (#21143891)
      I call them Comcastaway, Comcastoff, or ComcastdownintothedepthsofHades ... in any event they're a schlock outfit. I used to have a 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection under @Home, and that was damn near ten years ago. Truly useful broadband, in fact. AT&T Broadband took it over and cut me back to 1.5 mbit/sec with a 30 kbit/sec backchannel. Things are much better though, under Comcast. Now I have an asymmetric connection with "no server" restrictions (hah! as if if 80 kbits/sec makes for much of a server), hidden bandwidth caps and now the bastards are deliberately forging TCP headers and corrupting legitimate traffic.

      Pathetic.
    • I like to call Comcast, Fraudcast. When I had service with them I took me six months to get a bill that was for the service that I originally ordered.

      How about Concast? I do like your initiative in coining a more descriptive name for them.

  • unfair vs. illiegal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bwy ( 726112 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:13PM (#21143739)
    I think it is import to distinguish between what we just don't like and what is actually illegal- i.e. unconstitutional.

    For example, I just posted something on Apple's support forums about distaste for the fact that they chose not to include Java 6 in Leopard. They deleted the entire thread. I don't like it and I think ti sucks. BUT- it isn't illegal. They own the support forum! They can delete whatever the hell they want. This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amedement doesn't grant you the right to speak freely in someone else's property. It doesn't even grant you the right to enter their property.

    I believe content blocking/filtering/etc is the same type thing. Some ISP will pop up who uses this as marketing material. They'll market themselves as the ones who "don't block anything."
    • not the same (Score:4, Insightful)

      by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:26PM (#21143805) Homepage Journal
      ISPs, fiber owners have built the lines with PUBLIC funding, on PUBLIC property. they DO NOT own the lines. it is totally illegal. they have no controlling rights as to public's usage. if they had built them with their OWN money on the land THEY owned, it would be legal. it is not as such.
      • Re:not the same (Score:5, Informative)

        by westlake ( 615356 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @08:54PM (#21144275)
        ISPs, fiber owners have built the lines with PUBLIC funding, on PUBLIC property. they DO NOT own the lines.

        I hear this mantra repeated again and again on Slashdot.

        Public investment in telecommunications in the U.S. has - historically - been negligible.

        When the moon and stars have been properly aligned you just might you get funding from Congress for a demonstration project like the first Atlantic cable or an Appalachian Co-Op during the New Deal.

        But, with these modest qualifications, it's fair to say that the privately financed American telco has always owned and built the lines. Western Union had a transcontinental telegraph service up and running in 1861.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
            True when taken literally, however Verizon and others have received millions in tax breaks (if not outright investment) for fiber over the last decade.

            Not millions, billions. Billions. And I still have crappy broadband! So I agree ... they've taken enough public money that they should have no right to interfere with our traffic. Obviously, what's actually legal for them to get away with depends upon, well, what the law says, and the telcos are damn good at getting laws bent in their direction. There's a
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Bullshit. Public investment doesn't have to come directly from congress http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/05/12/telcos-lay-billion-goose-egg [webpronews.com]. When congress allows the telecoms to charge more, to build on public easements, or to screw their competitors and offer more services than they should fairly be allowed to, it's the public paying the tab. We've let them have more than enough leeway with what is rightfully the public's infrastructure.
        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          Can you just imagine if they actually had to negotiate individually with every landowner where they wanted to bury lines?

          But they don't because for many decades they have enjoyed a public granted right of way.

          Similarly, they need not fear if text messages or a voice call are used to plan a bank robbery. That's because they are a common carrier. In exchange, they may not in any way control what can be said to whom on their networks.

          Then there's that whole monopoly thing. That's not something that gets

    • by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:30PM (#21143827)
      but telcos are granted those monopoly perks in exchange for being fair about traffic so the public can make money. The only reason anybody was able to GET internet at home in the first place was that telcos were prohibited from banning connections to local phone numbers we used for our dial up modems. Imagine in 1995 if telcos made a 30 minute limit on non-voice phone calls. Where would we be now?

      Or how about charging extra to dial a modem or fax than to DIAL a voice phone line.. the point is that they tried that ages ago, and the feds demanded they not do it. Internet connection is the "phone" service of the 21st century. How many phone companies block who you can CALL on your phone... hell you can call india or china if you got a number and there's a whole industry built around scamming people to call those places but they won't even challenge the calls unless you ask for your line to challenge that type... and there are 57 different types of long distance you have to ask to block individually.

      They want to change the rules for internet so they can offer services they previously not allowed to. They were always blocked from offering news, and other phone-call services back in the day but want to try to get away with not only offering services.. but blocking competition on their lines. Imagine if we had the yellow pages but say calling a number of a towing company that wasn't in the book or was low-ranked resulted in your call going to the company that paid more for ads. It's quickly becoming obvious that the telcos are trying to pull that stunt under the congress critter's noses and the critters might catch on soon enough.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dangitman ( 862676 )

        Imagine in 1995 if telcos made a 30 minute limit on non-voice phone calls. Where would we be now?

        Outside? At a girlfriend's house?

    • by Silverlancer ( 786390 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @07:47PM (#21143909)
      Comcast doesn't filter Bittorrent--they FALSIFY RST packets in order to terminate connections, which is wire fraud and therefore completely illegal.
      • by X_Bones ( 93097 )
        wire fraud

        I do not think it means what you think it means. Or does the USPS throwing out letters you attempt to send to a specific person constitute mail fraud?
        • by tftp ( 111690 )
          See http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w017.htm [lectlaw.com]

          First: That the person knowingly and willfully devised a scheme to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises;

          Comcast devised a scheme to get rich by selling a promise of unlimited, unfiltered network access and then by failing to fulfill those promises.

          Second: That the person knowingly transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire in interstate commerce some sound for the purpose of executing the sche

    • So a government sanctioned monopoly ( or at least a monopoly the government doesn't hive a shit about trying to break up ) can be allowed to control communications, while simultaneously being obliged to provide information to the government under "National Security" concerns? IANAL but surely the way things works ( or at least were intended to work ) in the US is that the courts are to uphold the rights of the people even when a violation of those rights is not a violation according to the letter of the con
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jc42 ( 318812 )
        So a government sanctioned monopoly ( or at least a monopoly the government doesn't hive a shit about trying to break up ) can be allowed to control communications, while simultaneously being obliged to provide information to the government under "National Security" concerns?

        Yes, this is how things have been going in the US for some time now. You see, the folks in power have figured out something important: Those protections in the Constitution only apply to government organizations. The courts have uphe
  • by Anonymous Coward
    When I'm unsure as to whether something is good or bad, as an American I reach my answer by asking, "What would the Founding Fathers say?"

    I know in this case, they'd be completely against censorship of any form. Censorship and content blocking are unacceptable, especially in a nation like the United States, where free expression forms the basis of the national identity.

    Although they're not necessarily bound by the Constitution, the carriers, as American companies, should still try their hardest to abide by
    • When I'm unsure as to whether something is good or bad, as an American I reach my answer by asking, "What would the Founding Fathers say?"

      Interesting... so rather than rely on your own reasoning, you reach your answer by asking what people who died 200-odd years ago would do based on a (probably) poor reconstruction of their thought process. I usually ask myself questions rooted in the categorical imperitive of Kant, but sometimes fall over to utilitarianism when the imperitive is hard to determine/the pe

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by westlake ( 615356 )
      as an American I reach my answer by asking, "What would the Founding Fathers say?"
      I know in this case, they'd be completely against censorship of any form.

      Freedom of Speech to the Founders meant "unconstrained" political debate among responsible adults --- but they could be prickly about the libels and slanders of their opposition.

      It goes without saying that women and blacks were not invited to the party.

      In those times, Freedom of Speech did not mean that Boston had to provide a stage for the sexual far

  • The Chinese Carriers block content too but they are also the government. How come we can complain about them blocking content but if we block content it is ok. This is why I think comcast needs to stop(also so I can get my share ratio back in line :P)
  • I have a business, we use Comcast at home. My business has 2 SMTP servers out on the net, but Comcast blocks outbound port 25 under the guise of limiting spammers. They encourage usage of their SMTP servers, but we routinely send pictures with our emails because we are in the construction business. Comcast simply times out sending large files (5-10Mb). Thus, my business is adversely affected. Complaints have been met with silence. I finally SSH tunneled out to a server to send email. I find that inappropria
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Temkin ( 112574 )

      My business has 2 SMTP servers out on the net, but Comcast blocks outbound port 25 under the guise of limiting spammers. They encourage usage of their SMTP servers, but we routinely send pictures with our emails because we are in the construction business. Comcast simply times out sending large files (5-10Mb). Thus, my business is adversely affected. Complaints have been met with silence.

      I'm guessing since you have your own mail server, you can configure it to accept mail on the submission port, 587. Jus

    • Wow, you live in Fredneck? I used to live in Rockville, about 35 years ago. It was a bit different then ... we were a tiny little town in the middle of a plain.

      Yeah, I agree ... just give me the damn pipe and don't you worry about what I use it for, because it's none of your goddamn business. I also have no interest in using Comcast's email services (for oh-so-many reasons) so I switched to using No-IP.com's [no-ip.com] alternate port SMTP. Works great, inexpensive, and would probably solve your problem. I still pol
    • If you want business service at home you should pay for and acquire business service, either that or vote with your feet. I don't have a lot of sympathy for a construction company running their business over a residential cable connection or even a business connection with clearly defined limits then complaining about those limits. It's very easy and not terribly expensive to acquire a real business connection with an SLA and guaranteed open network access. It's silly complaining like YOURS that raises the
    • sending large files (5-10Mb).

      Well, there's your problem. Email isn't supposed to be used to ship around multi-megabyte files. Stop doing that, dumbass. Seriously. Set up a damn web server and post the images there. If you're worried about security, set up usernames and passwords. Regardless, email is the wrong tool for the job.

      Meanwhile, I actually applaud Comcast blocking outbound port 25. Spam is a problem at the best of times, and those kinds of measures can actually do something about the problem
  • Wrong Question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @10:19PM (#21144693)
    From the leaked memo: They suggest a response to the question "Are you blocking BitTorrent?"

    You should be asking, "Have you stopped blocking BitTorrent?" (like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" question).

  • by D.A. Zollinger ( 549301 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @12:52AM (#21145571) Homepage Journal
    My question is this:
    If Comcast is blocking, throttling, or in some other way denying traffic, don't they lose their common carrier status? And wouldn't this open them up to lawsuits? After all if they are able to slow X traffic, why can't they stop illegal music/movie/software/etc. downloads?

    If you were a copyright holder, and you suspected that individuals were copying your works over the Comcast network - who is throttling specific traffic - wouldn't you sue to get them to stop the flow of traffic containing your works? Why doesn't this action open them up to legal action from the litigious-happy RIAA and others?
    • If Comcast is blocking, throttling, or in some other way denying traffic, don't they lose their common carrier status?

      It's been said before. I might as well say it again. Comcast does not have common carrier status. That only applies to telcos. Heck, I'm not even sure DSL qualifies. But IP over cable most definitely does not.
      • DSL has actually just been reclassified as an information service as well. It's still in the courts right now, but if the ruling is sustained AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon won't have to open up their lines to CLECs (Covad, Speakeasy, your local DSL company) if they don't feel like it. Right now, the phone monopolies are required to do so under certain rules. That won't be the case in the near future.

It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.

Working...