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."
it's not a truck (Score:5, Funny)
Well, leaks happen when your whole infrastructure is nothing but a series of tubes.
Re:it's not a truck (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the best part that no one seems to have mentioned, but ComCast is 100% telling the truth. Please read their WORDING.
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)
The fallocy of equivocation (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The fallocy of equivocation (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Whaaa!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whaaa!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Regardless of the outcome (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
Re:Regardless of the outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regardless of the outcome (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You are suggesting an extension to the TCP and UDP protocols?
-:sigma.SB
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Since the very early days of computer communiciation, the security guys have been telli
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market can only operate in the absence of monopolies, which is why there needs to be regulation. Government created the regional mono
Re:Regardless of the outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
This is too much like Douglas Adams' "...they were in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, stuck upside-down, in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying 'BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD!...'"
Companies are more than willing to display advertising promoting a product in 10000 point, red, bold font while putting the nasties in Swahili 1.5 point italics semi-transparent ink on the back page of the ad.
Unless (Score:2)
you just signed a multi year agreement to get that (Score:2)
If they break the agreement sue them. Unfortunately this doesn't work if there's a clause in the agreement that they can change it at any time. I have ComCast delivering services now but when I signed up, with Earthlink, it was Time Warner and I don't recall any such clause.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Mods on crack again (Score:2)
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.
Re:Regardless of the outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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:2, Insightful)
A few things. Comcast can't exactly detect encrypted traffic. They can detect protocols and formats that are known to use encryption; but, perhaps that's what you meant. But imagine if VPN' takes some data, encrypts it, then stegos it within *other* protocols. Now, Comcast can continue to claim they block bittorrent. But, VPN' + bittorrent can
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
The Market Will Decide (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Free market (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it works that way with U.S. airlines and domestic routes, at least not since deregulation. Airports are almost always paid for by the government, and airlines fly the routes they choose to fly between those airports. If I recall correctly, if an otherwise unprofitable route is deemed necessary by the government for the needs of the public, the government ensures the a
It probably won't make any difference. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It probably won't make any difference. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:It probably won't make any difference. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wait until next year (Score:3, Interesting)
Another reason my nickname for them is appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another reason my nickname for them is appropri (Score:4, Insightful)
Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Concast? I do like your initiative in coining a more descriptive name for them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gees, talk about missing the obvious: Concast.
Re: (Score:2)
unfair vs. illiegal (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:not the same (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not millions, billions. Billions. And I still have crappy broadband! So I agree
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:unfair vs. illiegal (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Outside? At a girlfriend's house?
Re:unfair vs. illiegal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Bollocks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
"What would the Founding Fathers say?" (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dubya? Is that you posting as an anonymous coward?
Re: (Score:2)
Or much of anything else.
Well, except for My Pet Goat. Apparently nothing can tear him away from that one.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - not even being told that the United States is under attack -- without knowing by whom, what cities, how many were dead, by what methods, whether counterforces were being mobilized --- nothing.
Under no circumstances could he terminate the photo-op and scare the kiddies with an excuse as scary as "sorry, but I have urgent president things to attend to and promise I'll come back and finish the story when I can...".
Chineese Carriers (Score:1)
Let's talk about blocking SMTP port 25 by Comcast (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
For instance you can (Score:2)
Link to the example (Score:2)
and another
http://forum.ensim.com/archive/index.php?t-8228.html [ensim.com]
Re:Let's talk about blocking SMTP port 25 by Comca (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree
Re:Let's talk about blocking SMTP port 25 by Comca (Score:2)
Re:Let's talk about blocking SMTP port 25 by Comca (Score:2)
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)
You should be asking, "Have you stopped blocking BitTorrent?" (like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" question).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Common Carrier Status (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is different. Net neutrality is a matter as of weather you can prioritise traffic based on who pays most. I don't think anybody would actually mind if comcast simply gave bit-torrent and encrypted traffic lower priority, the problem is they are sending faked packages to kill the connection. To use a