FCC chief says Comcast violated Internet rules

I used to work for a company that was a business partner with Comcast. The company had a business model that calculated what a typical user was likely to download. The whole company was structured around those models. Everything we bought, everything we built. Then, it turned out, some few customers were using 10, 20 or 100 times as much. Other customers complained: we were lying about our high speeds. There are only a few main solutions here. What would the the plaintiffs suggest? Low usage users pay for high usage users? High usage users pay extra? Either way, a lot of people are going to complain. Pick, already. Don't treat Comcast as if they were doing something wrong. Either charge for usage, or do not. Those are the options. Gigabytes of data aren't free, folks. It may appear that way to you, but it ain't so.

Excuse me? Uh I PAY handsomely for 60GB per month, at their "maximum of 7MBPS", but have yet to see speeds over 800KBPS, regardless of the time of day. I have no problem paying extra for extra bandwidth and capacity, but give me what I bloody well pay for!

Here is the key phrase in all of this

"... and failed to disclose to consumers that it was doing so. "

If that's you business model fine, but let me know what to expect !!!

Internet usage charges should be proportionate to how much bandwidth is used. That is to say that each consumer should be given access to unlimited (or as unlimited as is practical) internet service and be charged for their usage in a manner similar to how power companies charge people to power their homes; they charge them by kilowatt-hour used. In addition, Comcast and other internet service providers should not be able to say what we can and cannot do with a service we pay for. This is still a free country where the people are supposed to be greater than the person (or, the corporation). To put it into perspective, power companies cannot cut off power to your home as long as you pay your bill, no matter how many kilowatt-hours you use. And, the same is true for water utilities. So how can Comcast get away with this?

Also, businesses like Comcast exist to provide a service. It doesn't matter if they spend three dollars or "billions of dollars" to set up their networks. The bottom line is that those networks are paid for by the money they make from consumers. So really, whose networks are they? Does Comcast own the networks or do we merely pay them a service fee to manage our network? I guess that question can be answered if we see what happens when we STOP paying the monthly service charge.

Excuse me? Uh I PAY handsomely for 60GB per month, at their "maximum of 7MBPS", but have yet to see speeds over 800KBPS, regardless of the time of day. I have no problem paying extra for extra bandwidth and capacity, but give me what I bloody well pay for!

Dude, relax you aren't getting screwed... I'll explain:

You pay for 7 megabits per second,
thats 7,000,000 bits.
divide by 8 to get bytes: 875,000 bytes
divide that by 1024 to get kilobytes: 854.4921875 kilobytes

in other words, if you see about 800kb/sec you are getting about what they promised.

DoctorKnowledge said:

Don't treat Comcast as if they were doing something wrong.

But they are doing something wrong. They advertise their service as "unlimited use" but in reality, the service is not unlimited. That is false advertising and they deserve to be called on it.

Yes, Comcast was definitely in the wrong for it: ' failed to disclose to consumers that it was doing so', but the problem wasn't just from them. In regards with the FCC for the ISPs that does leave a rather large gray area in the rules/2005 "principles" are "subject to reasonable network management." That needs to be distinctly spelled out in detail for them to know when they are toeing the line & when they are not to avoid being in violation of it, in all fairness to them. If i operated an ISP, everyone would have equal bandwidth-exact in similarity to the Telcos, they would be charged with amount used: low usage, low cost; high usage, higher costs. Potentially the business model that the ISPs will be forced to go to in future just to stay in business from the extremely heavy bandwidth intensive apps being used by a small # of consumers, ie Gamers but not by all.

Ok, yes, holmstar and Sophos, Comcast probably made a poor choice of words by saying "unlimited". But honestly, that was more or less the intent. What we didn't know -- what nobody knew -- is that there were individuals who download at maximum capacity, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Also, at the time (talking 10 years ago) there was nowhere near the amount of video to download. So, yes, Comcast should change its 10 year old advertising slogans. But it's not that clearcut, right? There's inertia here. And admitting to themselves that they failed in some way. That's not easy for any organization. While I was there, people still believed the "bugs" could be worked out, and most people could get the performance they would normally use.

"Failed to disclose"...well, I don't know the details of the issues. Probably Comcast should have bit the bullet, and confessed years ago they weren't going to be able to deliver the service they had hoped. But, and this is a small item, companies are not required to reveal everything they do to customers. When I worked for the Comcast business partner, at the beginning, we were not a public company. We had no reason to tell people how we were doing business, and every reason NOT to. (Remember the old "open access debate"? We were a very small company, and AT&F******T was accusing us ( ! ) of being a monopoly. We weren't trying to monopolize anything at all. We weren't even sure we could stay in business. And eventually, we didn't: our company failed.)

I've had terrible comcast service since I first got it. I've recently been told my numerous reps my signal was extremely weak. They finally checked the drop box. I have paid through the nose & had poor download speeds. I recently came upon pando and have been enjoying it. Out of the blue it kept telling me all the DEFAULT ports to use it were failing & I was blocked. I questioned comcast....and was told it was probably being blocked due to virus or something.
That I should contact comcast security. I did & they tell me there is no red flag on my account & they DO NOT BLOCK PORTS. That it is a Pando problem. I've been upset with pando not knowing why they wouldn't let me use their service.
Well today on a SATURDAY I get a call from Comcast Security telling me I have been using too much internet & I'm interfering with my neighbor's service doing that. Well I've endured terrible service & MOST people go to work & aren't on a computer & I don't work. Naturally our uses would be different. And for their info most of my neighbors either don't have computers or have Qwest DSL which they say is better.
Now this comcast man gave me 2 options.....The first was a threat...if I am seen to use this much next month I will be cut from service for 12 months....My other option which sure sounds like extortion.....I can pay $1500 per month.
I signed up for UNLIMITED INTERNET....
Dictionary:
unlimited
1# Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
2# Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon.

I used to have LIMITED DIAL-UP.

I think there are some legal questions here.

Comcast also changed my e-mail port without telling me & just as in this case they don't say a word or you get several stories.
It took me calling to find out WHY my e-mail wasn't working. Well....you must have been spamming or something. Well if clicking BLOCK SENDER & BOUNCE BACK TO SENDER to STOP teen porn & garbage from coming into my inbox makes me a spammer then I guess I am one. That is an e-mail future that I as a FREE American chose to use.

Yes advertising UNLIMITED being LIMITED sounds like false advertising.
Changing ports so your mail doesn't work without TELLING the customer isn't right.
BLOCKING DEFAULT ports & denying it isn't right.
I wonder if Pando would have a lawsuit against Comcast telling people ( I'm sure I'm not the only one told) that the blocked ports were probably Pando's fault & doing.

Excuse me? Uh I PAY handsomely for 60GB per month, at their "maximum of 7MBPS", but have yet to see speeds over 800KBPS, regardless of the time of day. I have no problem paying extra for extra bandwidth and capacity, but give me what I bloody well pay for!

Dude, relax you aren't getting screwed... I'll explain:

You pay for 7 megabits per second,
thats 7,000,000 bits.
divide by 8 to get bytes: 875,000 bytes
divide that by 1024 to get kilobytes: 854.4921875 kilobytes

in other words, if you see about 800kb/sec you are getting about what they promised.

You've taken the "B" in "7MBPS" to mean "bits," while taking that in "800KBPS" to mean "bytes," with the result that you're off by a factor of 8.

Ok, yes, ..., Comcast probably made a poor choice of words by saying "unlimited". But honestly, that was more or less the intent. What we didn't know -- what nobody knew -- is that there were individuals who download at maximum capacity, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Also, at the time (talking 10 years ago) there was nowhere near the amount of video to download. So, yes, Comcast should change its 10 year old advertising slogans. But it's not that clearcut, right?

To the contrary, it is quite clear. Comcast screwed up, tried to cover that up, and knowingly and with intent continued to deceive.

Furthermore, they engaged in packet snooping as a means of throttling traffic, thereby, by virtue of controlling content, ceased to become a public carrier and became a publisher, subject to a whole new set of regulations, the consequnces of which they've so far managed to escape.

Lastly, even to the extent that they've admitted to traffic throttling, they've continued to deny the extent to which such occurs.

Bottom line - Comcast knowingly and with intent engaged in deception & got busted. "Good intents" and "stiff competition" cannot justify such.

Furthermore, Comcast does nothing to combat the zombie nets that infest their local loops, thus greatly contributing to their traffic levels.

It strikes many as hypocritical that they should target legitimate traffic while ignoring that whish is not.

Furthermore, Comcast does nothing to combat the zombie nets that infest their local loops, thus greatly contributing to their traffic levels.

It strikes many as hypocritical that they should target legitimate traffic while ignoring that whish is not.

Mostly because they don't care about traffic that stays within their network. They really only 'pay' for traffic that uses the backbone.

Still, unlimited should be unlimited, as lifetime should be lifetime, and not 3 years like carparts and tires.

Furthermore, Comcast does nothing to combat the zombie nets that infest their local loops, thus greatly contributing to their traffic levels.

It strikes many as hypocritical that they should target legitimate traffic while ignoring that whish is not.

Mostly because they don't care about traffic that stays within their network. They really only 'pay' for traffic that uses the backbone.

Still, unlimited should be unlimited, as lifetime should be lifetime, and not 3 years like carparts and tires.

Those zombies, though, DO generate external traffic. The internal traffic is solely for the purpose of creating more zombies, which in turn will communicate with external servers.

Additionally, to the extent that the internal traffic on a given loop is congested, the head-end needs to handle more traffic in the form of control packets sent between it and the external routers that are attempting to transmit into said loop.

Furthermore, Comcast does nothing to combat the zombie nets that infest their local loops, thus greatly contributing to their traffic levels.

It strikes many as hypocritical that they should target legitimate traffic while ignoring that whish is not.

Mostly because they don't care about traffic that stays within their network. They really only 'pay' for traffic that uses the backbone.

Still, unlimited should be unlimited, as lifetime should be lifetime, and not 3 years like carparts and tires.

Those zombies, though, DO generate external traffic. The internal traffic is solely for the purpose of creating more zombies, which in turn will communicate with external servers.

Additionally, to the extent that the internal traffic on a given loop is congested, the head-end needs to handle more traffic in the form of control packets sent between it and the external routers that are attempting to transmit into said loop.

But we're talking about a small amount of external traffic. I can have all of my roomates streaming data from my media center with about zero impact on exteral access, mostly because my routers are set up right... which might be a stretch for comcast. Either way, if I'm a provider, I wouldn't care about local traffic unless it's beyond 100 times my external traffic. You buy a 100mb router for maybe a 5mb external connection, I'd hope the cable companies use the same logic.

Furthermore, Comcast does nothing to combat the zombie nets that infest their local loops, thus greatly contributing to their traffic levels.

It strikes many as hypocritical that they should target legitimate traffic while ignoring that whish is not.

Mostly because they don't care about traffic that stays within their network. They really only 'pay' for traffic that uses the backbone.

Still, unlimited should be unlimited, as lifetime should be lifetime, and not 3 years like carparts and tires.

Those zombies, though, DO generate external traffic. The internal traffic is solely for the purpose of creating more zombies, which in turn will communicate with external servers.

Additionally, to the extent that the internal traffic on a given loop is congested, the head-end needs to handle more traffic in the form of control packets sent between it and the external routers that are attempting to transmit into said loop.

But we're talking about a small amount of external traffic. I can have all of my roomates streaming data from my media center with about zero impact on exteral access, mostly because my routers are set up right... which might be a stretch for comcast. Either way, if I'm a provider, I wouldn't care about local traffic unless it's beyond 100 times my external traffic. You buy a 100mb router for maybe a 5mb external connection, I'd hope the cable companies use the same logic.

External traffic caused by malware is NOT NEGLIGIBLE; the sole intent of zombie nets is to GENERATE TRAFFIC for the bot masters.

Furthermore, the head-end is NOT SCALABLE; there are a FIXED number of both up/down-slots at the head-end, regardless of the number of subscribers. This is why, for example, some HD transmissions are now being compressed 3:1.

You've taken the "B" in "7MBPS" to mean "bits," while taking that in "800KBPS" to mean "bytes," with the result that you're off by a factor of 8.

No, you are wrong. Broadband speeds are advertised in megaBITs per second, not megaBYTEs. You are the one who is off by a factor of 8.