×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Seeks Comment In Comcast P2P Investigation

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the put-it-in-neutral dept.

The Internet 82

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The FCC has officially opened proceedings investigating Comcast's use of Sandvine to send RST packets and 'throttle' P2P connections by disconnecting them. The petitioner, Vuze, Inc. is asking the FCC to rule that Comcast's measures do not constitute 'reasonable network management' per the FCC rules and to forbid Comcast from unreasonably discriminating against lawful Internet applications, content, and technologies. If you want to weigh in on these proceedings, you can use the Electronic Comment Filing System to comment on WC Docket no. 07-52 any time before February 13th."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

82 comments

Slashdot commenting (4, Funny)

yincrash (854885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065724)

Getting slashdot users to comment to the FCC, smartest idea EVER.

Re:Slashdot commenting (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065748)

Getting slashdot users to comment to the FCC
I was thinking the same thing... I was also trying to decide if the "put-it-in-neutral" dept. was meant for our comments or commentary on the Comcast P2P thing...

Re:Slashdot commenting (5, Funny)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065770)

I tried. For some reason I lose my connection to the FCC after only a few seconds...

Re:Slashdot commenting (2, Funny)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067300)

I tried. For some reason I lose my connection to the FCC after only a few seconds...

Don't tell me. Your provider is Concast right? ;-)

I had to ask

THIS IS STILL A BAD SIGN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066852)

Piracy HAS to go back underground. It's not an invincible jedi skill people. As it stands, they OWN all the communication mediums we are using and they are going to be able to filter those as some point to pretty much any degree they like.

I guess at least you will have pushed the technology, but doesn't it stand that on a mass scale, the ISP, as decentralized hubs, have an extreme potential to be used against us ?

You know, if we were all rich, we probably wouldn't bother to pirate. That being the case, I think the whole public piracy concept is a bad idea. It suggests some forced socialism on any intellectual property maker or just some consumer anarchy. You know, most of the time, the public isn't exactly fair and balanced. I think we are more like children crying for attention, politician's interpret that how they what, and they impose laws to change our behavior/make things fair with corporate advice of course, ehm. It's a reaction based system. Supporting piracy openly is like declaring war on terrorism because there there is no logical victory. You can't give away people's property for them and expect that to work on a global scale without AT least watering down the quality of that product via lost profit and moral to the manufacturing market of that product.

You can't steal their shit without it hurting the industry... eventually. Unless you want to just embed advertising right into the CPU architecture and compilers you have to pay for products somehow. Right ?
That's why it's not WORTH the few resources the average p2per adds to the mix compared to the many resources and quality collection a more elite p2per brings. And that's why public p2p networks aren't worth the trouble.

You have to realize who your hurting the most. Your not simply stealing money from mega-corporations you're preventing new artists from getting opportunities and new films from getting made. Instead of new artists a similar elitism is practiced in Hollywood and record studios where they bet heavily on the best bets for profit pushing the same artists and ideas with little innovation and yes, even less than before.

Then you ground all that up and fed it to your children. Now sure, you download a lot of free games and apps for them, but your culture may be suffering from a disposable and convenience driven mentality. The same mentality than can so easily justify piracy and not realize the public was better off without knowing how to steal trillions in copyrighted shit.

I say, cut off the moochers ! I bet more than 50% of the shit that's downloaded on p2p networks gets deleted by the average user within a month and hardly used if used at all. It also has insane potential to spread hand made GOD KNOWS WHAT kind of malware and you can only hope that it's detectable. Cut em off. If you can't follow releases and such, you shouldn't download. If you don't know how to use IRC... fuck off your ruining it for people who have real uses for the software and can store and share them. Mainstream piracy sucks my ass.

Of course global warming isn't real, 9 trillion in debt doesn't matter, American will always rule the world and piracy can be LEGAL..

I think perhaps we have lost some reasonable degree of accountability for our actions. I agree that most piracy isn't lost revenue, but the amount that is has to be growing quite rapidly as people of all walks of life gain internet and p2p access.

America is the cultural center of the world, more than even money or technology. We export culture and we dominate the radios and tv's of the world more than any other culture by far. You simply cannot re-create cutting edge Hollywood technology anywhere else in the world. Our music is nearly equally as dominate and our music market is desirable too almost all music artists. Of course, they love us for our media, it's sensational mass appeal and sophisticated presentation is simply unrivaled.

So, we are rather stupid to support pirating our own exports, the few we have left. People complain about outsourcing while downloading warez. They complain about cheap Mexican labor while shopping at Walmart.

Why not push private anonymous networks and then do what we please behind what should have always been our private right to information.

It's a democracy, but you can't undermine common sense with majority rule or you're going to find some unfortunate consequence. The fact that software is easy to copy was supposed to be a great advantage to the programmer and market, but it's become a major problem.

If software piracy is legal, then why not any piracy, why not declare your stuff federal property. It's like saying water boarding isn't torture. You don't just break the law and you don't just expose your domestic industry to that crime, but you rationalize the illusion that it's somehow ok and that rationalization becomes part of how people think.

So maybe it's the majority of the world striving for socialism... or
Maybe instead of stealing intellectual property we should consider the ever growing wealth gap to be a potential cause for people's unusual embrace of what they know must be hurting an industry which they readily consumer.

I fear the pattern of not seeing how certain actions are unsustainable such as fossil fuel consumption, endless pollution, land clearing and over-development, are signs of how we are so certainly doomed as individuals. We are literally waiting for either some great breakthrough or some great catastrophe to reshape how we think instead of actively saying hey we can't just endless abuse this system even if it's very cheap and easy there is a loss somewhere.

But.. hey I can't see if from my backyard... yeeee haw

Re:THIS IS STILL A BAD SIGN (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069496)

Piracy HAS to go back underground. It's not an invincible jedi skill people.

What does this have to do with piracy?

As it stands, they OWN all the communication mediums we are using and they are going to be able to filter those as some point to pretty much any degree they like.

So, we justify setting them up by saying "well, since your serving the public, you can have a monopoly for this area and we'll protect your business". But then when they start crippling the services to improve their profits we just say "well, they own it so they can do anything they like". Sure, that sounds fair.

I guess at least you will have pushed the technology, but doesn't it stand that on a mass scale, the ISP, as decentralized hubs, have an extreme potential to be used against us ?

Yar - which is why we are trying to stop them from doing this

You know, if we were all rich, we probably wouldn't bother to pirate. That being the case, I think the whole public piracy concept is a bad idea. It suggests some forced socialism on any intellectual property maker or just some consumer anarchy. You know, most of the time, the public isn't exactly fair and balanced. I think we are more like children crying for attention, politician's interpret that how they what, and they impose laws to change our behavior/make things fair with corporate advice of course, ehm. It's a reaction based system. Supporting piracy openly is like declaring war on terrorism because there there is no logical victory. You can't give away people's property for them and expect that to work on a global scale without AT least watering down the quality of that product via lost profit and moral to the manufacturing market of that product.

Not sure why you are talking about piracy, here, it seems a little off-topic. But it started because it offered a convenience that the manufacturers did not want to offer at any price. So, no, being rich would not have given you that convenience.

You can't steal their shit without it hurting the industry... eventually. Unless you want to just embed advertising right into the CPU architecture and compilers you have to pay for products somehow. Right ?
That's why it's not WORTH the few resources the average p2per adds to the mix compared to the many resources and quality collection a more elite p2per brings. And that's why public p2p networks aren't worth the trouble.

You have to realize who your hurting the most. Your not simply stealing money from mega-corporations you're preventing new artists from getting opportunities and new films from getting made. Instead of new artists a similar elitism is practiced in Hollywood and record studios where they bet heavily on the best bets for profit pushing the same artists and ideas with little innovation and yes, even less than before.

Then you ground all that up and fed it to your children. Now sure, you download a lot of free games and apps for them, but your culture may be suffering from a disposable and convenience driven mentality. The same mentality than can so easily justify piracy and not realize the public was better off without knowing how to steal trillions in copyrighted shit.

Well, that is just a load of Hollywood propaganda you are spouting, there. I think our "culture" would be much better off without most of the crap that Hollywood spends big bucks producing. Most of the "independent" films with small budgets are much better. Oh, and it's not stealing you are talking about - it's copyright infringement.

I say, cut off the moochers ! I bet more than 50% of the shit that's downloaded on p2p networks gets deleted by the average user within a month and hardly used if used at all. It also has insane potential to spread hand made GOD KNOWS WHAT kind of malware and you can only hope that it's detectable. Cut em off. If you can't follow releases and such, you shouldn't download. If you don't know how to use IRC... fuck off your ruining it for people who have real uses for the software and can store and share them. Mainstream piracy sucks my ass.

There you go again, confusing piracy with p2p. This is kind of like saying that people wear large coats when they go shopping just to shoplift, so large coats are used for shoplifting. And we need to do something about large coats. Because all those people using large coats are shoplifting.

Of course global warming isn't real, 9 trillion in debt doesn't matter, American will always rule the world and piracy can be LEGAL..


I'm not going to respond to all your points about Why Piracy Is Hurting America. I don't think you'll find many people arguing that there should be a free-for-all, but I think that nearly-unlimited copyright extensions, bogus obvious patents, and application of one-sided corporate protection hurts American a lot more.


Remember this: the Internet is also an important American export, and if we start imposing content-based filtering at the network layer, what happens to our [idea of] democracy then? There are many countries that would love to be able to do the same, of course. Is that what we want to share with the world?

Re:THIS IS STILL A BAD SIGN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22072248)

tl;dr

especially after several years of "discussion" on the topic of copyright here at /.

First post? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22065742)

Well, it would have been, if Comcast weren't throttling my connections...

Re:First post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22065778)

Nice one but since you are posting as AC the /. community wont mod up

Excellent Use of Slashdot Power (5, Insightful)

cheesethegreat (132893) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065768)

Posting the link to the public comment filing system was an excellent decision. The problem with these "Public" comment periods is that there are very minimal requirements for advertising the opportunity to comment, and too often the only people who know about it are the parties actually involved in the litigation. Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues, and Slashdot editors ought to ensure that they include information about opportunities to make public comments on ongoing regulatory issues whenever possible.

Re:Excellent Use of Slashdot Power (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065974)

That would require the editors to actualy read, let alone understand what is written.

Re:Excellent Use of Slashdot Power (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066264)

Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues

You must be n... no, that's too easy. Try reading /. at -1 from time to time, you might reconsider your above statement after that.

Re:Excellent Use of Slashdot Power (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067552)

Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues


You must be n... no, that's too easy. Try reading /. at -1 from time to time, you might reconsider your above statement after that.


Both are correct. We have some of the most well informed, and some of the biggest idiots around. I feel sorry for the FCC since the commenst section isn't moderated. No browsing at +2 for them. :(

Re:Excellent Use of Slashdot Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22074880)

Not entirely true. First, you can search comments eliminating "brief text comments" which eliminates most of the letter-writing campaigns. Second, the FCC knows which commenters are the large companies, public interest groups, and trade associations that write novel and informed comments, and can ignore the rest. Unless a particular Commissioner wants to prove a point, the individual comments don't actually get read.

Re:Excellent Use of Slashdot Power (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066542)

Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues

Thanks for the chuckle. You'll want to set your filter to below "+4" sometime; the vast majority of slashdotters are just as uninformed as the rest of the public -- except worse, because we don't /know/ we're just as uninformed.

If you want to weigh in on these proceedings... (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065776)

Oh, the trolls are going to have fun with this one.

Re: If you want to weigh in on these proceedings.. (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065804)

Here's a sample of one of the comments

You can tell Comcast is run by niggers because everyone knows niggers like to throttle shit a lot.

amirite

Vuze Inc. = Azureus (5, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065808)

For those interested, Vuze Inc. is made up of the developers of Azureus, the open source bit torrent client. These guys obviously have a stake in what's going on because their newer app, Vuze, has deals with some media organizations to serve their content via P2P.

Something really strange when I filled it out (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22065880)

My complaint turned into:

"I am a happy Comcast customer and I love P2P blocking! In fact, I wish they would block everything! Piracy is BAD!"

Think Comcast had something to do with it?

Only Adobe Acrobat? (0, Offtopic)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065882)

All comments are provided in PDF and can only be displayed using Adobe Acrobat Reader software available free from Adobe System, Inc. Additional information is also available on how to install and use the Acrobat Reader in the Getting Started or Acrobat Reader Support links found on this page.

Apparently, these are some sort of "fancy" PDF's that can only be opened using Acrobat!

Seriously, though, just say they "can be displayed" not "can only be displayed" -- you think they could at least get that right.

Re:Only Adobe Acrobat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22065932)

stupid scroll mouse - Not Flamebait

Re:Only Adobe Acrobat? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067736)

Seriously, though, just say they "can be displayed" not "can only be displayed" -- you think they could at least get that right.

True, but I think it's fair to say that for anyone who actually needed to be told that, "can only" is basically true.

Re:Only Adobe Acrobat? (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069724)

I liked this part better:

In order to use ECFS, you must have Netscape Navigator 4.0 or higher or Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or higher. Netscape Navigator is recommended and preferred because of its reliability.
At least they don't prefer IE!

Forging packets = questionable activity (3, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065890)

Although Comcast has the right to throttle and manage their network connectivity, forging packets will probably get them in trouble. IANAL

Re:Forging packets = questionable activity (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067340)

The question is, do they have the "right" to throttle specific applications, or visits to specific (i.e. competitor's) offerings? For example, Comcast, as you may know, offers their own email system - if it's ok to throttle certain kinds of traffic why would it not be ok to throttle access to non-comcast email? I also believe Charter was throttling bittorrent traffic - it suddenly got smooth as silk when the FCC begain investigating Comcast.

Re:Forging packets = questionable activity (3, Interesting)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22072064)

The real problem with Comcast isn't that they were throttling traffic, it's that they were completely blocking it. As I understand the issue, they were caught introducing commands to reset the connection into packets as if they had come from the genuine sender. So, not only were they taking it a step further than throttling, but they were, in essence, subversively forging a communication in order to do it.

Re:Forging packets = questionable activity (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22230538)

I also believe Charter was throttling bittorrent traffic - it suddenly got smooth as silk when the FCC begain investigating Comcast
I wish Clearwire would follow suit.

Re:Forging packets = questionable activity (1)

TehZorroness (1104427) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067412)

Yes, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Just because I can piss on your granda's grave doesn't mean I should.

Re:Forging packets = questionable activity (2, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069614)

If that is what they were doing I would be more generous, but they are advertising unlimited high-speed and they are blocking 24/7. If it were just during peak usage periods then I'd consider it network management because I'd be getting unlimited high-speed most of the time rather than none of the time.

Deja Vu (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065946)

These companies are ostensibly throttling bittorent and other P2P services because they eat up too much bandwidth. And rather than improve bandwidth or set up a new pricing structure (abandoning the silly pretense of "unlimited" usage), they are taking a more heavy-handed and secretive approach.

When I though about this, though I got a sense of Deja Vu. I can't remember the particulars, but wasn't there a similar controversy back when people first started using modems over their phone lines? I seem to remember the telcos rasing a stink and saying something like "this was not what the phone lines were intended for, it's eating up too much of our resources" or something to that effect and threatening to sanction or even cut off heavy modem users. Of course, we know how that one turned out, but can you imagine what the world would look like today if they had followed through, cracking down on modem use and crippling the internet before it even got started?

Re:Deja Vu (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066310)

Streaming and downloadable video and audio are my primary form of entertainment. I also use services to download games. Everything I download is legal - some of it is paid for, and some is made available for free by the content providers. This month, I got the call from Comcast saying that I had to use less bandwidth, or risk being shut off for 12 months. I asked how much I should be using, and they refused to give an answer.

Comcast is discriminating against more than just P2P users. I'd be happy to meet their specified usage limits, if they would specify them, or use a different plan if they would define the limits of each option.

Re:Deja Vu (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070398)

That's what REALLY pisses me off about these companies. It would be one thing if they would just publicly state their limits and at least allow users the option to pay more for bandwidth. But the fact that they try to advertise these services as "unlimited," then give you the boot when you try to use it (while refusing to tell you what the limit even is) is nothing less than outright consumer fraud.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066918)

"And rather than improve bandwidth or set up a new pricing structure (abandoning the silly pretense of "unlimited" usage)..."

A new pricing structure will never happen. Bandwidth is so cheap that 'normal' users would only pay $1 a month. 90gb costs me $25... Not going to happen.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070458)

All they would have to do would be to add an asterisk to their existing plans and specify "*Up to 100GB per month" at the bottom. They wouldn't have to give users at the bottom a discount, just let power-users know what the upper limit actually is and allow us the option to buy more bandwidth if we wish.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067226)

Yup, it does eat up too much bandwidth - because broadband providers count on oversubscription of their services coupled with actual rates that don't saturate their network. They seem to be content offering you a connection at an advertised speed - unless you actually try and use it at that advertised speed, which p2p seems to do a reasonably good job of.

On the face of it, it seems reasonable to suggest that broadband providers actually provision their network to allow simultaneous full-speed network traffic from all their end nodes. This becomes problematic at the provider's peering connections, though - in a sense, oversubscription seems a bit inevitable, as it doesn't seem practical with current WAN topologies to provision peering links that support the aggregate bandwidth of their nodes.

sloth jr

Re:Deja Vu (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069386)

Yup, it does eat up too much bandwidth - because broadband providers count on oversubscription of their services coupled with actual rates that don't saturate their network.
Time Warner is the big (only?) cable provider in this area and after canceling their Television service they told me I could get a higher speed connection at the introduction rate for a year. Fine with me, I live in an apartment and they set up accounts by address/name so when I move in 9 months I'm under the impression that I become a new customer again. Anyway, I recently set up a home network for some Nintendo game consoles and a few laptops that recently took up residence in my apartment along with the equipment that was in there to begin with. It's not the large streaming/downloads that most slashdotters are known for but it's far more load than the provider expected when they sold me on the service.

I figured, I'm paying for more, might as well get use out of it.

Re:Deja Vu (4, Interesting)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069020)

These companies are ostensibly throttling bittorent and other P2P services

No, Comcast was absolutely NOT throttling.

What Comcast was doing was impersonating their customer and sending a fraud "hang up" command to the other end of the connection, and also impersonating the other end of the connection to send a fraudulent "hang up" command to their own customer, killing the connection from both ends.

US Law Computer Fraud and Abuse act [cornell.edu]
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 47 Section 1030 Paragraph (a)(5)(A)(i)
[Whoever] knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
Paragraph(a)(5)(B)(i)
loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;

And where Paragraph (e)(8) defines:
the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;

Comcast was in fact knowingly transmitting fraudulent commands with the intent and effect of "impairing the availability of data", and considering that they did so to a VAST customer base it trivially exceeded an "aggregate value of $5000" even on the most conservative per-customer estimate valuation.

As far as I can Comcast hit a bullseye on an explicit criminal statute. Forget about FCC diddling over whether this was or was not "reasonable network management", as far as I can tell this should be a damn CRIMINAL case.

-

Re:Deja Vu (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069976)

As far as I can Comcast hit a bullseye on an explicit criminal statute. Forget about FCC diddling over whether this was or was not "reasonable network management", as far as I can tell this should be a damn CRIMINAL case.
Assuming that the imprisonment penalties can't really be applied to a non-corporeal corporation, what is the "fine under this title" repeatedly referenced in subsection (c)?

Re:Deja Vu (1)

jimsum (587942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22072932)

It depends on the definition whether Comcast is throttling or not. Comcast is indeed killing a connection, so there is no way to say they are "throttling" the connection. But, you can't forget there is a bittorrent client running on this computer, which notices when a connection is reset and automatically tries to reconnect. Every time Comcast kills a connection, the bittorrent client tries to establish a new one; so when Comcast eventually allows a connection to live, at that point the bittorrent client continues its transfer. They are killing a connection in order to achieve the effect of delaying a bittorrent transfer until congestion dies down. It is an open question whether killing the connection even constitutes impairing the availability of data; if Comcast only does this throttling when there is congestion, the bittorrent connection wouldn't have had enough bandwidth available to do anything anyway, so there is no additional harm done.

I don't think "fraud" is really the correct word here either. If you read the TCP standard, you will notice that it only mentions two endpoints, a source and destination; there is no provision for a third party to inject a message, so there is no way for a third party to identify themselves. Comcast is simply creating a well-formed reset packet, which necessarily mentions the two endpoints, and there is no way in the TCP standard for Comcast to indicate that these packets are from Comcast rather than one of the endpoints. Is this fraud or impersonation? How about when OpenOffice writes a file in Word format; would you say that OpenOffice is illegally impersonating Word? We won't even mention SAMBA which enables a Linux file server to "impersonate" a Windows file server.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069926)

Yeah, I remember that. I also remember some of the telecos turning around and becoming ISPs!

Dear FCC.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22065966)

While you are at it, can you please deliver a nice deadly blow and announce that Public Airwaves like FM and Tv bands will not have any encryption nor "content control" allowed on them. Also announce that if you broadcast it for free, you give UP the right to sue anyone over that content as it was recorded over the air. I.E. if someone shares that episode recorded off their local TV station and it is intact with commercials, you cant do squat to even stop them from sharing it.

I'm hoping for some sanity, I know it will never happen.
I also want them to force cable tv to have their basic lineup as unencrypted QAM if they "must" switch from analog broadcasts. But Comcast wants to force cable boxes into every livingroom.

Re:Dear FCC.... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22077952)

Plenty of content providers and software publishers have extremely open licenses. But what you're describing would strip GPL, BSD, and other licensing from anything that is transmitted via Bittorrent or public FTP sites. It can't work because people will turn around, at least in the software world, and proprietize these public broadcasts under your "we won't sue you" doctrine.

I think you need to go back and work on that idea a bit more.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt... (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065978)

FCC Seeks Comment In Comcast P2P Investigation

Why, so they can ignore it again?

The public who understands it, opposes it. The rest of the public has no clue what they even asked (though would oppose it if they did). And the FCC will still side with the three comments from guys like Rupert Murdoch.

Re:And monkeys might fly out of my butt... (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066400)

Pretty much it. Comments without a fat check behind them are not even worth the bits they are carried on. It's should be obvous to anyone that anytime a carrier tampers with the traffic on its network in any way they should lose thier common carrier status.

Re:Common carrier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22068984)

ISP's are NOT common carrier - that is really the heart of the problem. They don't want it, either, because then they could not cut people off for 'high bandwidth usage' (ie: using the service they paid for) or any other arbitrary reason, or filter content they don't like (ie: blocking websites critical of the ISP, union websites, political sites, etc)

Re:And monkeys might fly out of my butt... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069132)

It's should be obvous to anyone that anytime a carrier tampers with the traffic on its network in any way they should lose thier common carrier status.
cable providers have never had common carrier status. DSL providers used to have common carrier status, but they don't anymore.

what they should lose is their DMCA safe harbour status.

Re:And monkeys might fly out of my butt... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22077968)

I don't see what makes you think this: companies have *lost* common carrier status, or been shown not to have it, when they exerted editorial control over user material and then failed to prevent other inappropriate behavior and were held responsible for it. But that doesn't mean the whole industry doesn't have common carrier: why do you think this?

Re:And monkeys might fly out of my butt... (1)

tychovi (1221054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066432)

exactly, and I'll be pinning my hopes to the monkeys... (both sets)

Telling Slashdot to Comment is a bad idea... (2)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22065984)

Now, let's be honest. We get some...insightful...commentary posted here on the site, so I can only imagine what comments submitted to the FCC are going to read like.

Slashdot users have been known to be confrontational at times, and I can't imagine that we will be doing our case any good by submitting nasty, derogatory comments to the FCC. I'm also with the conspiracy theorists that Comcast could just block the connections to that FCC page with some unfortunate "network packet loss" so keep people from submitting comments.

I guess we're screwed either way, since I doubt the FCC will do anything meaningful once Congress finishes neutering them after their "SuddenOutbreakOfCommonSense".

Re:Telling Slashdot to Comment is a bad idea... (1)

daninspokane (1198749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066084)

Slashdot users have been known to be confrontational at times, and I can't imagine that we will be doing our case any good by submitting nasty, derogatory comments to the FCC
Yes, because the rest of the internet won't submit derogatory comments.... Comment away my friends...comment away...

Re:Telling Slashdot to Comment is a bad idea... (3, Informative)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066220)

You're absolutely right, we're in a lose/lose situation. The FCC might decide the whole thing is garbage, which it is, and threaten some action against Comcast. Congress, who coincidentally get a lot of money from the entertainment industry, might move to block them. The entertainment industry, who coincidentally believe they're losing a lot of money due to teh evilz of bit torrents, will be happy and might see if other carriers are willing to do the same thing.

The best hope to get this stopped early is for people with a large sustained user base to get the legitimate uses of bit torrent out in the open and in the public eye. Vuze, Blizzard, and Bit Torrent (obviously) have a pretty big stake in the whole thing.

Re:Telling Slashdot to Comment is a bad idea... (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067118)

Good thing I just submitted it at work. Suck on that comcast.

creators comment on state of planet/population (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066080)

phewww. it is noted that the planet, & most of the population is being held hostage by a handful of glowbull warmongering crusaders, who are promoting death, debt & disruption. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Some of these comments are great! (5, Funny)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066082)

I actually looked up some of the comments filed so far and it looks like the FCC needs to employ a spam filter of some sort.

Apparently the FCC is in need of purchasing some new life insurance: Submitted Comment [fcc.gov]

They also need to buy some new cell phones from Hong Kong!: Submitted Comment [fcc.gov]

Luckily, there are a few good comments such as this set of form letters (read: petition) found here: Submitted Comment [fcc.gov]

Ok, there are a few good comments there at least, I like this Rome analogy here: Submitted Comment [fcc.gov]

Re:Some of these comments are great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066162)

What if that's not spam, but an attempt by Comcast to flood the FCC comment system?

Re:Some of these comments are great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066720)

The Rome analogy was good, but if he had gone down the "road" a bit farther, he could have gotten to the best analogy of all: the car analogy.

1.77 Trillion Dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22066086)

Why don't they just ask for one billion, gagillion, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...yen?

Re:1.77 Trillion Dollars? (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066142)

Why don't they just ask for one billion, gagillion, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...yen?

What's that these days? $1,000? ;-)

What about other blocked traffic? (1)

razorh (853659) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066560)

Like blocking port 25 on home connections? It seems to me that ISP's do a lot more service restriction just in general these days then they used to. I miss the good old days of having a shell account.

Now, GET OFF MY LAWN!

Re:What about other blocked traffic? (3, Informative)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066912)

blocking a port is somewhat different from packet sniffing and insertion. In the port 25 case, they ISP isn't really blocking it, just blocking out of network access - port 25 is reserved for the ISP s email servers. There is some justification for it, convenience of their users (the vast majority of whom use the ISP's mail servers) and some basic spam blocking. For the minority, it's trivial to open up a different port (587 or 2525 maybe?) for email and use that - it's done all the time. Inserting/blocking and falsifying packets is something else entirely. The only justification is that the ISP wants to throttle back traffic, that isn't in favor of an in-network service that most of the ISP's clients would prefer to use, and, since Comcast enjoys monopoly status in some areas, there isn't a way for the client to vote with their feet.

Re:Port 25 blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069134)

Blocking port 25 outbound is OK if there is a way for users to override it (ie people who use 3rd party SMTP providers. Yes, we exist) Blocking inbound ports has no excuse. Blocking outbound DNS is even worse.

Re:What about other blocked traffic? (1)

LakeSolon (699033) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069262)

Regarding port 25: Some of my providers were kind enough to set up a non-standard port, but not all. It's still a pain for devices that use various networks (laptops, phones). When I'm at home I can use Charter's mail server for outgoing mail, but of course they don't allow me to send mail from outside their network so I have to revert settings when I'm connected via public Wifi. When someone visits my place with a phone or laptop and uses my WiFi, they get an error unless they change their mail server settings to send via Charter's server.

What I've ended up doing is using dnsmasq on my WRT (Tomato) router to substitute smtp.charter.net's IP for smtp.otherdomains.com. But I can't even explain that to some people, nevermind expect them to implement it themselves. And besides that most home routers don't have such functionality so I can't do it for them.

Excuse my rant =/

Re:What about other blocked traffic? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22078010)

Most of them allow authenticated mail services from outside: you might check your provider's services. This helps prevent spammers from using them as an open relay, and email worms from blowing their customers off the net or spewing worms that overwhelm their mail servres andn imperil their customers' systems.

As much as my friends loathe it and scream about violations of their freedoms, I think we have to live with this one as a basic spam andn worm blocking technique. It does interfere with people who want to run their own private mailservers from home to block incoming port 25: but like letting people leave meat on their lawsns in bear country, it draws trouble.

Re:What about other blocked traffic? (1)

KookyMan (850095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069918)

I tried setting up a STMP server on my connection and ran into a different set of problems. I had no problem connecting to smtp.comcast.net, or any other mail server on port 25. What I did have a problem with is the fact that apparently my IP is registered in a database as a Residential IP. No mail servers would accept mail from me on that basis, forcing me back to using comcast's mail server. (I was getting bounced mail messages from the receiving servers.)

Re:What about other blocked traffic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22073926)

You fell foul of this for two reasons, one legitimate, one not so much. The latter reason is that ISPs prefer you to run servers on business IPs/accounts because they make more money out of you.

The other reason is, and I say this a mail admin, is because home users suck. The vast *vast* majority of spam that comes at us comes from zombied home broadband pcs. Unpatched, un virus checked, these zombie boxes spew thousands or even millions of spam a day. I often see the same box try to hit us for a few hundred copies of the same spam each, one after another. It doesn't get any further than connecting because its IP is blocked, quite often because it's been voluntarily marked by the owning ISP as a residential block, i.e. likely to contain a high percentage of zombies.

Even with a proper business IP and reverse DNS, some mail servers won't accept your email. Alas, its just one of those side-effects of 95% of all mail being spam and viruses. You don't have to forward through comcast's mail server though. There's a whole variety of legitimate ISP servers you can use as a relay (web hosts, domain hosts) hell you can even use gmail's servers with a free account. That said, even our hosting ISP with thousands of customers sometimes get blacklisted by hotmail.

The days of running your own mail server and talking directly to your destination are gone. Thank the spammers for that, for making us admins block unknown residential servers because they're almost entirely a morass of unrelenting high-volume crap.

Interesting Example of a Completed Form (1)

Bob_Geldof (887321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22066822)

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/email.html [fcc.gov] At the bottom of that page you'll see an example of a completed form sent from an individual. It says:

Dear FCC,
I don't want to pay more for my phone. Please remove the surcharge and let competition rule. Thanks.
John

You would think that if that is one of their biggest complaints, so much so that they include it as an example of how to properly fill out a form, then they would at least consider getting rid of those pesky surcharges.

Hopefully, the FCC will do the right thing (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067144)

Simply put, Comcast should not be charged for this. DuranBUT instead, all of their local monopolies should be declared NULL and VOID. IOW, allow real competition in. Right now, we have a gov. create oligopoly and it leads to horrible service and outlandish rates. I know. I am on comcast for TV/Net, and qwest for phone. There is a real reason why they are bottom rated!

Re:Hopefully, the FCC will do the right thing (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22080522)

Right thing???
Are you crazy?

First there will be an investigation.
Next, comcast will donate $254,323 to Senator Joe Lieber*gay*.
Then, the said senator will tag along a provision with "Funds for schools" stating that throttling a P2P network is legal as long as the carrier has "reasonable" doubts the traffic is illegal.
Fourthly, comcast and FCC will "settle" this out of court for an undisclosed sum (which is equal to zero).
Fifthly, Vize would suddenly find its internet and physical cable is not available.
Sixthly, customers will whine for sometime before comcast introduces "legal" P2P and charges $9.99 per month unlimited traffic.

Kevin Martin has selective attention disorder (2, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22067170)

Big money/Corporations = Kevin Martin is all ears
Concerned citizens = Kevin Martin hears nothing

If Kevin Martin can ignore the public outrage about relaxing media ownership rules that he witnessed personally at several town hall meetings, he'll have no trouble ignoring a bunch of public comments on the internet. He's a corporate lapdog. This Comcast "investigation" is merely a formality and a complete joke.

URL for actual docket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22067368)

OK, I give up. I've spent 10 minutes roaming the FCC's site. What is the actual URL that shows me the actual text of this proceeding? I'm not going to comment on something if I can't read the text first.

Re:URL for actual docket? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22068256)

HA!

So you commented on this article without actually reading the links.

Either that, or you fail at reading comprehension.
Just stick a certain number into a search box and bam.

Cox doing the same. (2, Informative)

californication (1145791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22068864)

Cox is doing the same thing, sending out reset messages to kill the connection for seeders. According to DSL Reports, they starting doing this sometime in Mid-November. I haven't tried to use P2P in a while, but I just tried to download something over P2P yesterday and couldn't break 60kB/s on a well seeded torrent. I have been able to get up to 500kB/s in the past. I'm down in San Diego.

Netscape (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069442)

Does anybody find it odd that the FCC website recomends Netscape as their browser of choice and then sends you to a link which forwards to http://netscape.aol.com/ [aol.com] that has no means of downloading Netscape? Then when you dig further you find this article [netscape.com] recomending migrating to Mozilla Firefox.

Really can we trust the FCC to get anything right? Also am I the only one who was confused by that page that is supposed to describe how to comment?

Fristq Nstop (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069728)

beyond the scope of non nigge8 patrons Future. The hand it just 0wnz.',
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...