FCC to consider net neutrality and ISP network management

Quote:

---

Comcast has repeatedly stated that they don't block any applications and that their network management practices are in compliance with the relevant FCC rules, which permit "reasonable traffic management."

---

-for once good job comcast

but not allowing us access to certain site would be like burning down all the gun stores, technically there used for good and the law abides by them, but you know the 19 year old buying a handgun isn't getting it to shot bunnies, but still the right must never be taken away (shit im with charter dam i hope they dont block any trackers or anything!!)....

This is exactly why net neutraliy needs to be upheld. This is only the begining of what's to come if these ISP's get their way.

o am confused about your " good job comcast" comment? That is just what they are supposedly doing but they will not define reasonable management supposedly they slow down responses if they think that you are using P2P to download something weather it be legit or not! I know that Most World of Warcraft downloads & updates are distributed threw P2P! LEGALLY! & it is stuff like that that is beign slowed down or frozen connection that is the issue! ALL traffic should be equal & comcast is NOT doing that even tho they "imply" that they are!

If Net Neutrality becomes things a thing of the past, I'm opening my own ISP service. The internet should be free to access since it is a network of user computers. To bad all we pay for are cables...

This is already being done quietly in Canada by the big companies. They slow down all P2P downloads during prime time. Usually I can download at speeds around 100-200 kb/s early in the morning but in the evening it slows to a crawl at 30kb/s.

Most people don't even realize it's being done and when they call to inquire they're given all kinds of bulls*#t excuses.

Personally I believe that if I pay good money for "HIGHSPEED" internet, that's what I expect. Not, "HIGHSPEED" whenever the big companies feel like I should get it.

Originally posted by xempler:

---

This is already being done quietly in Canada by the big companies. They slow down all P2P downloads during prime time. Usually I can download at speeds around 100-200 kb/s early in the morning but in the evening it slows to a crawl at 30kb/s.

Most people don't even realize it's being done and when they call to inquire they're given all kinds of bulls*#t excuses.

Personally I believe that if I pay good money for "HIGHSPEED" internet, that's what I expect. Not, "HIGHSPEED" whenever the big companies feel like I should get it.

---

I know for a fact Eastlink does this in Atlantic Canada, I rarely connect to seeds or leaches properly and if so never get speeds over 3kbps.

Originally posted by xempler:

---

If Net Neutrality becomes things a thing of the past, I'm opening my own ISP service. The internet should be free to access since it is a network of user computers. To bad all we pay for are cables...

---

Good thing wireless internet is getting alot better fast, in the next 5 years I could see something like that becoming a possibility in cities. Or even rural areas if they use 800mhz signals like my shoddily-installed motorola canopy receiver. I'm about 10kms away from the transmitter and I would be getting my net perfect if the dummy who installed it put it up right.

It will be interesting to see what the FCC does with this. Hopefully, some of the consumer protection groups get in on this too. Otherwise, it might be a one sided arguement/discussion.

On the flip side, lets be realistic folks. I don't think companies ever assumed that someone would use their full connection speed 24x7x365 as some people do. I am sure this number is increasing and it consumes the "pool" of connection speed the company has to offer. Hence, why we have "peak" times with interent usage. Also, they might not have guessed that streaming services such as Youtube and internet radio would become so popular. If we were only browsing websites, this connection speed issue would never be a problem.

I have never read the fine print of my ISP contract but I am sure there has to be something in there that states "standard use" and "guaranteed connection speeds" or in some cases the lack there of. I doubt that any say, "you will have a full connection speed 24x7x365". That would be stupid, legally speaking.

Don't get me wrong, I get upset to when I can't download/upload at the speeds that were "promised" to me. However, that just means there are a lot of people maxing out their connections downloading, streaming, and uploading content.

This was not meant to upset or insult anyone! Just another angle in which to look at this problem.

Quote:

---

and that their network management practices are in compliance with the relevant FCC rules, which permit "reasonable traffic management."

---

Reasonable traffic management? What exactly does that mean?

Isn't that kind of like asking..."how long is a rope?"

There's no clear cut definition.

Throttling certain applications...and only certain applications does not seem reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Comcast has repeatedly stated that they don't block any applications and that their network management practices are in compliance with the relevant FCC rules, which permit "reasonable traffic management."

---

-for once good job comcast

but not allowing us access to certain site would be like burning down all the gun stores, technically there used for good and the law abides by them, but you know the 19 year old buying a handgun isn't getting it to shot bunnies, but still the right must never be taken away (shit im with charter dam i hope they dont block any trackers or anything!!)....

---

Ummm...........poor analogy!!

Guns shouldn't be allowed except by a select, hand-chosen few. There is no need for the average citizen to have/own a gun. Check the stats. Gun violence/death/injuries/crimes have gone up EXPONENTIALLY compared to the "thwarting of violence" or "saving of lives" (police exception). Those that believe in the 2nd amendment......UNSCATHED.........are hicks living in an age where it was once needed; The Old West. Sorry ya' fellers.......this ain't the Old West no more yuk yuk yuk.

Ummm...........poor analogy!!

Guns shouldn't be allowed except by a select, hand-chosen few. There is no need for the average citizen to have/own a gun. Check the stats. Gun violence/death/injuries/crimes have gone up EXPONENTIALLY compared to the "thwarting of violence" or "saving of lives" (police exception). Those that believe in the 2nd amendment......UNSCATHED.........are hicks living in an age where it was once needed; The Old West. Sorry ya' fellers.......this ain't the Old West no more yuk yuk yuk.


Dear misinformed youth "Don't tread on me"
If you want to live in a place where the "select few" have access to guns go live in D.C. They have the highest hand gun murder rate in the country
Look it up. Ask those nice folks down under if they are "safer" since turning in their weapons. I bet those kids in Virginia wished some stupid liberal did not decide that they were too incompetent to carry, maybe more of them would be alive. Cars kill more people than guns, so do Doctors mistakes. Look it up.
BTW guns don't kill people, people kill people. So before you go around calling us gun toting individuals "hicks", maybe you should educate yourself on some FACTS, not what the media blows up your butt either. So next time some wacko comes in a mall shooting....don't stand behind me ....kindly ask him for his gun...

I see this as sharing is caring for some reason.