Does the Internet Need More Regulation? FCC to Decide
Today, the Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, announced that he will ask the FCC to adopt new regulations on the way that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Hughes Satellite, and thousands of others provide Internet services to consumers.
There’s been a debate in Washington for the last six years over whether rules like these are necessary to promote an “open Internet” and an innovation economy. And before that, there was a debate that began more than a decade ago over whether Internet Service Providers should be required to let others resell their services.
We welcome the dialogue suggested by the Chairman in his comments, and we completely agree that any consideration of new “rules of the road” begin with notice and an open, public rulemaking proceeding – this is both fair and appropriate.
But before we rush into a new regulatory environment for the Internet, let’s remember there can be no doubt that the Internet has enjoyed immense growth even as these debates have gone on.
The Internet in America has been a phenomenal success that has spawned technological and business innovation unmatched anywhere in the world. So it’s still fair to ask whether increased regulation of the Internet is a solution in search of a problem.
The FCC has had a “policy statement” in place since 2005 that sets expectations for “openness” on the Internet. We support and honor those policies.
When it was alleged in 2007 that one of Comcast’s network management practices regarding uploads of P2P files violated those policies, we defended our actions as a reasonable form of network management. However, the public scrutiny also led us to discuss our network management practices openly with the Internet community. And these discussions convinced us to move to a different network management practice.
We have implemented consumer-friendly disclosures regarding our network management practices, on the theory that, as the Chairman pointed out today, consumer transparency in this context is extremely important.
We went to court to challenge the way the FCC acted on that 2007 complaint against us, but for a relatively narrow reason — because the former FCC leadership simply handled the matter improperly, as even some who disapproved of our earlier network management system have conceded.
We will wait to see the specifics of the proposals that Chairman Genachowski brings before the FCC. But we welcome his proposal to have an open rulemaking process to discuss and analyze these important issues.
In his remarks, Chairman Genachowski stated that his goal is to “preserve” the openness of the Internet - an important acknowledgement that the Internet was and is open. He showed appreciation of the “substantial investment and technical ingenuity” on the part of companies like Comcast who make broadband Internet services available. That is good news.
Chairman Genachowski has made it very clear that he intends for the FCC to undertake a “fair, transparent, fact-based and data-driven” process as it decides whether the Internet needs more regulation. It will be incredibly important for the agency to review the data to determine whether there are actual and substantial problems that may require rules. As these questions are pursued, we are committed to work with the Chairman and his fellow Commissioners.
Enter Comments
Please note that all comments on the Comcast Voices blog must follow the guidelines outlined in the blog policy. All comments will be moderated prior to appearing on the blog. This is important to prevent spam and personal attacks. If posting a comment about a specific customer service problem or personal account issue, please contact us here, or post your question to the Comcast Help & Support forums.
Comments (33)
HI THERE MY ANSWER IS NO INFACT WE NEED LESS REGALATIONS SOO WE CAN LIKE MOVE FORWARD WITH LIKE SUPER HIGH TECH GREEN GAMING CONSOLES WHILE USEING LESS POWER AND HAVING FASTEST DRIVES ON EARTH CAN USE LIGHTING FAST SSD SOLID STATE FLASH DRIVES 10,000 RPM VOLOCI-RAPTORS OR 15,000 RPM CHEETAS HARD DRIVES SAY LIKKE VIDIO ON DEMAND BOXES CAN USE TRIPPLLE 10,000 RPM VOLOCI-RAPTORS IN A RAID FOR 30,000 RPMS FOR A TRIPPLE PLAY IN THE FUTURE AND MADE FROM 100% BIO STUFF AND 100% RECYCALBLE TOO
internet service: flaky
customer service: terrible
fcc regulation : yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
comcast makes my head hurt... cant wait until verizon is in my area!
"Comcastic" has become a euphemism among my friends. Your internet service was terrible, frequently failing to stream from Hulu, and gathering pings during games of 300ms or more -- with servers in the area! By contrast, the friends we were playing with in Mass. had pings of ~100ms and San Deigo of ~ 55ms!
Paying $60/month for such irregular poor service was a farce. I've since moved, and am much happier with my new cable internet provider, though we still need FCC intervention and/or much more local competition.
I can't help but read your blog, Mr. Cohen, and think that you are desperately looking for a good reason to shoot down Mr. Genachowski's proposed net neutrality policy, but you cannot seem to come up with a good counter argument besides stating, "...let’s remember there can be no doubt that the Internet has enjoyed immense growth even as these debates have gone on."
The internet is still relatively new and has evolved much since the early 90's. Since then, there's been new innovations brought on by high speed internet. These new technologies have changed the face of the internet and Mr. Genachowski understands that it's necessary to protect these emerging technologies from being stomped out, all in the name of "network management".
To make things worst you act as if Comcast would have stopped using Sandvine on it's own accord. If it had not been for public outcry and the FCC stepping in I have no doubt Sandvine would still exist. Then, to top it all off, you act as if Comcast's lawsuit against the FCC has little to do with the FCC stopping Sandvine and that Comcast harbors no animosity towards the FCC.
Your statements are quite transparent to me and while I do give Comcast credit for transitioning to a protocol-agnostic congestion management, and policy transparency, I have no doubt that if it were not for the FCC stepping in, your network management policies would be far from "neutral" and that Sandvine would only have been the beginning of more aggressive packet filtering.
As a Comcast customer, I will do everything I can to support the FCC in this mission. Comcast has a monopoly over service all over the country and then proclaims life isn’t fair when they are asked to play by the rules.
Cherry picking which customers you like and which you do not , does not make it “fair for everyone” it is an attempt to save money at the expense of your customers. This is no different than insurance companies dropping people who cost them money. The more you can squeeze down the bandwidth the more you can save.
You certainly haven’t offered me any sort of discount when I am out of town and do not use my internet connection at all. However, you are mighty quick to call me and send me letters and threaten me with cancelation when I’ve used too much of the service you call unlimited.
Simply based on the quality of Comcast service delivered in my area, the FCC needs to increase regulation and oversight. Costs rise, service degrades. Comcast lies
Damn. Comcast must be trying to lose even more of it's customers to Verizon. At least you'll still have Shaq and Ben Stein as customers.
In this blog post, you seem to somewhat agree with the FCC and it's ideas over net neutrality. You say "Chairman Genachowski stated that his goal is to “preserve” the openness of the Internet - an important acknowledgment that the Internet was and is open." Perhaps the Chairman meant to preserve the Internet the way it was not too long ago -- before billion-dollar cableco monopolies like you came in and decided to throttle P2P using Sandvine. No, I don't care what you call it, you can call it "network management" for the "better good of all your users", I still call it unfair throttling.
Back to my original point - in this post, you seem to agree with the FCC. So why are you suing them to try and say they don't have the authority to regulate the Internet and give us the open Internet we want?
Things like this is why I dumped Comcrap recently and switched to FiOS - they don't cap me and they don't throttle me, they give me the Internet I want. On your High-Speed Internet page, you say "Comcast High-Speed Internet offers the fastest speeds out there over our enhanced fiber-optic network." FiOS is TRUE fiber optic to the home (FTTH). You're only fiber optic to the node (FTTN). I give Verizon all of my support in rolling out FiOS to more places and reclaiming some market share from you thieves and liars. Good luck, but mostly good riddance. I'm glad I dumped you.
If everyone here is so angry and disappointed with Comcast, go find another internet provider.
I repeat: GO FIND ANOTHER INTERNET PROVIDER.
There is competition available. That's how competition is supposed to work: if you aren't happy with a product, use someone elses product.
This is sad. I thought this was America. Land of the free. Comcast is free to do what it wants as long as it doesn't involve trampling someone elses rights. Likewise, you're free to do what you want. So if you want better internet service, find a company that gives you what you want or go make one of your own and stop whining.
And, no, you don't have a right to the internet.
Thankfully someone at the FCC gets it and hopefully this kind of measure can be passed to put Comcast, Turner, etc in their place. I pay *more* than other well-developed countries for *less* bandwidth, and on top of that, if I try to use the features that Comcast themselves advertise, I promptly get a stern email about my account because I've used too much bandwidth for the month. When there are neighborhoods in Japan (and maybe other nations) that can provide FREE internet that equals the speeds Comcast offers and charges exorbitant fees for, I say to hell with them. If only they weren't a damn monopoly (yes I said it) over broadband in my neighborhood.
Dear Comcast,
You know you're up to no good when the FCC has to step in to protect the American public.
http://gizmodo.com/5364442/comcast-to-fcc-fuzzoff
Here's the problem. You sell a service, say 10MB/sec broadband. When you tell a customer that they get 10MB/sec, that should apply 24/7. That is what you sold them. You don't turn around and hide some additional conditions that say "Oh, but if you go over 250GB, we'll throttle/disconnect you." That is not 10MB/sec service. That is 250GB/month service. By your own language, it is obvious that you wish to sell based on the theoretical speed the user will achieve, and not by the maximum cap you've placed on your users. Could this be because users would realize a usage cap is inherently unfair, especially in today's age of cheap bandwidth?
It doesn't surprise me that you would say something like that. You are always ranked near the bottom of customer service. I left your company after having a connect that was so bad that a lot of channels did not come in and being charged for several trips to get it fixed that did not result in a fix. You should stop speaking in public about the mean old FCC and spend that time fixing the way you mistreat your customers.
You claim that the internet doesn't need more regulation here. However, what you ignore is that it won't be adding MORE regulation, it'll be replacing YOUR regulation with a BETTER regulation. I don't want to be downloading a legal torrent like Ubuntu or something when YOU GUYS decide to regulate my internet and throttle my connection. I don't want that my ISP make a deal with a company to give faster download speeds to that company's internet content and regulate my connection so that that company's competitors' content have slower download speeds. In short, I don't want you ISPs to regulate my content at all.
I do want the government to do so, though, because the government will insure that my content isn't throttled or regulated. The ISPs will regulate my content and download speeds; the government will regulate the ISPs to make sure they can't regulate my content and download speeds. Of course, you guys don't want the consumer to benefit - you guys want to make sure technology doesn't advance on the internet and you guys can decide what the future of internet culture can be. But the government, through their regulation of you guys, are supporting the consumer and making sure that it is US, not YOU GUYS, who decide what the future of internet culture will be. And that, sir, makes all the difference.
So, no, the internet doesn't need more regulation. It needs less. It already has too much regulation from the ISPs. But the ISPs need regulation, and that's what the government is proposing. So yeah, you guys lose the ability to control internet content and its availability to the people who pay you for internet access. But the consumers gain the ability to participate freely on the internet, so long as it's legal. And that's a good thing, even if you, don't like it.
Executives like you are the exact reason that Comcrap will never get a dime of my money, and I convince everyone I know to switch to FIOS when it becomes available to them. Comcast is the biggest joke around, lesser quality and slower service for more money. That is not what people want you crooks. The FCC needs to regulate YOUR internet service because you can't be trusted to police yourselves. I will never, ever be a customer of yours again. I hope many other people drop you like a ton of bricks too.
Thanks for the comment. Our network management practices are designed to treat all traffic fairly and give customers fast access to where they want to go online. The new network management techniques that we introduced late last year - that only manages traffic when congestion occurs and doesn't manage based on the protocol being used (like P2P) have been well-received.
Check out this Website for more information about our Network Management system: http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/
If you're having specific problems, come over to the Comcast Forums and let's find a solution.
Comcast: It's time to get on the net neutrality train or watch it pass you by. I don't think there's any way you can convince the masses that you would be a good keeper of the internet considering your past failures. Also, how about advertising a speed i might actually achieve instead of the speed I might be allowed to achieve if you feel like it?
if you are interested in a "fair and transparent internet" why didn't you identify the P2P as Bit Torrent and why are you double speaking "network management" when you really mean corporate control of the internet? hooray for chairman Genachowski and free speech.
The Internet does need regulations but it doesn't need the kind that will allow corporate interests to interfere with how it is run. Companies like Comcast have no interest in what is best for the consumer as their only care is what is best for the company's bottom line.
You mention that internet in America has been a phenomenal success that has sparked innovation that is unmatched anywhere else in the world. I guess Japan isn't part of our world.
http://www.newamerica.net/files/Bandwidth%20Caps%20for%20High-Speed%20Internet%20in%20the%20U.S.%20and%20Japan.pdf
The linked PDF is a run down of offerings between major ISPs in America and Japan. Japan has a little bit higher of prices but they also offer much higher bandwidths and any caps on the data is upstream only. The upstream caps range from 150GB to 900GB.
Further more, the few American ISPs that do offer bandwidth comparable to Japan have price tags roughly double to that of their Japanese counterparts. That's some real innovation on our part.
Perhaps instead of throwing lots of money at controlling the internet you could use that money to upgrade your infrastructure and provide your customers with great service. That way you would doing your part in helping America be competitive in the global market and not just worrying about what you, as a company, can put in your bank account in the short term.
Ahh....excellent position taken by the company that blocked my ability to make Lotus Notes/Domino connections in the belief that it was actually illegally copied music or video transferred via BitTorrent. Glad to say that this was the last straw that drove me to another service provider.
The Internet works because each piece of the network passes data to each other piece. That's how it is and that's how it's supposed to be.
When an ISP starts deciding what pieces can go at what speeds, that ISP is undermining the very nature Internet.
The US is very far behind in speeds for most areas compared to other countries. I'm not saying we need the 100 mbit of Japan, but 10+ as a standard would be really nice.
1. In the P2P throttling incident, Comcast initially misrepresented the facts. It made repeated statements to the effect that it was not doing so, then beginning to spin like mad only after documented reports of what they were doing began to circulate on the web.
2. Comcast's suit against the FCC regarding its actions over the P2P incident are based around assertions that the FCC's net neutrality principles are not binding and the FCC has no legal authority to enforce them. I would hardly call this a 'relatively narrow reason.'
Given these facts, Comcast's feint-hearted profession of intention to work with the commission regarding this issue amounts to a great deal less than I believe you would like people to believe. I wouldn't go so far as to have a Joe Wilson moment here, but that is only because I don't believe in such unseemly public behavior.
Internet service providers, both wired and wireless, should be regulated to help maintain a completely open internet. This includes eliminating data discrimination, promoting broadband growth, and keeping competition open and prices fair for internet service.
No, Comcast (or any other ISP) should not be allowed to throttle P2P (or any other protocol) under any circumstances. If private companies are going to use Sandvine and the like to throttle traffic under the guise of "network management" (bringing P2P traffic to nearly unusable levels and under the advertised performance of the service), then there needs to be regulation. There comes a point where the government needs to step in, and that point is now.
Comcast's basic cable service is 6.0mpbs while in countries like Japan speeds reach 60.0mbps (ten times faster) for comparable prices. That's still several times faster than Comcast's snake oil "Powerboost" will get you in temporary bursts. There's broadband for you.
If regulation means preventing you from 'managing' our services in a way that solely benefits the ISPs, then yes, bring it on. Anything that the cable/phone companies agree to fight usually means it is good for consumers - and it definitely is in this case.
You're right, David. The safety of our internet is in jeopardy and our internet needs more regulation because of companies like Comcast. Consumers are not supposed to be penalized because you deem their internet usage to exceed some "secret limit". You fail miserably with your thinly-veiled attempt to discredit the efforts of the FCC to keep large communications companies from deciding how our information is transmitted or not transmitted.
"But before we rush into a new regulatory environment for the Internet, let’s remember there can be no doubt that the Internet has enjoyed immense growth even as these debates have gone on."
The only fear you have about a rush into new regulations is that you will no longer have control of your customers data transfer rates and may have to actually provide the service you were expected to.
The entire concept of this piece is pablum.
Comcast never ceases to amaze me. Your company should be embracing neutrality instead of alienating your customer base with one bad practice after another. Public PR gaffs such as bit torrent bandwidth throttling combined with your impeccable ability to defy the common notion of poor customer service have all but destroyed my loyalty to your service.
My reading of your post is that things have been ok until now, and I agree.
But I want an assurance that the internet will continue to be free. Self-regulation (or very loose regulation) led to Enron and Madoff, so I'd prefer that the most important communication medium of the era stay as open as it has until now. The surest way to guarantee this is to define what is illegal, so companies know what the rules are.
I really am glad the FCC is taking this action. I have despised Comcast for their attempts to throttle internet connections (then LIE about it!). I do NOT want any ISP to be the gatekeeper of the content I consume. I simply want a TRULY UNLIMITED internet connection, available 24/7 for any content I choose, at the speed advertised. In short, I want you to provide a "dumb pipe". I know you want to be the end-all be-all service for on-demand video, internet voice, and cable TV...but that is not what I want. I want to have true choice in selecting what services I use. If I want to download a movie from Apple, Vudu, Netflix, or Amazon, I should be able to, WITHOUT my ISP slowing down my connection (to make streaming quality sub-standard or not available)!
In short, quit your whining, and comply with the FCC. I am tired of all of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt your company floods the internet with, saying that it isnt technically possible to provide such a connection. Here is a hint: If your network cant handle the bandwidth, INVEST IN MORE BANDWIDTH! Maybe your shareholders wont get the record profits that the past few years have provided, but you need to take care of your customers FIRST and the shareholders SECOND! Until you do, I will actively campaign against your company and recommend other providers to the customers i serve.
What is awful is that people would believe that Mr Cohen here has our best interests in mind. This industry needs more competition and less motivation to screw us over, and it will happen.
Funny thing: one of the captcha words is Genovese. It only serves to remind me of Kitty Genovese and how people ignored her screams of agony as she was dying on the streets of New York. This is exactly how Comcast expects us to behave now. Never forget.
Yes. We need regulation to protect us from companies like Comcast telling us what we can and can't do with our internet connections.
They gave me a hard enough time at signup about signing up for Comcast Voice (voip) which i DO NOT WANT because i use Skype... I need the FCC to keep you from throttling my Skype packets because you want me on the "Triple Play"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Keep spreading that FUD, Comcast.
http://gizmodo.com/373162/comcast-n-bittorrent-bff-whats-good-what-sucks
As a long-time Comcast customer I am appalled at this company's inability to treat its customers fairly and with respect. The contempt that the company shows towards us is unimaginable.
Your desire to "protect" your infrastructure from P2P clients made it all but unusable for legitimate uses. Such as downloading open source software that is readily available via Torrent, or software patches for games, or the myriad of other applications legitimately and legally distributed using such technologies.
Rather than address the claimed "5%" of the users causing issues by suspending or dropping their accounts, you chose to harm everyone equally. Which is a bit like saying, "Since I caught your neighbor speeding, you're getting a ticket and increased insurance rates as well just for living next to a person."
Secondly, when confronted with this behavior, Comcast initially denied that it was doing anything. It was only after proof was shown that you finally admitted to your behaviors in "managing your network" and the FCC began investigating that you owned up to your actions.
I understand that you run a business, but your business provides a valuable service to paying customers. Rather than simply state that such applications were not allowed to be used on your service, you chose to subvert the technology and then lie about doing so.
Imagine if you called a friend on the phone and started talking about shopping at Costco. Ah, but you bought your phone service at Wal-Mart, so suddenly your call is interrupted by static. Once you mention that you might want to shop at Sam's Club, the static clears up.
The Internet is not magic. It's nothing more than data exchanged between computers. It happens on exactly the same network that carries phone calls. Comcast wants the right to look at which computers you're communicating with, and what you're saying, and block some of your searches and conversations.
This isn't about "regulating the Internet," regardless of what some corporate mouthpiece like David L. Cohen might say. This is about Comcast (and other big Internet providers) wanting to hold their users hostage to corporate schemes. The end goals: to squeeze more money out of customers, and to have the power to control what we can say, see, and read on our computers.
People should not fall for this "anti-government" talk from Comcast. It is completely phony.