Comments on: Comcast says the FCC hasn’t the right to enforce Net Neutrality http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/ General interest observations and true web-log. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:39:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: skillsss http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-2/#comment-1605506 skillsss Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:25:07 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1605506 Comcast Censoring Conservative Voices? The American Public and the FCC need to keep an eye on ISPs. Comcast has been censoring conservative message board posters in my opinion. Because dominant ISP Comcast is a gateway to the internet, they control many eyeballs. Comcast's systematic censoring of conservative opinions on their News & Current Events message boards needs to cease and desist. If Comcast gets tax breaks from local government, then they have a civic, ethical, moral and perhaps legal obligation to provide fair and balanced moderation of their message boards. This type of social engineering is an outrage. Please get involved. Silence is consent. Post a conservative response to a News or Current Events thread here and see for yourself. http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board?board.id=news This is America...Not CHINA Comcast Censoring Conservative Voices?

The American Public and the FCC need to keep an eye on ISPs. Comcast has been censoring conservative message board posters in my opinion. Because dominant ISP Comcast is a gateway to the internet, they control many eyeballs. Comcast’s systematic censoring of conservative opinions on their News & Current Events message boards needs to cease and desist. If Comcast gets tax breaks from local government, then they have a civic, ethical, moral and perhaps legal obligation to provide fair and balanced moderation of their message boards. This type of social engineering is an outrage. Please get involved. Silence is consent. Post a conservative response to a News or Current Events thread here and see for yourself.

http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board?board.id=news

This is America…Not CHINA

]]> By: Glenn E. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-2/#comment-1564388 Glenn E. Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:59:04 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1564388 Something else the FCC should do, is force the Telecoms to offer 6 month plans that don't stick customers with higher rates, just because it's a shorter period. And then we could drop a provider like Comcast, the moment we hear they're doing nasty stuff like this. And move to another provider that isn't (as far as we know). That way, Comcast would get more of an incentive NOT to screw its customers. But as long as it can lock everyone into these one and two year plans. They won't have any incentive to act decent. Something else the FCC should do, is force the Telecoms to offer 6 month plans that don’t stick customers with higher rates, just because it’s a shorter period. And then we could drop a provider like Comcast, the moment we hear they’re doing nasty stuff like this. And move to another provider that isn’t (as far as we know). That way, Comcast would get more of an incentive NOT to screw its customers. But as long as it can lock everyone into these one and two year plans. They won’t have any incentive to act decent.

]]> By: Glenn E. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-2/#comment-1564386 Glenn E. Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:49:57 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1564386 The FCC does have the right to regulate the internet traffic, because they're suppose to represent the people's interests. Not the telecoms. It shouldn't be any different than how they regulate the radio and Tv airwaves, and Cable and satellite transmissions. The service providers shouldn't be allowed to cook up their own transmission protocols, to suit their bottom lines. All internet traffic should adhere to a limited standard, approved by a committee of engineers. Not by telecom board members. And what about the damn DMCA? Shouldn't that apply to packets as well? Comcast has violated the originating packet's integrity, by changing them into their own packets in their servers. Or substituting bogus ones to the packet stream. Maybe its customers should pay them with bogus dollars. Bet they'll run to the government to stop that!! This DMCA seems to only be applied to the media owned by the wealthiest copyright license holders. And not to the most numerous, the taxpayers. Telecoms should be forbidden from meddling with internet transmission protocols, just to suit their profits. Or what the hell use is the FCC, if no standards are enforced?!! We need another "for the richest bastards" department of US Government, like we need a hole in the head. And we don't need that! The FCC does have the right to regulate the internet traffic, because they’re suppose to represent the people’s interests. Not the telecoms. It shouldn’t be any different than how they regulate the radio and Tv airwaves, and Cable and satellite transmissions. The service providers shouldn’t be allowed to cook up their own transmission protocols, to suit their bottom lines. All internet traffic should adhere to a limited standard, approved by a committee of engineers. Not by telecom board members.

And what about the damn DMCA? Shouldn’t that apply to packets as well? Comcast has violated the originating packet’s integrity, by changing them into their own packets in their servers. Or substituting bogus ones to the packet stream. Maybe its customers should pay them with bogus dollars. Bet they’ll run to the government to stop that!! This DMCA seems to only be applied to the media owned by the wealthiest copyright license holders. And not to the most numerous, the taxpayers. Telecoms should be forbidden from meddling with internet transmission protocols, just to suit their profits. Or what the hell use is the FCC, if no standards are enforced?!! We need another “for the richest bastards” department of US Government, like we need a hole in the head. And we don’t need that!

]]> By: ArianeB http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-2/#comment-1564175 ArianeB Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:06:51 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1564175 It seems to me that ISP's should be in favor of Net Neutrality as much as everyone else. Without a net neutrality law, ISPs could be held responsible for content that goes through their network. It seems to me that ISP’s should be in favor of Net Neutrality as much as everyone else. Without a net neutrality law, ISPs could be held responsible for content that goes through their network.

]]> By: Uncle Patso http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-2/#comment-1564083 Uncle Patso Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:46:54 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1564083 # 9 screen king said: "Alfred1 is a moron." No argument, but - - - did his post get "moderated" or is this a misdirect from another thread? # 9 screen king said:

“Alfred1 is a moron.”

No argument, but – - – did his post get “moderated” or is this a misdirect from another thread?

]]> By: deowll http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-2/#comment-1564055 deowll Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:28:45 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1564055 I would say that it depends on how much Comcast is willing to pay to bribe the people in power but that might put me on the enemies list. I would say that it depends on how much Comcast is willing to pay to bribe the people in power but that might put me on the enemies list.

]]> By: Mr. Fusion http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563987 Mr. Fusion Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:50:11 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563987 #12, Eric, <i>I guess you must have missed the quotes around “invented…” in my prior post. Quotes used in that context usually imply sarcasm.</i> Sarcasm, yes. That is the way I took it. Only sarcasm can go either way in this regard. Was the sarcasm directed at Gore for the temerity of his remark or the ignorance of the people that iterate the misquote. * <blockquote><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html" rel="nofollow">The Federal Communications Commission</a> first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities." The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country. </blockquote> I don't think it a stretch to imagine the Supreme Court would also back the FCC regulating ISPs as to what may or may not be censored. I also don't see any Court allowing a federally regulated activity to discriminate based upon legal content under the guise some of it may be illegal. However, the current Supreme Court is always open to surprises. #12, Eric,

I guess you must have missed the quotes around “invented…” in my prior post. Quotes used in that context usually imply sarcasm.

Sarcasm, yes. That is the way I took it. Only sarcasm can go either way in this regard. Was the sarcasm directed at Gore for the temerity of his remark or the ignorance of the people that iterate the misquote.

*

The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that “the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities.” The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country.

I don’t think it a stretch to imagine the Supreme Court would also back the FCC regulating ISPs as to what may or may not be censored. I also don’t see any Court allowing a federally regulated activity to discriminate based upon legal content under the guise some of it may be illegal. However, the current Supreme Court is always open to surprises.

]]> By: tcc3 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563965 tcc3 Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:07:04 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563965 Actually Gore was "inventing the internet" when he was a senator. Actually Gore was “inventing the internet” when he was a senator.

]]> By: dusanmal http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563917 dusanmal Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:30:22 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563917 Not even a regulation is really needed. Crucial words: "forging packets". Comcast should simply be sued for forging, particularly company heads who ordered it and engineers who designed and implemented it. Every single one of those should get lifetime in jail serving consecutive sentences for each instance of forging other people's communication messages. This particularly needs to be done in order to prevent future generations of engineers of even thinking in such direction, never mind designing forgery methods. Not even a regulation is really needed. Crucial words: “forging packets”. Comcast should simply be sued for forging, particularly company heads who ordered it and engineers who designed and implemented it. Every single one of those should get lifetime in jail serving consecutive sentences for each instance of forging other people’s communication messages.
This particularly needs to be done in order to prevent future generations of engineers of even thinking in such direction, never mind designing forgery methods.

]]> By: chris http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563904 chris Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:05:25 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563904 Formation of regulatory law doesn't require an act of Congress, federal regulatory law IS law. Congress can specify things which regulators must or must not do, but without those restrictions regulators are free to operate as they choose in their area. I'm not sure why the Comcast didn't just ban p2p after determining if the content was infringing. If most of the country is using torrents to trade music and 10 guys are using it to download linux distros just ban the pirates. Big network providers have sophisticated blacklisting procedures for spam and malware. Doing the same for torrents would be technically easier, I think, than geting into the bt protocol and causing it to break. Traffic analysis is just about always easier than content analysis. Formation of regulatory law doesn’t require an act of Congress, federal regulatory law IS law. Congress can specify things which regulators must or must not do, but without those restrictions regulators are free to operate as they choose in their area.

I’m not sure why the Comcast didn’t just ban p2p after determining if the content was infringing. If most of the country is using torrents to trade music and 10 guys are using it to download linux distros just ban the pirates.

Big network providers have sophisticated blacklisting procedures for spam and malware. Doing the same for torrents would be technically easier, I think, than geting into the bt protocol and causing it to break. Traffic analysis is just about always easier than content analysis.

]]> By: MrMiGu http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563897 MrMiGu Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:27:35 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563897 #10 Thats assuming that your isp will allow you to use voip applications. Many isps are also invested heavily in telecommunications and do not want to see lost lost revenues that they can prevent. Do you really want these companies to dictate what information you can access, how you can access it, or who you can access it from? #10

Thats assuming that your isp will allow you to use voip applications. Many isps are also invested heavily in telecommunications and do not want to see lost lost revenues that they can prevent. Do you really want these companies to dictate what information you can access, how you can access it, or who you can access it from?

]]> By: Improbus http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563834 Improbus Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:22:47 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563834 There is no me in we. There is no me in we.

]]> By: Mr. Fusion http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563833 Mr. Fusion Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:22:31 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563833 #10, Mikey, <i>Do you want your ability to get information from whitehouse.org hindered or your VOIP call unreliable because your neighbor is running full-bore P2P to download every Anime film ever made?</i> What makes your VOIP more important than someone d/l their preference in entertainment? Would you have any studies that show "whitehouse.org" (or any other site) is damaged in any way by P2P? #10, Mikey,

Do you want your ability to get information from whitehouse.org hindered or your VOIP call unreliable because your neighbor is running full-bore P2P to download every Anime film ever made?

What makes your VOIP more important than someone d/l their preference in entertainment? Would you have any studies that show “whitehouse.org” (or any other site) is damaged in any way by P2P?

]]> By: Sea Lawyer http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563830 Sea Lawyer Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:20:30 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563830 #11, <i>"Giving corporations the same rights as actual living persons is a BAD idea."</i> Well, we seem to want to give the government more rights than actual living persons have... #11, “Giving corporations the same rights as actual living persons is a BAD idea.”

Well, we seem to want to give the government more rights than actual living persons have…

]]> By: Eric http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/14/comcast-says-the-fcc-hasn%e2%80%99t-the-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-1563828 Eric Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:18:43 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=55462#comment-1563828 Fusion, you are such a troll. I guess you must have missed the quotes around "invented..." in my prior post. Quotes used in that context usually imply sarcasm. Cable companies usually are very independent entities at the system level, and the corporate offices are modeled as holding companies. Every contract and lease I had to sign (when I managed a cable system) was between Cable Company X of state Y, DBA Cable Company. The only FCC rules we had to abide by were signal leakage and TVRO liscenses, which were optional, but useful if you had issues with radar interference. But even if a cable system crosses state lines, there isn't much the FCC regulates. The phone companies were very much regulated right up until they figured out how to make money selling TV service. They actually wanted to be regulated to keep competition away. The regulation of the Internet hasn't really been tested in the courts, as far as I know, but there's a lot of precident to go by. Fusion, you are such a troll.

I guess you must have missed the quotes around “invented…” in my prior post. Quotes used in that context usually imply sarcasm.

Cable companies usually are very independent entities at the system level, and the corporate offices are modeled as holding companies. Every contract and lease I had to sign (when I managed a cable system) was between Cable Company X of state Y, DBA Cable Company. The only FCC rules we had to abide by were signal leakage and TVRO liscenses, which were optional, but useful if you had issues with radar interference. But even if a cable system crosses state lines, there isn’t much the FCC regulates.

The phone companies were very much regulated right up until they figured out how to make money selling TV service. They actually wanted to be regulated to keep competition away. The regulation of the Internet hasn’t really been tested in the courts, as far as I know, but there’s a lot of precident to go by.

]]>