Here's an article from today's Washington Post
From WashingtonPost.com Comcast said yesterday that it purposely slows down some traffic on its network, including some music and movie downloads, an admission that sparked more controversy in the debate over how much control network operators should have over the Internet.

In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast said such measures -- which can slow the transfer of music or video between subscribers sharing files, for example -- are necessary to ensure better flow of traffic over its network.

In defending its actions, Comcast stepped into one of the technology industry's most divisive battles. Comcast argues that it should be able to direct traffic so networks don't get clogged; consumer groups and some Internet companies argue that the networks should not be permitted to block or slow users' access to the Web.

so we can now get verizon in the heights, and i think we're switching. has anyone done it? you get a free tv apparently if you do it b/4 the end of the week. that still shocks me, anyone do it and get it. its not some read between the lines thing is it?

are there really better and more HD channels. i'm always fearful of believing what i read, and then when you sign up you hear "oh thats only for the $99 package, if you want that, its an extra $50 a month.

any insight would be appreciated!

Comcast now has double-play deals which you can get instead of paying for all three services even though you only want 2/3. I was thrilled about this and switched to it last month. I still have problems with Comcast, but at least I don't have to pay for the phone I don't ever use. 66$ a month beats $103.

I honestly have no complaints about Comcast's internet service - never had a problem in over 3 years. I do agree their TV service is horrible. I dropped them 2 years ago in favor of Directv and never looked back.

Bayonne has Cablevision, Hoboken has Cablevision, and we are stuck in the middle with Crapcast.

Comcast is the WORST thing to happen to TV. I lived in hoboken before JC and we used CableVison which was 100% better than Comcast.

You can add me to the list of Comcast haters. As a result, I haven't had cable in over three years. I could write a book on my problems with them but I'm certain nobody cares to hear it. For internet service, I use Verizon DSL. Beyond that I have rabbit ears for my TV set and a Netflix subscription. It's not like I watch that much TV anyway.

I filed a complaint.

It feels good! I have never in my life had a company reduce me to being the lowest of low customers - by the time I get one of those drone customer service reps who could give a rats ass I'm reduced to such frustration that I'm not myself. I hate myself for it.

I had a worse experience, still no dialing out long distance but the next CSR tells me it's not my phones, and of course it isn't - everything brand new, and I have a normal phone that is totally different I KNEW IT WASN'T MY PHONES. With comcast it's always something other than their service.

So I ask for a manager - she doesn't empathize she just does text book responses (again, reduced to an angry customer - they wonder where we come from THEY MADE US!) and my phone system disconnects while in the call - perfect example of their shitty service. Well she had my cell phone to call me back in case that happens and what does she do? SHE NEVER PHONES ME BACK. First I waited 18 minutes for her and now she doesn't complete the service call.

PEOPLE, PLEASE SEND COMPLAINTS TO THE UTILITY NO MATTER HOW SMALL, Comcast deserves to be ratted out for the monopoly.

PLEASE LET'S ALL BAND TOGETHER AND FIND OTHER OPTIONS IN JC FOR EACH OTHER AND DO IT - they don't deserve our business. COMCAST HATERS UNITE!

Quote:

Thanks for the link, I'm going there now to file complaints.

I have been following this thread while dealing with months and months of Comcast problems. We subscribed to their phone service, internet, and full cable lineup, bringing our monthly bill to a ridiculous amount. Lately our problems with them became daily:

For the last quarter of 2007 their internet email client was a joke - emails I thought were going out weren't, forwarding service wasn't reliable, the search feature on their web mail was disabled, and at least several times a week I had to recycle the modem, reboot computer, etc.

Our phone service was completely dead for nearly 3 weeks in December. No dial tone at all. Comcast insisted the problem was with our home phones. We tried connecting different ones, letting everything die and then recharging, nothing worked. One random day my phone rang and I suddenly had dial tone again. I called Comcast to request reimbursement for our December service - the customer service guy said sure, but he couldn't do it at that moment because (!) their computers were down. Touche'.

Cable service completely unreliable, especially pay-per-view. Fractured screens, freezing, no audio - the list goes on.

So far this January we have (1) canceled our Comcast phone service entirely and are now land-line free; (2) canceled Comcast cable service and had DirectTV satellite installed; (3) subscribed to NetFlix instead of pay-per-view; (4) currently switching my email contacts away from comcast to google's gmail; (5) am shopping around for Internet providers and hope to switch over in the next month.

Whew - it felt good to get that off my chest.

Quote:

For now, I recommend Comcast, since they have a local monopoly. I would also suggest signing up for an alert from Verizon FiOS, which will let you know when service is available. However, until then, its Comcast or bust. You can also file a complaint with the state Board of Public Utilities, online here:

http://www.nj.gov/bpu/assistance/complaints/inquiry.html

In fact, I suggest that anyone with any problem with Comcast, no matter how minor, file a complaint so that there is a record of their poor service.

These just rolled out in Boston, sounds a lot better than the current dvr's!

Comcast and Tivo Demonstrate Integrated DVR Services at CES

January 8, 2007

New Service Is First to Combine TiVo's Award-winning DVR Features and Comcast's Signature ON DEMAND Service on One Set-Top Box

LAS VEGAS, NV ? January 08, 2007 ? Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA, CMCSK), the nation's leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services, and TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO), the creator of and leader in television services for digital video recorders (DVRs), are demonstrating a new TiVo? service for Comcast DVRs at the 2007 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES). The companies began trialing the TiVo service for Comcast DVRs in late 2006.

The new service will offer consumers the ease and convenience of using a single digital cable set-top box to enjoy popular TiVo DVR features along with Comcast's innovative video-on-demand (VOD) service and the most high-definition (HD) television viewing choices for the first time. Working in concert with Comcast, TiVo has developed a software application that will enable Comcast to deploy the service for a modest monthly fee to existing set-top boxes without an additional in-home visit by a technician.

?The combination of our signature Comcast ON DEMAND and HD services with the TiVo interface will provide customers with the only integrated access to all of these outstanding services from one set-top box,? said Mark Hess, Senior Vice President of Video Product Development for Comcast. ?TiVo has been a great partner in developing this service, and we're proud of the work that our teams have done to deliver our customers a product that's simple, easy to use and is a great value.?

?Collaborating with Comcast to make the state-of-the-art TiVo service available on their existing hardware platform is an important accomplishment for both companies,? said Jeff Klugman, Senior Vice President for TiVo's Service Provider Division. ?We're thrilled that the benefits of TiVo will soon be available to Comcast's millions of subscribers. Consumers know that it is not TiVo, unless it is a TiVo, and the TiVo service will enhance the cable television experience.?

Comcast customers who choose the TiVo service will enjoy TiVo's Emmy Award-winning user interface and premium DVR features, smart search and discovery features including WishList? searches and TiVo Suggestions, plus improved scheduling and recording management through such features as Season Pass? recordings. Comcast's unique service features, like the broadest selection of HD programming and more than 8,000 ON DEMAND programs each month will be fully integrated with the TiVo service, making it easy for customers to find great programming on traditional television channels and ON DEMAND.

In the last week my internet has been exceedingly slow and with a macbook pro and troubleshooting we have learned it would be comcast although they say no.

Then my comcast phone service is not allowing me to dial long distance out "technical difficulties" and I have the long distance monthly plan but no long distance.

Then everyone is now telling me I sound like a computer when I phone out, although they are crystal clear. I have new phones (3 months new), I have plug in phones (not just portable ones). And I KNOW it's comcast. So I call and the guy is one of those that is saying in the back of his head, "when is my break?". He was terrible, didn't give a sh*t and just wanted to send out a technician. Then he says that comcast isn't compatible with some phones - NEWFLASH. In the summer when I had v-tech phones they NEVER told me ONCE even after FIVE technical calls this could be a problem. As far as I'm concerned they should tell you this BEFORE you decide to use their service.

ON THAT NOTE PEOPLE: I'm finally going to switch services. Yahoo. I'm done, oh-so-done with this HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE SERVICE. Any recommendations in this area?

Comcast Welcomes FCC Traffic Management Inquiry

FCC Chairman said the commission would investigate complaints that Comcast was blocking some peer-to-peer traffic.

Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 02:00 PM PST

LAS VEGAS -- Cable-modem service provider Comcast said Wednesday that it would welcome a U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigation into its broadband traffic management practices.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Tuesday, said the commission would investigate complaints that Comcast was blocking some peer-to-peer (P-to-P) traffic. An Associated Press investigation published in October found that Comcast was slowing traffic connected through the popular BitTorrent file-sharing program.

A Comcast spokeswoman said Wednesday that the company had not yet received information requests from the FCC. Comcast, in a statement, also defended its practice of sometimes slowing P-to-P traffic during peak traffic times.

"We look forward to responding to any FCC inquiries regarding our broadband network management," David Cohen, Comcast's executive vice president, said in the statement. "We believe our practices are in accordance with the FCC's policy statement on the Internet where the commission clearly recognized that reasonable network management is necessary for the good of all customers."

Comcast will work with the FCC to better inform customers about broadband network management, the statement said. "Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services," Cohen said.

Martin also said the FCC would look into complaints that Verizon Wireless and other wireless carriers were blocking access to text-messaging on their networks. In September, Verizon Wireless denied Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, access when the group asked to allow Verizon customers to sign up for its text-messaging alerts. Verizon reversed the decision a day later.

A Verizon Wireless spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comments on Martin's CES speech.

In December, eight consumer and public-interest groups -- including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union -- filed a complaint with the FCC, saying mobile phone providers should not be able to block text messages from political groups and advertisers.

Public Knowledge and Free Press, both critical of provider traffic blocking, praised Martin's CES statements. Public Knowledge is pleased that the FCC is "willing to stand by their principles to protect American consumers," the group said in a statement. "We look forward to FCC proceedings that will determine what are legitimate uses of power by telecom companies, and which are not."

I've been very pleased with Comcast. I have my internet, phone and cable with them. I've had scattered outages on the phone service but nothing could be as bad as the drama I had when Verizon installed my DSL that knocked my home phone service and Internet out for 12 days before they fixed the problems in the central office.

I just ran several speed tests at broadband.com to test my speed on download/upload at 4:28PM. Based on the above graphic the top figure represents that I am getting only 2.569MB download of my 4MB download advertised service from Comcast or only 64% of my contracted service This might be expected due to high # of comcast users in this area (increasing daily) plus time of day (at night it often exceeds 4MB with as much as 6MB download.) The only good fact above is that my upload speed (necessary to maintain a high VoIP phone connection, is coming at way over my comcast advertised delivery of 385kbps as I'm actually gettting 1.130MB on upload. The above tests were done @ megapath.net whose tests server is based in San Francisco, CA. BTW, I also checked the "tweaks tester" (tests to make my pc/broadband connection is at max configuration to receive data download)and I was at "99% transfer efficiency": Test DownloadActual data bytes sent: 1028381 Actual data packets: 706 Max packet sent (MTU): 1500 Max packet recd (MTU): 1500 Retransmitted packets: 3 sacks you sent: 62 pushed data pkts: 97 data transmit time: 2.368 secs our max idletime: 131.7 ms transfer rate: 409533 bytes/sec transfer rate: 3276 kbits/sec transfer efficiency: 99% 4. Notes and Recommendations RWIN is in range Looking good Observations: Good data stream (no/few rexmits) Observations: Looking good

Quote:

I monitor several public email accounts at gmail including the Downtown Jersey City Watch. I also have comcast. I experience the same problem you describe each time I log in to gmail as it says "loading". What I've found is that if I simply hit the refresh button it allows me to cut this delay to less than 15 seconds and my email comes up.

I just tried it now at 3:48PM and I access all 3 gmail accounts, in less than 30 seconds.

Ohhhh boy, do I ever. Everything works on my system but a heavier e-mail file I use on a daily basis (g-mail).....I can access ALL my accounts but gmail loads slow - gmail says it's not them, as they work FAST on any other computer I use, it's not my computer as MAC looked it over and it's not, so the only conclusion is that it's my service provider. The person I just talked to was an expert as finessing b.s. to the hilt. After explaining the problem he goes, "oh, yeah, it looks like there's a service down in your area". I tell them I work from home I need this service and it's ONLY g-mail that's the problem and he goes - "Hmmm, check it periodically, see when it's up that way". Well DUH. I explain time is money and my job depends on my internet working and I expect a discount of some kind. He says well it COULD be your gmail account and I say - YOU JUST TOLD ME IT'S YOUR SERVICE DOWN? And I inform him of the article mentioned in this posting and he says "well I wouldn't rely on a newspaper article, they always have terrible sources". I told him I would consider that to be true if I read it in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

So ultimately in the end he blamed my g-mail account. Because he could - but not before making up three different, opposing points just to get rid of me. I was astounded.

I can't even open gmail anymore on my comcast account - it just says "loading...." the entire time.

The end result is that I quietly hung up on the guy. I didn't want to waste another breathe on this loser company. LOSERS!

Quote: Actually, yes. My parents in law just dumped cable for Verizon. They're saving money, have faster internet, their TV picture seems to be subjectively clearer AND Verizon is throwing in a FREE 19" Sharp LCD TV to boot. I would switch to them in a second. Quote: Yeah, a lot of people don't put their money where their mouths are. But I do. I cancelled my comcast cable TV service completely recently. (I'm keeping the cable modem, because I have no realistic alternative. DSL would be OK, but I don't have a landline phone...) Silly as it sounds, I am, in fact, going back to rabbit ears. For most people in downtown Jersey City with an HDTV, all the major broadcast channels' (CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, ABC, etc) HD broadcasts can be obtained crystal clear, for FREE by simply plugging in a $30 indoor antenna ("rabbit ears", though they don't look like rabbit ears anymore). One example of an indoor antenna: http://www.amazon.com/Terk-HDTVa-Ampl ... ics&qid=1195095994&sr=1-1

Yesterday I received a postcard in the mail that says, "Thank you for ordering the Comcast Service Protection Plan." I never signed up for any service plan.

Did anyone else receive this? Most people probably thought it was junk mail and immediately threw it out.

The postcard does not mention how much it cost.

What a scammer Comcast is!

First of all, Comcast will never go out of business. When I read posts like this, I have to laugh. Do you think customers are not happy with Verizon? Do you have any idea how misleading Verizon sales practice are? And you do have a choice... DirectTV And Dishnetwork. Or go back to rabbit ears :D-

Over all Comcast is not that bad, as for the most part, service has been reliable. Within the past 6+ years, I lost service on my TV and internet 3x, if that. While the internet service is not as has fast as I would like it to be, and the cost too HIGH, I'd give Comcast a 7 on a scale of 1-10. Customer Service is horriable tho. If you call, ask if they are in Lousiana (out source co) and request to be connected to the Union office.

Quote:

This is not just comcast; most large ISPs are advertising "unlimited access" and then limiting usage. The ISP will claim their ads are "unlimited ACCESS," not "Unlimited USE."

In real terms, USE and ACCESS are the same thing. That is, by definition, access to the internet is use of the internet; Its impossible to access the internet without transmitting and receiving data. As far as I know, there has not been any major court cases dealing specifically with the issue of access vs. use.

However, I suspect most old judges will not understand this. Its a series of tubes, after all, and sometimes these tubes get clogged. Anyway, my point is that while Comcast and other ISPs might claim there is a difference between access and usage, there really isn't, but that will only hold up in court if judges on the various appeals courts understand that the internet is not a series of tubes that will get clogged without drano.

is anyone else losing access to network channels sporadically. this is the second time in the last week for all the channels 2-12, only the non cable channels are out. i get a message that the channel will be available shortly but never is. just want to know if this is an isolated incident.

Quote:

The biggest problem is that Comcast won't tell customers what they're even paying for.

The advertise all their internet services as "UNLIMITED", However there are limits and if you breach them they will terminate your account.

If you ask what these limits are, they won't tell you. This is one messed up company....

CBS NEWS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/30/tech/main597032.shtml

comcast curfuffle update and summary:

i spent some more time with comcast's business and residential HSI agreements.

it appears that comcast is enforcing limits built into it's service agreements using a basic approach that is also in the service agreements (though the specific implenentation method may be illegal). here's a summary:

comcast is selling unrestricted subscriptions for higher prices and restricted subscriptions for lower prices, and they are enforcing the restrictions on their less expensive subscriptions. this is what they say they will do in the agreements subscribers enter into (supposedly) voluntarily (though how voluntarily is debateable).

the situation is broadly being presented as comcast presenting all their accounts as being unrestricted and then surreptitiously restricting them. this is not entirely false, as the restrictions are not as clear and forthright as they could be, but it's not entirely true either, as the restrictions are stated in documents that prospective subscribers are encouraged to read before subscribing (and prospective subscribers are told that by subscribing they will be agreeing the provisions in those documents).

comcast's critics can argue that the restrictions should not exist at all. comcast can argue that if users want more flexibility and bandwidth they should pay for it.

comcast's less expensive service is clearly targeted at content consumers, not providers. this may be a dated business model, but it may also still be a good fit for many users. other broadband providers offer different services with different business models and different trade-offs.

the real lessons here may be that broadband customers should be aware of the differences between broadband services and shop accordingly, and that more competiton in the broadband market would be very helpful.

[correction to previous post: the example in the OTM story was actually described as "small".]

New York Times:

October 29, 2007
F.C.C. Set to End Sole Cable Deals for Apartments
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 ?The Federal Communications Commission, hoping to reduce the rising costs of cable television, is preparing to strike down thousands of contracts this week that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service to an apartment building, the agency?s chairman says.

The new rule could open markets across the country to far-ranging competition. It would also be a huge victory for Verizon Communications and AT&T, which have challenged the cable industry by offering their own video services. The two companies have lobbied aggressively for the provision. They have been supported in their fight by consumer groups, satellite television companies and small rivals to the big cable providers.

Commission officials and consumer groups said the new rule could significantly lower cable prices for millions of subscribers who live in apartment buildings and have had no choice in selecting a company for paid television. Government and private studies show that when a second cable company enters a market, prices can drop as much as 30 percent.

The change, which is set to be approved Wednesday, is expected to have a particular effect on prices for low-income and minority families. They have seen cable prices rise about three times the rate of inflation over the last decade. A quarter of American households live in apartment buildings housing 50 or more residents, but 40 percent of households headed by Hispanics and African-Americans live in such buildings.

?Exclusive contracts have been one of the most significant barriers to competition,? Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, said in an interview. Cable prices have risen ?about 93 percent in the last 10 years,? he said. ?This is a way to introduce additional competition, which will result in lower prices and greater innovation.?

The decision is the latest in a series of actions by the commission under Mr. Martin to put pressure on cable companies to lower their rates and make their markets more competitive. In December, in a 3-to-2 decision, the commission approved a proposal by Mr. Martin to force municipalities to accelerate the local approval process for the telephone companies to enter new markets. The phone companies had asserted that many municipalities had been delaying approvals, often in the face of cable industry lobbying.

Last month, the commission approved a rule that requires the largest cable companies to provide programs produced by their affiliates to all of their rivals, including the phone companies and satellite television companies. The commission is also considering a proposal to make it less expensive for independent programmers to lease channels from cable companies.

Mr. Martin has also pressed the cable companies to offer so-called ? la carte plans that would permit subscribers to buy individual channels, or groups of channels, at lower rates than they now pay.

The new rule would shift the bargaining power over cable and broadband services to apartment residents from landlords and tenant associations. It has been long sought by consumer groups as part of a broader effort to cut prices to the roughly 100 million households that pay for access to television.

The change would be an abrupt reversal for the commission, which only four years ago ruled that such exclusive agreements sometimes actually promoted competition by giving landlords the leverage to negotiate for the best terms.

Commission officials said they had prohibited other exclusive contracts involving telecommunications, including those in commercial buildings, but trade groups representing cable companies and building owners have indicated they may challenge the commission?s move in court.

Commission officials said the rule aims to put an end to some common practices of landlords and tenant associations that have deprived tenants of choices. They said that in many communities, there has been only one cable provider, and while landlords and tenant associations could select a satellite television provider, the competition from those companies has not led to lower cable prices.

The cable companies have also managed to shut out competition by signing long-term exclusive deals. The officials said they hoped that opening the apartment doors to the telephone companies, which offer the same packages of television, broadband and phone services as the cable companies, would force the cable companies to cut their rates.

A few states, including New York, have laws that either restrict or prohibit a landlord or tenant association from entering into an exclusive contract with a cable company. But most states have no such laws, and no state has struck down existing exclusive contracts. Commission officials, consumer groups and rival companies maintain that even in those states like New York with access laws, the rules are not uniformly enforced. They said a federal regulation would fix that.

In one area alone, Hilton Head, S.C., a small cable provider, the Hargray CATV Company, has been battling for two years with its larger rival, Time Warner, which claims to have an exclusive contract forever to provide service in developments to more than 20,000 customers. Similar battles have been waged between other cable companies and rivals involving buildings across the country.

Moreover, consumer groups said the number of lengthy exclusive contracts appears to have increased in recent months as AT&T and Verizon have begun to expand their video services and as the commission has indicated it might intervene to ban exclusive arrangements.

?For people in apartment buildings, this could be the most significant step towards bringing down cable prices,? said Gene Kimmelman, vice president for federal affairs at the Consumers Union. ?Most people in apartment buildings have been subject to a monopoly provider, with little or no local control and no federal control over pricing. This is the most significant step regulators can take short of regulating prices.?

But large cable companies, as well as associations representing building owners and tenant groups, said the change would fundamentally alter the economics of cable television in apartments in ways that would be harmful to consumers. They are threatening to challenge the commission in court.

?It is both unlawful and, as a matter of public policy, wholly inappropriate and counterproductive for the commission to bar cable operators from enforcing existing exclusive contracts,? said Daniel L. Brenner, a senior vice president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry?s main trade association in Washington. ?Exclusive contracts and building-by-building competition can, in fact, promote investment, efficiency and competition.?

The commission and trade groups said they did not know the precise number of contracts, though they estimated the amount to be in the thousands.

The cable industry and the owner associations said the cable companies were often granted exclusive rights to buildings after agreeing to make major capital investments in upgrading systems, and that a new rule striking the exclusivity clauses would be an illegal taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

?The F.C.C.?s approach is wrongheaded,? said Jim Arbury, senior vice president for government affairs at the National Multi-Housing Council, which represents about 1,000 owners, managers and developers. ?They think that banning exclusives means there will be more competition, when the fact is that exclusive contracts play a definite role in the area of promoting competition.?

He continued: ?It allows the apartment owner to play the various providers off against each other and get the best deal for residents in terms of quality and price.?

Commission officials say that the agency has previously prohibited exclusive contracts in other telecommunications areas, and that the courts have upheld such restrictions.

The commission has, for instance, prohibited exclusive contracts for telecommunications services in commercial buildings. It has also required telephone companies that provide service to apartments to offer access to their wires to rival companies.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/media/29cable.html?

--------------------------

This article mentions Comcast:
FCC To Vote To End Exclusive Cable-Condo Building Deals

Quote:

No, Melissa you don't "...need to read an entire thread before posting..." just the ones on the same page as your own before posting, please. Repetitive posts with the same info/comments, drive other topic threads off the main page here, particularly those relating to a"..social life...out side of a computer screen..."

Oh, and Melissa, I manage a social life quite well outside this site as some who know me beyond JCList know.

Great avatar btw
broccoli8

Quote:

I picked up a brand new DVR on 9/27 at Comcast's office on Kennedy Blvd. Maybe it is hit or miss dependly on what day you go.

I orderd the Digital Preferred plan plus HDTV. The stupid girl there added "Howard Stern" to my account. I didn't know till a few days later when I had a technician at my place because I didn't set up the DVR properly. He showed me what was on my account. The technician was good. I never had any problems with the technicians that visited my place.

thanx.

so far the articles i've seen on this have been a bit short on basic facts. like who's being picked on, what kind of subscriptions they had, etc. (IIRC) the story on OTM mentioned that delayed transfers invovled files above a particular size and i don't know enough about bit torrent to know if that could actually have been a criterion for "special treatment."

several articles position this as a net neutrality issue. there are (at least) a couple of aspects to the net neutrality debate:

-- pay to play: should firms be allowed to pay for prefential treatment for their traffic?

-- protocal bias: should networks treat traffic using using different protocals differently?

on the first item my own answer is definately "no".

the second is dicier as different protocols have different QOS requirements. this was not a huge problem in the days when network traffic tended to reqire either low latency or high bandwidth, but not both at once (telnet vs ftp). streaming media likes both, thus the problem.

at first glance this seems like a problem that can be resolved at the technical level ("traffic shaping") and there's been some of that going on. things get messy when a particular protocol is associated with a particular business model.

if big fish and little fish both use telnet and ftp and those protocals are treated differently from each other but those differences are the same for the big and little fish, no problem. but if little fish use bit torrent and big fish don't then discrimination against bit torrent packets hurts the little fish more than the big fish. big problem.

(also raises the question of whether little fish want their interactive apps to get balky so their bulk xfers will run faster.)

so far the info i've seen hasn't made it clear whether the issue is protocal bias, xfer size bias, TOS violation, some combination of those, or someting else entirely. it doesn't seem to have anything to do with pay to play. so whether this episode is a suitable poster child for net neutrality is hard to say.

[i wrote that paragraph before reading the arstechnica article linked to above, which stresses the protocol bias angle, but it's still not clear if the other factors are involved as well. in case you missed it too:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/ ... xplanations.html?from=rss ]

while writing the posting above i forgot one of my favorite aphorisms: "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."

it's quite conceivable that the notorious comcast delays started off as just a screw up; a reasonable sounding bandwidth management policy run amuck. if the system was configured to favor traffic associated with interactive applications and failed to limit how much favoritism would be provided, it's not hard to imagine how unreasonable delays of large, non-interactive transfers might result.

[in light of the arstechnica article this seems likely, but there could be confounding factors, like who's problems get priority.]

still far from a good thing, but not deliberately malicious either.

[one other correction: there was a whole series of service interuptons that were not DNS related that coincided with the roll out of a television service and whatever the problem was seems to have been resolved. ]

another note on the TOS thing:

while i haven't gone broadband shopping for a while, last time i looked around there were a variety of DSL options around with more flexible TOS than comcast's. IIRC some permitted home servers, and some even offered residential SDSL. dunno if that's still the case. (if you need a light truck you may be able to get a light truck instead of getting a car and complaining that it's not a light truck.)

oops. did it again. gotto go.