Comcast appeals FCC's net neutrality ruling

By on September 5, 2008, 2:57 PM
In a rather unsurprising move, Comcast is appealing a recent FCC ruling that the company is improperly managing customers’ online traffic. While the FCC did not impose a fine, they did order Comcast to make changes to the way it handles traffic and submit a compliance plan in which they must detail how they intend to cease these practices by the end of the year.

Prior to the ruling, the company was already mulling to make some changes on its own, including targeted throttling and a 250GB cap on bandwidth per customer. The reasoning behind the appeal, then, is not to go back to their dubious practices of discriminating against specific types of data (read BitTorrent) but rather because Comcast – and the rest of the ISPs and telcos – don't want the FCC to be able to tell them how to manage their networks.

Comcast argues that the FCC’s sanctions against it were based on a list of network neutrality principles, not laws – thus it had not broken any law. Whichever way the court’s decision swings it will set a very important precedent. If the FCC’s order is recognized as unlawful by courts then other ISP may follow in enforcing network policy as they see fit. On the other hand, if it stands, it would grant the government fairly broad authority to regulate the Internet – and possibly lead to ISPs increasing prices for perceived bandwidth hogs.




User Comments: 3

Got something to say? Post a comment
old101 said:
"and possibly lead to ISPs increasing prices for perceived bandwidth hogs"Above is a quote from the story. Although I would abhor any Government regulation of Internet, whats wrong with payment per usage. We have always done so for telephone, mail, all utilities and so on.Why not produce a tariff which says so much "free" downloading for your monthly subscription, and additional fee for a given block of GBs per subscription period, which could also be variable - monthly, quarterly or annually. Proponents of unlimited downloading forget that the majority of subscribers are footing the bill for increased traffic.I suspect that business is the greatest hog of internet capacity. Information that used to be handled by telephone, fax, mail or services such as UPS or Fedex are now transferable free.
shl0791 said:
that's nice and all, but if they're going this way, progress will slow down, in terms of what's up ahead like video streaming, downloadable content and so on. Many people do Hulu, netflix streaming, xbox live... What's the point of me paying for unlimited access and only receiving 250gb or less? What about people who are paying for the fastest internet? (Kinda like buying a racing car that can do 300Km/h and only having 2 km of road eh?)Websites like netflix and others should complain to the ISP's. It can only work against them.
windmill007 said:
I agree..Pay per usage is a very bad idea. The only people who don't mind that is basic web surfers or e mailers. If you do any of the cool stuff on the internet it is going to eat bandwidth. And everything is getting more and more bandwidth intensive. People who support restrictions are people who think $20-30$ a month for unlimited as being to expensive. You can bet you will still pay at least that much but possible more if you do anything extra. And the people who actually use the internet will pay a lot more...Bad for the people...good for the ISP's. Plus instead of expanding there networks they will just put on more restrictions.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.