Comcast has defended its BitTorrent blocking by saying it only does it when network congestion is high, but a new study finds that they’re doing it basically all the time. [The Inquirer]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. bonzombiekitty says:

    But if network congestion is always “high”, then they’d be right :p

  2. AstroPig7 says:

    @bonzombiekitty: *gasp* Are you suggesting that their woefully outdated network capacity is being compensated for by random Peer-to-Peer blocking disguised as network management? No wait, every technology reporter and their dog have already suggested that. Nevermind. :)

  3. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    Comcast = liars

  4. Rajio says:

    Thats because they don’t upgrade their network with the money you pay them. Instead they reduce your access to it. More money in pocket.

    They leave out the part where you are already paying for the network and it’d upgrades. Thats why the service costs money.

  5. aront says:

    I’d be willing to bet that in the next few weeks Comcast will release an ULTRA Unlimited bandwidth plan that is a $20 premium over their vanilla Unlimited bandwidth plan.

    The only difference is they lower your overall speed but don’t limit access to any web services/technologies.

    Comcast = craptastic!

  6. kc2idf says:

    These guys are starting to sound like the guys in the tiger suit in the Monty Python sketch about the Zulu War. As the discussion goes on, they keep coming up with new explanations for their actions.

    The time has come for them to say, “Alright, you got us, we fucked up, here, have some service credit.”

  7. mikelotus says:

    This Friday, I hope, Comcast goes, Verizon FIOS takes their place. I will encourage all around here to drop them for Verizon.

  8. William C Bonner says:

    What I want to know is how they can block some traffic without being responsible for what they allow?

    I believe that back when prodigy was a popular service there was a pretty famous court ruling that they could be held liable for posts on their service if they were moderating the posts, but if there was no moderation, it all came down to the poster.

    If they are allowing or disallowing certain content, can’t they be held liable for what passes over the network?

  9. Kajj says:

    @William C Bonner: That is going to be very entertaining. “The defendant will now read from the printed evidence.” “Uh, ‘XBox sux u fag.'” “Libel!”

  10. stinerman says:

    @William C Bonner:

    Negative. That liability only exists if the business is qualified as a common carrier.

    Many people believe that ISPs are common carriers, which is not so. This confusion comes from the fact that AT&T the phone company is a common carrier, but AT&T the ISP is not. All ISPs are considered “information services”, which have separate rules and regulations from traditional telcos.

  11. Comcast is now degrading ALL traffic. If a torrent is running or a file is taking all available upload bandwidth, Comcast degrades it. So it seems they are now implementing traffic shaping as well RST packeting like mad. I mean I can’t torrent ANYTHING. I tried getting Fedora 8 for a private closed network webserver I run – Imagine how well that worked: Got up to 80kb/s and fell like a brick down to 0 and never got back above 2kb/s… peak. Typically it was between 0kb/s and .5kb/s.

    Still waiting for FiOS though for some reason, the guys up the block can get it. What’s up with that?