Comcast reported to FCC

I want my ISP to treat different types of Internet traffic differently. When the network is congested, I want my ISP to slow down bit torrent and other protocols where delays don't matter much and favour VoIP and gaming traffic instead. I think it is a fair trade-off to slow down a high-bandwidth multi-hour bit torrent session by a few minutes in exchange for acceptable performance of time-critical, low-bandwidth protocols like VoIP or gaming. I hope we don't see any regulations mandating network neutrality, I want to use an ISP that is allowed to prioritize important traffic.

ISP's will love network neutrality. Network congestion will make VoIP and gaming unusable; then we'll be forced to buy these services separately from companies that aren't "Internet" companies and are therefore allowed to run non-neutral networks.

Bush's FCC will never allow a corporation to pay out "$195,000 per affected subscriber" for screwing the consumers.
Didn't you get the memo? Here in 'merica, when corporations do it-- it's not illegal. I'm sure the FCC is beavering away on new rules that will bequeath retroactive immunity on Comcast. Afterall, P2P helps the terr'ists!

I am currently paying for a Comcast Internet account. My cable modem is theoretically good for about 30Mbps, but I'm signed up for 4Mbps downstream and 384Kbps upstream. If it turns out Comcast can't support that bandwidth, no matter what protocol I'm using, then they should revise their advertised ratings. They should then refund a proportional amount of money for the past four years' service.

And by the way, on BitTorrent one person's upload is another person's download. So by affecting upload speed they're limiting download speed as well.

With their poor customer service, their monopolistic market stance, which is usually followed by ridiculous prices, I'm amazed there's still people shelling greenbacks out to comcast. I cut my cable service with them after 1 month - paying 54.xx for basic, analog cable. They called me the next day, "Oh, we can give it to you for $10 cheaper a month". (Gee, then why wasn't I offered that initially?) I still declined, I thinkg $40+ is too much. They called me back the next day and said "Oh we're running a special, we can now offer you it for $19.99 for 6 months." Took that, canceled after 6 months, and then they tried calling me a couple more times - but I just didn't pick up. Their rates are ridiculous, and their services usually are slow compared to the competition. Verizon fios tv&internet completely obliterates them here in Fort Wayne, IN.

As far as this specific issue goes, I believe with Alan D. - If they can't provide you with their advertised rated line speeds, then that's their problem - they shouldn't be controlling what users are doing with their bandwidth. If someone pays for 6mb/1mb, they should be able to use that as they see fit.

I am contracted by an ISP to manage their bandwidth. BitTorrent is usefull, but is abused by quite a few people. It isn't just the bandwidth, it is the sheer number of open connections.

When 2 customers can overload a Cisco CMTS that is suppose to handle thousands of customers and AT&T calls after they turn off two of your four T1 lines for abuse, its hit a point where something has to be done. If we're not allowed to traffic shape BitTorrent and other P2P apps, then we have little option but to disconnect the person causing the network problems.

The other problem is most P2P apps will use every bit of available bandwidth, whether you're on dial up or a 100mb connection.

Furthermore, if we're not allowed to use traffic shaping on P2P, why are we allowed to give VoIP a priority?

FCC needs to tread carefully here.

@jimsum

Are you sure you know what you're asking for? It's alright for ISP's to misrepresent the bandwidth you get? I personally don't use or like Bit Torrent, but to each their own. I have no problem with people using this. They are paying customers as well. It's not like they're using more bandwidth than what they're paying for. 

ISP's love this because they hate having to upgrade infrastructure. They'd rather have the government, aka tax payers, pay to upgrade lines from copper to fiber. And the government isn't going to float the bill. So how do you keep from having to pay this. Easy you limit people's bandwidth to certain sites/services. And guess who would get to determine this? That's right your trusty ISP. So now they can throttle down competing services and sites to persuade people to use their services. Or charge an extra premium so that you can access a site they way it's suppose to. Sound like fun yet?

No what is your ISP just decides to have roving blocks on certain sites/services? Certain parts of the day parts of the internet are unreachable. Although you can pay to have this not effect you. 

If you really think bit torrent and other such services are why your internet is slow, you're wrong. It's because your ISP is to cheap to upgrade infrastructure and selling more bandwidth than they have. ISP's would love for people to think they're looking out for your best interest and trying to provide you the best service possible. Reality is they're looking at how they can make more money with little to no money going out.


There is the 2nd scenario for the payments where customers aren't charged, but the website owners and data centers out there are for unrestricted access to customers. Which they say won't raise customer prices one bit. Now do you think that if Amazon, Yahoo, or any other website has to pay to give you unrestricted access they're not going to change how they do business? They still might have a free limited access, but for full access you're going to pay. Or if they already charge, they'll just charge more.

Every ISP out there oversells their connection. This is the reason you are not paying hundreds for your connection. A Speakeasy 1.54Mb T1 in Texas is still $259 a month. You get 4Mb? Do the math.

In Alabama, its still right at $700 a month per T1. Most of the customers on our system have 256/512 service. BitTorrent can still shut down a 6Mb pipe with two customers @ 512K. It isn't just the bandwidth, it is the open connections. If you further want to explain to me how P2P isn't a problem, I'd love to hear it. Right now you sound like everyone else that can't read their TOS and expects 100% full speed all the time.

If you want 4Mb 24/7, I suggest you get comercial fiber installed to your home. No ISP is going to guarantee a customer 4Mb for $50 a month when it costs them no less than $259 per 1.54Mb. That is beyond stupid, and its childish to expect it.

...if the "T1 for $259/month" guy is right, it might be fairer to charge per GB downloaded. Provided there's a "bandwidth meter" you can look at somewhere in your house so you know what you're using.

We get charged that way for electric usage and no-one complains "oh my I can't possibly pay a variable rate it's too unpredictable" do they?

On the upside, it'd also reduce the amount of bulky advertising on the web because everyone would browse in text-only mode to save money ;) Or at least that's what I do on a pay-by-MB GPRS/3G connection.