RSS
FCC To Investigate Comcast Filtering; Questions Why Comcast Wasn't Forthcoming
from the what-about-if-it-had-been-a-telco? dept
The FCC hasn't appeared to have much of an issue with the various telcos spouting off about how they need to block certain kinds of traffic. In fact, even when AT&T agreed to keep its network neutral (sort of, but not really), FCC chair Kevin Martin made it clear that he wouldn't hold AT&T to its concessions on network neutrality. However, when a cable company, such as Comcast, starts doing some traffic shaping... well, that's a different story. There was a big fuss last year about Comcast's traffic shaping efforts. While it took a little while, the FCC has now said that it's going to probe Comcast's traffic shaping actions. Now, as we've said from the beginning, if Comcast feels it needs to do this kind of traffic shaping, that's one thing -- but there's simply no good reason (and a number of bad ones) not to be upfront and let its customers know about this. In fact, that appears to be a part of the FCC's thinking, as well, noting that the FCC allows "reasonable network practices" to protect a network, but: "when they have reasonable network practices, they should disclose those and make those public." Martin clearly has no love for cable companies, but how the FCC handles this issue could become important in determining how the FCC deals with other traffic shaping issues in the future.
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- I'm Not A Fan Of This Craptastic Trademark Lawsuit
- Justices Finally Notice Naked Statues In The Supreme Court While Arguing Why Nudity Should Be Censored
- Comcast -- Owner Of NBC Universal -- Admits That DNS Redirects Are Incompatible With DNSSEC
- Is Verizon Wireless Violating Its Promise To Be Open By Blocking Google Wallet?
- Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Why you gotta be such a hater Martin? I gots love, I gots love for all o' ya.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ummm....I'm confused.
...But wouldn't this kind of consumer fraud (non-disclosure of terms of service) be more of an action for the Federal Trade Commision's Bureau of Consumer Protection?
From Wikipedia:
The Bureau of Consumer Protection’s mandate is to protect consumers against "unfair" or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. With the written consent of the Commission, Bureau attorneys enforce federal laws related to consumer affairs as well as rules promulgated by the FTC. Its functions include investigations, enforcement actions, and consumer and business education. Areas of principal concern for this bureau are: advertising and marketing, financial products and practices, telemarketing fraud, privacy and identity protection etc. The bureau also is responsible for the United States National Do Not Call Registry.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ummm....I'm confused.
I have no love for either company as both of their business practices have been under-handed, despicable, and rarely in the best interests of the people they serve.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ummm....I'm confused.
Corporate mentality is you will take what I give you and you will like it. If you don't like it, go cry somewhere else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment