5 ms·

Probably not, as Netflix has no way to prove Comcast is throttling them and the FCC is toothless

by nikanj 10y ago

inanutshellus 10y ago
Is this ruling not the FCC regaining "teeth"?
- rkangel 10y ago
  No, this is validation that the FCCs position is legal. Nor they need a mechanism to enforce it properly. That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The FCC has existing complaint-based, investigatory, and other enforcement mechanisms, which have been around for a long time, and have been available to use (e.g., complaints have been accepted) under the Open Internet Order since it was issued (heck, they've had successful enforcement actions under the part of the old [2010] Open Internet Order -- the transparency rule -- that weren't struck down in Verizon v. FCC, such as the $100M penalty against AT&T Mobility for misrepresenting its "unlimited" plans.) What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      On paper you are correct, but I doubt the person who runs the FCC gets to golf with the president[0][1]. [0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with-comcast-ceo-170524 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
      - pdabbadabba 10y ago
        That's a pretty ironic view. This all got started when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking file-sharing services like BitTorrent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080101205.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08... Comcast sued and the FCC spent the next eight years fighting.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I'm having trouble seeing the irony. Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Especially ones that own media companies and donate heavily to political campaigns[0]? It's entirely possible the FCC has no teeth, or is muzzled by some paymaster. [0]http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political
        pdabbadabba 10y ago
        The irony, of course, is that you insinuate the FCC would never go after Comcast despite the fact that going after Comcast is the very thing that kicked off the entire net neutrality debate. > Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Well, if we're staying with the FCC, this would seem to qualify: https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-misleading-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-mi.... The FCC fined AT&T $100 M for violation of an Open Internet rule--the FCC found that they essentially "mislabeled" their broadband Internet service as'unlimited' without disclosing that speeds would be throttled after a user exceeded a certain soft cap. $100 M seems to me like a pretty robust fine for that kind of violation.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        While likely a large number to you and me, we are talking about a corporation that claims 120 billion in sales a year. That is less than a single days profits. Not nearly punitive enough to prevent this behavior in the future.
athenot 10y ago
Netflix customers can, though. Netflix set up a site, Fast.com for customers to test speed to their network. During the day now: 72 Mb/s In the evenings: 7Mb/s In the evenings, with my employer's VPN turned on: 66Mb/s (I'm on Comcast)
- einrealist 10y ago
  Maybe you just take another route to your VPN gateway than to Netflix. So Netflix may be saturated, when your VPN is not.
  - athenot 10y ago
    Without VPN, the traceroute shows a direct connection to the destination. It's quite literally the next hop on the network. 7 hu-0-10-0-1-pe04.56marietta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.182) 22.233 ms 11.978 ms 10.577 ms 8 a104-72-128-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com (104.72.128.31) 11.783 ms 11.075 ms 18.287 ms With VPN, it's Comcast -> Corp -> ATT -> Netflix/Akamai. That's a rather longer route.
    - phil21 10y ago
      Doesn't matter. What will be full in 99% of the cases will be the Comcast connection to $content_provider. In many cases an entire metro area will have no spare capacity between any of the major backbone providers and Comcast, so there is almost nothing you can do if you do not have the capability to route that traffic to a different region. This is why many times you will see "scenic routes" when on Comcast - it's providers routing traffic around Comcast's regional congestion in many cases. While this happens with many providers, Comcast is about the worst offender. They are quite happy to allow peering links to remain full at peak indefinitely - it's a way to put pressure on the content networks to pay for access to their routes over a private peering session. If you're a major web hosting operation, your customers will demand great performance to Comcast. They don't really care that Comcast is strong-arming paid peering agreements via those demands. It's especially awesome because Comcast generally charges more for bits to their tiny portion of the Internet, than what you pay for bits to a major backbone for the full table.

Probably not, as Netflix has no way to prove Comcast is throttling them and the FCC is toothless

by nikanj 10y ago

Probably not, as Netflix has no way to prove Comcast is throttling them and the FCC is toothless

inanutshellus 10y ago

Is this ruling not the FCC regaining "teeth"?

rkangel 10y ago
No, this is validation that the FCCs position is legal. Nor they need a mechanism to enforce it properly. That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The FCC has existing complaint-based, investigatory, and other enforcement mechanisms, which have been around for a long time, and have been available to use (e.g., complaints have been accepted) under the Open Internet Order since it was issued (heck, they've had successful enforcement actions under the part of the old [2010] Open Internet Order -- the transparency rule -- that weren't struck down in Verizon v. FCC, such as the $100M penalty against AT&T Mobility for misrepresenting its "unlimited" plans.) What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    On paper you are correct, but I doubt the person who runs the FCC gets to golf with the president[0][1]. [0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with-comcast-ceo-170524 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      That's a pretty ironic view. This all got started when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking file-sharing services like BitTorrent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080101205.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08... Comcast sued and the FCC spent the next eight years fighting.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I'm having trouble seeing the irony. Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Especially ones that own media companies and donate heavily to political campaigns[0]? It's entirely possible the FCC has no teeth, or is muzzled by some paymaster. [0]http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political
        pdabbadabba 10y ago
        The irony, of course, is that you insinuate the FCC would never go after Comcast despite the fact that going after Comcast is the very thing that kicked off the entire net neutrality debate. > Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Well, if we're staying with the FCC, this would seem to qualify: https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-misleading-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-mi.... The FCC fined AT&T $100 M for violation of an Open Internet rule--the FCC found that they essentially "mislabeled" their broadband Internet service as'unlimited' without disclosing that speeds would be throttled after a user exceeded a certain soft cap. $100 M seems to me like a pretty robust fine for that kind of violation.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        While likely a large number to you and me, we are talking about a corporation that claims 120 billion in sales a year. That is less than a single days profits. Not nearly punitive enough to prevent this behavior in the future.

athenot 10y ago

Netflix customers can, though. Netflix set up a site, Fast.com for customers to test speed to their network. During the day now: 72 Mb/s In the evenings: 7Mb/s In the evenings, with my employer's VPN turned on: 66Mb/s (I'm on Comcast)

einrealist 10y ago
Maybe you just take another route to your VPN gateway than to Netflix. So Netflix may be saturated, when your VPN is not.
- athenot 10y ago
  Without VPN, the traceroute shows a direct connection to the destination. It's quite literally the next hop on the network. 7 hu-0-10-0-1-pe04.56marietta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.182) 22.233 ms 11.978 ms 10.577 ms 8 a104-72-128-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com (104.72.128.31) 11.783 ms 11.075 ms 18.287 ms With VPN, it's Comcast -> Corp -> ATT -> Netflix/Akamai. That's a rather longer route.
  - phil21 10y ago
    Doesn't matter. What will be full in 99% of the cases will be the Comcast connection to $content_provider. In many cases an entire metro area will have no spare capacity between any of the major backbone providers and Comcast, so there is almost nothing you can do if you do not have the capability to route that traffic to a different region. This is why many times you will see "scenic routes" when on Comcast - it's providers routing traffic around Comcast's regional congestion in many cases. While this happens with many providers, Comcast is about the worst offender. They are quite happy to allow peering links to remain full at peak indefinitely - it's a way to put pressure on the content networks to pay for access to their routes over a private peering session. If you're a major web hosting operation, your customers will demand great performance to Comcast. They don't really care that Comcast is strong-arming paid peering agreements via those demands. It's especially awesome because Comcast generally charges more for bits to their tiny portion of the Internet, than what you pay for bits to a major backbone for the full table.