Comcast Now Says It Will Not Sue FCC

[Victorious Secret]

 

The company says the FCC overreached by passing rules to stop Internet service providers from blocking sites and slowing traffic. The problem is, Comcast’s admitted to doing just that.

 

I guess its hard to sue the FCC over imposing rules that you've been violating the entire time already, among other dodgy practices over the previous decade. 

 

ATT and Verizon seem happy to sue, Comcast might still lobby like hell, but one of their VPs as of today has said they won't being suing the FCC over the latest rulings. 

 

This does go at odds against the Exec. VP Cohen who said that they will be suing, so who knows whats going on in Comcasts ranks and who actually supports the FCC ruling and who doesn't. Very interesting development. Might suggest that there are certain execs who are okay with the ruling and those who aren't. 

 

Comcast Vice President of Government Communications Sena Fitzmaurice sought to clarify that the company will not sue the FCC, despite a statement from the company’s Executive Vice President David L. Cohen yesterday saying “the only ‘certainty’ in the Open Internet Space is that we all face inevitable litigation.”

 

“AT&T and Verizon have publicly, vocally said they will sue. Comcast has not,” she said. “We haven’t seen the order, we don’t know what is in it – our reference to inevitable regulation is related to the very direct statements by others they will sue – not that we will.”

 

When asked to clarify if “when Cohen refers to ‘we all,’ he is not referring to Comcast or a trade organization of which Comcast is a part,” Fitzmaurice said: “Comcast has not said it will sue… [He] means all players in the marketplace.”

 

Asked if “’we’ in this instance [as stated in yesterday’s press release] does not mean ‘ourselves and others,’ as in the dictionary definition,” Fitzmaurice responded, “Comcast will not sue. Full stop.”

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/26/comcast-we-will-sue-to-slow-the-web.html

[Misanthrope]

I'm almost sure they'll follow up this with "Oh by the way, every single motherfucker on Comcast now has a hard 30gb data cap for the month, get fucking cable tv if you want to view shows, kthxbye"

[Kherm]

Did we do it? Are they in a position where they can't move?

 

Of course they could make everybody pay $200 for 10/5 and force-include CATV

[The_Strict_Nein]

I'm almost sure they'll follow up this with "Oh by the way, every single motherfucker on Comcast now has a hard 30gb data cap for the month, get fucking cable tv if you want to view shows, kthxbye"

 

Which is perfectly fine. Now small companies can come in and instantly set up in all the former Comcast areas, losing Comcast massive amounts of money and hopefully making them bankrupt.

 

Title II is chemotherapy. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Misanthrope]

Which is perfectly fine. Now small companies can come in and instantly set up in all the former Comcast areas, losing Comcast massive amounts of money and hopefully making them bankrupt.

 

Title II is chemotherapy. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

 

tru dat

[xtroria]

I guess now they'll be using that money to fund the next republican president candidate instead

[Victorious Secret]

Which is perfectly fine. Now small companies can come in and instantly set up in all the former Comcast areas, losing Comcast massive amounts of money and hopefully making them bankrupt.

 

Title II is chemotherapy. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

 

That Title II needs to exist is sad, but right now our interests line up with tech companies who NEED us to keep consuming their goods; having faster internet that isn't being gagged by ISPs is just mutually beneficial for all. 

 

Will it always stay that way? No. Such is the nature of the beast. What it will do is force these ISPs to finally get with the times or die. I hope the Canadian Government wakes up and stops bending over backwards to the ISPs here as well. You think Americans have it bad? Step into the land of syrup, its pathetic what the service providers get away with. 

 

When the government banned 3 year contracts on phones, Rogers out of sheer spite raise the monthly minimum plans on smartphones. Now? 70 a month gets you 250mb of data. No, not a typo. My current plan is 35 a month from Wind. Unlimited everything and data throttling after 5GB (it puts it to around 3G speeds). I'll take throttled data after 5GB for that price...

 

[dalekphalm]

@Victorious Secret yep it's pretty awful. I have a Bell smartphone plan w/ 1GB of Data for $65/mo that I had to fight w/ the Retention Department to get. You used to be able to get much better deals several years ago.

 

I would switch to Wind if they were able to deploy an LTE network, but they're currently limited to 3G"+" speeds (They often call it 4G, but that's misleading, since it's still only HSPA+). Their network coverage is fine for me 99% of the time though, as I live right near Highway 401, which has complete coverage. The city I live in, as well as the one I work in, has "mostly" coverage, with only a few small dead zones here and there.

[Victorious Secret]

@Victorious Secret yep it's pretty awful. I have a Bell smartphone plan w/ 1GB of Data for $65/mo that I had to fight w/ the Retention Department to get. You used to be able to get much better deals several years ago.

 

I would switch to Wind if they were able to deploy an LTE network, but they're currently limited to 3G"+" speeds (They often call it 4G, but that's misleading, since it's still only HSPA+). Their network coverage is fine for me 99% of the time though, as I live right near Highway 401, which has complete coverage. The city I live in, as well as the one I work in, has "mostly" coverage, with only a few small dead zones here and there.

 

Yea, I happily gave up LTE for paying upwards of 70% less than the competition. Worth it. 

[Trik'Stari]

I'd like to know how they can legally set data caps, when data isn't a finite resource and costs nothing.

 

Please. someone put these assholes out of business with truly unlimited high speed internet.

 

That Title II needs to exist is sad, but right now our interests line up with tech companies who NEED us to keep consuming their goods; having faster internet that isn't being gagged by ISPs is just mutually beneficial for all. 

 

Will it always stay that way? No. Such is the nature of the beast. What it will do is force these ISPs to finally get with the times or die. I hope the Canadian Government wakes up and stops bending over backwards to the ISPs here as well. You think Americans have it bad? Step into the land of syrup, its pathetic what the service providers get away with. 

 

When the government banned 3 year contracts on phones, Rogers out of sheer spite raise the monthly minimum plans on smartphones. Now? 70 a month gets you 250mb of data. No, not a typo. My current plan is 35 a month from Wind. Unlimited everything and data throttling after 5GB (it puts it to around 3G speeds). I'll take throttled data after 5GB for that price...

 

-snip

 

That's just fucked up in every way imaginable. How has no one put them out of business?

[Unhelpful]

I'd like to know how they can legally set data caps, when data isn't a finite resource and costs nothing.

Because it can be a "finite" resource... In that they aren't paying Tier 1 network owners / other companies enough for the level of saturation they need.

 

Because they are greedy fucks.

 

So basically "we don't have the resources to handle everybody at their full connection at once because we want to maintain our 98% profit margin."

[dalekphalm]

I'd like to know how they can legally set data caps, when data isn't a finite resource and costs nothing.

 

Please. someone put these assholes out of business with truly unlimited high speed internet.

 

 

That's just fucked up in every way imaginable. How has no one put them out of business?

Simple, Rogers is the equivalent of Comcast or AT&T in Canada. The barrier to entry is extremely high in Canada. Rogers owns a significant amount of available Wireless Spectrum, and every year there's a new Wireless Spectrum auction, they outbid every new entrant.

 

Now, the CRTC (Our FCC) has specifically set aside some Wireless Spectrum in the upcoming auction for "New Entrants" as a first pick (Eg: They get to bid on it without interference from Rogers or the other incumbents), but the cost of entry is like $65 million dollars or something equally high. We've yet to have any serious investors want to risk that much money.

[dalekphalm]

Because it can be a "finite" resource... In that they aren't paying Tier 1 network owners / other companies enough for the level of saturation they need.

 

Because they are greedy fucks.

 

So basically "we don't have the resources to handle everybody at their full connection at once because we want to maintain our 98% profit margin."

@Trik'Stari

Total throughput is a finite resource. Eg: If you have a 10Gigabit pipe, it can support only up to 10Gig saturation.

 

However, utilizing that pipe for whatever amount of Data (actual MegaBytes used) is infinite.

 

They're splitting hairs because most people don't know the difference.

 

The way I see it is this: I pay my ISP for a 150Mbps down pipe. If they can't support me using that pipe whenever I want, then why are they selling it to me?

 

The answer is because ISP's (Every one of them does this to one degree or another, but the big incumbents are generally worse then the smaller indie ones) oversubscribe every node they sell. The reason they do this is because they figure that not everyone will be using their pipes at 100% at all times. Which is true enough, but I shouldn't be punished because grandma down the road only checks Facebook to see her niece's birthday pictures.

 

The very idea of a data "cap" is frankly asinine. But because most people don't understand how the Internet works, they get fooled, because they think it's like "water" or "electricity", where those things need to be "pumped" or "generated" first before you can use them.

[Blevins]

So basically "we don't have the resources to handle everybody at their full connection at once because we want to maintain our 98% profit margin."

That.

 

I know a guy who used to work for an ISP in California, they threw away hundreds of terabytes of data every month and didn't offer any kind of unlimited plans. Data caps are a joke. One of the 2 ISP's in my area that actually offer broadband doesn't offer any unlimited plans and set their data caps so low that if you watch netflix regularly you're paying like $170+/month because of data. But if you go over your cap they start charging like $10/GB for overages (It varies depending on the plan)

 

 

And data does cost ISPs something. They have to pay for the electricity used to forward your data packets along.  (It's probably minimal, though)

[Unhelpful]

 

@Trik'Stari best answer you could get on the subject matter.

[Trik'Stari]

Because it can be a "finite" resource... In that they aren't paying Tier 1 network owners / other companies enough for the level of saturation they need.

 

Because they are greedy fucks.

 

So basically "we don't have the resources to handle everybody at their full connection at once because we want to maintain our 98% profit margin."

Simple, Rogers is the equivalent of Comcast or AT&T in Canada. The barrier to entry is extremely high in Canada. Rogers owns a significant amount of available Wireless Spectrum, and every year there's a new Wireless Spectrum auction, they outbid every new entrant.

 

Now, the CRTC (Our FCC) has specifically set aside some Wireless Spectrum in the upcoming auction for "New Entrants" as a first pick (Eg: They get to bid on it without interference from Rogers or the other incumbents), but the cost of entry is like $65 million dollars or something equally high. We've yet to have any serious investors want to risk that much money.

For both posts:

 

Sooner or later, someone will see the opportunity that is there and say "oh look, these morons don't understand how technology works, let me just get into this and steal their customers and make some money"

 

That.

 

I know a guy who used to work for an ISP in California, they threw away hundreds of terabytes of data every month and didn't offer any kind of unlimited plans. Data caps are a joke. One of the 2 ISP's in my area that actually offer broadband doesn't offer any unlimited plans and set their data caps so low that if you watch netflix regularly you're paying like $170+/month because of data. But if you go over your cap they start charging like $10/GB for overages (It varies depending on the plan)

 

 

And data does cost ISPs something. They have to pay for the electricity used to forward your data packets along.  (It's probably minimal, though)

 

Even though netflix offered to pay for a tiny box for them to install that would hold their entire library, and decrease their network traffic by 30%.

 

 

*nerd rage growing to uncontrollable levels*

[Derangel]

Comcast is only abstaining from suing the FCC because they're trying to buy TWC. If it wasn't for wanting to try to stay on the FCC's good side they'd be right with AT&T and Verizon. They despise Title II as much as the other assholes.

 

 

Which is perfectly fine. Now small companies can come in and instantly set up in all the former Comcast areas, losing Comcast massive amounts of money and hopefully making them bankrupt.

 

Title II is chemotherapy. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

 

Except Title II doesn't magically allow new competition. Title II has nothing to do with getting rid of local monopolies. Title II won't force ISPs to give up their agreements with cities, states, and each other nor will it force them to allow new competition in the areas they have exclusive control over. Title II going into effect won't change a thing as far as how the ISPs have divided up the country.

[Victorious Secret]

Comcast is only abstaining from suing the FCC because they're trying to buy TWC. If it wasn't for wanting to try to stay on the FCC's good side they'd be right with AT&T and Verizon. They despise Title II as much as the other assholes.

 

 

 

Except Title II doesn't magically allow new competition. Title II has nothing to do with getting rid of local monopolies. Title II won't force ISPs to give up their agreements with cities, states, and each other nor will it force them to allow new competition in the areas they have exclusive control over. Title II going into effect won't change a thing as far as how the ISPs have divided up the country.

The other rulings from that day however does, since the FCC set precedence to allow just that:

 

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories.

 

The action is a year in the making. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced in February 2014 his intention to override state laws designed to protect private cable companies and telcos from public sector competition. Wheeler took his cue from the federal appeals court rulingthat overturned net neutrality rules; tucked away in that decision was one judge's opinion that the FCC has the authority to preempt "state laws that prohibit municipalities from creating their own broadband infrastructure to compete against private companies."

 

Nineteen states have such laws, often passed at the behest of private Internet service providers that didn't want to face competition. Communities in two of the states asked the FCC to take action. The City of Wilson, North Carolina and the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee filed the petitions that led to today's FCC action. Each offers broadband service to residents and received requests for service from people in nearby towns, but they alleged that state laws made it difficult or impossible for them to expand.

 

[Derangel]

The other rulings from that day however does, since the FCC set precedence to allow just that:

 

 

Yes and no. The rulings allow apply only to public sector (city governments basically) created IPS. It also only applies to those two states, the other 17 states still have those laws in place. All the private sector competition that the large ISPs work so hard to prevent is not effected.

[dalekphalm]

Yes and no. The rulings allow apply only to public sector (city governments basically) created IPS. It also only applies to those two states, the other 17 states still have those laws in place. All the private sector competition that the large ISPs work so hard to prevent is not effected.

Even if that is the case - which I haven't seen any proof that explicitly says this - That still means that there is now an entry vector for at least one more competitor. Guess what? Two is better then one.

 

It's a start, no matter what.

 

I'd still like to see where it specifically says that ruling only applies to municipal ISP's and not private companies.

[Trik'Stari]

Yes and no. The rulings allow apply only to public sector (city governments basically) created IPS. It also only applies to those two states, the other 17 states still have those laws in place. All the private sector competition that the large ISPs work so hard to prevent is not effected.

Also, Title 2 has some provisions that provide some form of access to existing infrastructure, allowing newer startups a cheaper startup cost. The Tek delved into this in one episode when talking about it.

 

Also, not to mention that the ISP's were given HUGE amounts of money, by the government (so basically OUR money) to upgrade their infrastructure, which they pocketed and or used to buy each other out and create oligopolies.

[Derangel]

Even if that is the case - which I haven't seen any proof that explicitly says this - That still means that there is now an entry vector for at least one more competitor. Guess what? Two is better then one.

 

It's a start, no matter what.

 

I'd still like to see where it specifically says that ruling only applies to municipal ISP's and not private companies.

 

The ruling overrides a law in two states that is specifically about municipal broadband. The two cities were fighting those laws in their states.