FCC Again Wants Details From Comcast On Its Traffic-Shaping Efforts
from the fool-me-once... dept
Comcast has already been slapped down -- well, slapped on the wrist, anyway -- by the FCC for violating Commission rules with its traffic-shaping efforts, and it could be on its way for a second rebuke. The FCC has asked Comcast for some more details on its newest "congestion management" system, which throttles heavy users' speeds for periods of time. As part of the penalty for its previous infraction, Comcast had to file details of the new system with the FCC, and the commission know wants to know if Comcast treats traffic from its own VoIP system differently than traffic from competing providers' VoIP services. The company apparently advertises the fact that its VoIP service doesn't get affected by heavy network traffic and slowdowns, giving the impression that it degrades other VoIP traffic in this new system, while leaving traffic from its service alone. This will be an interesting test of the new FCC administration, to see how it handles these sorts of complaints compared to its predecessor. It could also set an important precedent, because it sounds like Comcast handles its own VoIP traffic in a way similar to other cable companies, by setting aside a portion of bandwidth that's managed separately from a subscriber's internet traffic.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blocking content, fcc, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Years too late
[ link to this | view in thread ]
congestions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
clear anti-trust violation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Worse than traffic shaping
Of course Comcast is not the only rogue ISP. Cox, Verizon etc. are no better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An ISP will provide QoS/CoS to it's customers that have VoIP through them for free. Allowing their VoIP equipment to tag the data packets with priority, usually as IPP 5 or Expedited forwarding. Most residential accounts don't even have the option to turn on QoS/CoS on the network connection, and if it does have it, it definitely is an additional fee. So, yes, VoIP traffic will have priority over other traffic across any network with QoS. Basically, if you have Vonage, and the Vonage box tags the packets, if the ISP does NOT have QoS set up, it will not read the tags.
About Comcast blocking inbound traffic. They probably don't block inbound traffic, but are blocking inbound ports. Just about every ISP in the country will do that to prevent unauthorized traffic. If you want to run a web server, you better be willing to get a dedicated bandwidth connection. You know, a T1 or greater. You are on a shared bandwidth connection with Comcast, meaning, yeah, they oversell the bandwidth. Because if they didn't, they would need to charge you a few thousand dollars a month for that 7mbps connection. Bandwidth is not cheap, not even for the ISP's. The equipment is not cheap either on the ISP's side. Think about the fact your $50-$200 router is nothing compared to that $million Cisco or Juniper on the other end, and if it's not a dedicated bandwidth circuit like a T1 or DS3, you have a $250K switch in between, not including any multiplexors and digital cross-connects.
Bandwidth is not cheap. Any large company like Google, Ebay, Itunes, Amazon, they are paying multi-millions of dollars a month for their bandwidth from the Tier1 backbone providers. And the Tier1 backbone providers are not making a big profit either, due to the constant expansion and upgrading of equipment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Think of VoIP as the exact same technology as Teamspeak or Ventrillo, but adding another layer where it can connect to a POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) switching system on the other end, to connect to POTS phones, instead of VoIP phones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Comcast blocking inbound traffic.
The Comcast terms:
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service,
Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide
network content or any other services to anyone outside of your
Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public
services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers
include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and
proxy services and servers;
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Comcast blocking inbound traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Comcast blocking inbound traffic.
But, to be fair, here is the relevant section of COX' terms:
Acceptable Use Policy
Section 6
Servers. You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing server-like functionality in connection with the Service, unless expressly authorized by Cox.
"Acceptable Use Policy?" No, that is not acceptable, not by the standards set by the FCC.
Do you work for Comcast? That would explain your frustration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
that's why god invented non standard ports. no ISP blocks connections to arbitrary high numbered ports, otherwise most networked applications (IM, games, you name it) stop working.
it's stupid to prevent home servers since most home web servers are homework projects anyway and never generate the kind of traffic that would justify a T1.
every person i know that runs a server out of their house is doing so as a proof of concept, either to learn a new operating system or programming language, or to become familiar with an application before deploying it for real on some sort of hosting.
the truth is, the uplink on any residential connection is too slow to make the web server usable for more than a few concurrent connections, i.e. not useful for much more than testing or having fun with a few friends. that's hardly enough users to make any money on a service. even if your intent was to profit, a T1 is still a bad investment. it would be more profitable to go with shared web hosting or a leased virtual machine.
so, the myth of running a commercial service on a residential connection is false, not because ISP's are so great at stopping unauthorized servers, but because it's just not profitable.
if you want to run a server (web, email, or otherwise) from your house, just run it on a non-standard port. there are tons of services that can help you make the change in ports transparent for free or for a very low price (no-ip.com, namecheap.com, dyndns.com, etc.)
it's totally possible to run a server on your residential connection against the wishes of your ISP and in spite of their best efforts to thwart you. it's really not possible to make money doing so since uplink speed is an issue on any residential service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Truth in advertising and lack of competion is the real problem
If you could choose between several providers, you could give your business to those whose service and policies you like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blocking inbound ports for admin purposes
Are they really blocking ALL inbound traffic? It might be justified for people runing full web services but for people trying to admin their netwok....
Have they made this change recently because it was working a few months ago?????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HATE YOU COMCAST
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Comcast blocking inbound traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
port forwarding
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comcast crap
[ link to this | view in thread ]