FCC to hold public hearing on traffic shaping Monday

“On Monday the FCC will be holding an open public hearing on traffic shaping at Harvard Law School, and today released their meeting agenda and list of FCC-selected network experts,” dlsreports explains.

MacDailyNews Note: The hearing will be held at Harvard Law School, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, 1515 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA from 10am-4pm EST.

“The panels will discuss network neutrality and traffic shaping. The agency is currently investigating Comcast’s traffic shaping practices in response to requests by BitTorrent video delivery company Vuze, consumer advocates such as Free Press, and others,” according to dlsreports.

More info here.

16 Comments

  1. These are the three big players left in the US that can offer high-speed broadband.

    The problem is, most areas only have one or two choices of the three, and they ALL act upon the same package programs – almost akin to collusion and monopolistic practices.

    It won’t be long before Rogers and Verizon follow suit. In time, the only way to get HD anything to your home will be via your ISP, as the rest will be governed to non-existence.

    It is nice to have the FCC talking about such things, but as Ronald Reagan said “The scariest words in the English language are – I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”

    The corrupt FCC and Congress are likely to do little to stop these big powerhouses from having their way once the lobbyists are done with them.

    Now more than ever, Apple had better be sure to secure a nice big chunk of 700MHz UHF channels to drive their own services directly to the home – completely bypassing the backbone providers and delivering completely vertical solutions.

    Google can turn on their black fiber, delivering a new coast-to-coast backbone (taking on the likes of ATT, Verizon, TimeWarner, Sprint, etc…) with Apple utilizing that system, and then beaming that data directly to homes everywhere via the UHF towers.

  2. I got Comcast last year and I already regret it. It took them two months of bureaucratic BS to get the service working properly. I hate the lies associated with traffic shaping. If the service will not be unlimited, FINE, just say what the limits are or what extra charges apply to heavy users. Most people wouldn’t have an issue with this if they were just honest lived up to their agreements.

  3. Kevin Martin and his cronies will listen to everybody and do as they please after the fact, regardless of what the experts, citizens and others say. That is what they did with media concentration hearings last year.
    Martin is a Bushbot for big media.

  4. Hopefully the FCC will get an earful and this practice of determining what internet you can access will cease. Maybe competition will get a boost as well; I know most are sick of Time Warner’s decades long monopoly here…

  5. I think companies can control the bandwidth that they provide you. I don’t think they should be doing it on the sly.

    I know most ISP companies don’t want you running servers on your personal account.

    I know this causes many ISP companies to have their IP spaces black list due to not controlling open relays setup by home users not knowing how to setup a mail server.

  6. It looks like the history of American business and anti-trust legislation should be a compulsory course for everyone, these days. We have been flooded with the myths of Reagonomics. De-regulation has become a license to steal, . . . as it fully was intended to do. Let’s hope that the pendulum is at or past its peak on its “right” swing. It will take vigilance and care to keep it from swinging back too far to the “left”.
    We need some Democrats who understand what being a Democrat means.

  7. “I think companies can control the bandwidth that they provide you. I don’t think they should be doing it on the sly.”

    Well said, Brian! Comcast is the only option for cable internet in my area. But I have been reluctant to switch from my much slower Qwest DSL service to Comcast because of Comcast’s “questionable” practices. Comcast is trying to save themselves money by limiting their customer’s bandwidth. But the money that they are losing from this consumer relations fiasco will probably end up being just as expensive for them in the long run — perhaps even more costly.

  8. the fcc does not give a fcc about anyone. especially under big business control. korea has faster networks then we do and it’s because of big business not wanting to spend the money and or our government being pelted by these lobbyists and their friendly hand me downs worth thousands that we have this problem.

    doesn’t matter if you vote democrat or republican though unfortunately..

  9. Please consider that internet access is a resource and, as such, is not limitless. It is all good and well to talk about “net neutrality,” but the reality is that a relatively small fraction of internet users consume the majority of internet resources (bandwidth/total throughput). Do you want to subsidize this group?

    Resources that are available at no cost (or low cost) tend to be consumed to exhaustion if consumption is not controlled in some way. Supply and demand is one method, but the fixed fee/unlimited access approach that seems to be so appealing to our all-you-can-eat society does not encourage conservation of internet resources. Indeed, the current plans are priced based only on peak access data rate. Total throughput is virtually ignored. Everyone seems to be ramping up the quantity of data associated with web pages, even though most of the extra bits add no real value.

    Internet usage will be controlled in some manner, intentionally or unintentionally. Perhaps it will bog down because demand will overwhelm supply. Perhaps capacity will gradually be expanded to accommodate the demand, but at higher costs to businesses and consumers. Perhaps it will be regulated into mediocrity. But it will be controlled. Demanding that a resource be freely available in unlimited quantity to everyone is not equivalent to actually supplying that resource.

  10. KingMel

    No one is suggesting subsidized service.

    The issue is:
    If you advertise Unlimited Downloads, then make it unlimited.
    As someone put it, Say here are the limits. You get x bandwidth at this cost.

    Not x bandwidth, except when you use it.
    If it has limits, explain it, and charge for it.

    But bait and switch is wrong. I have FiOS and I pay for the bandwidth I use. If I expect more bandwidth, I’ll pay. But don’t make me pay for a service and tell me I’m using the service too much.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.