back to article US Senate's net neutrality warrior to Comcast: Remind us how much you hate web fast lanes

US Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has urged Comcast to publicly swear it will not pave fast lanes across the internet for wealthy websites. Leahy, writing in an open letter, also wants the American telco to use its market and lobbying muscle to support net neutrality. Leahy noted that the amount of public comment on the issue …

  1. Mark 85

    It is getting more interesting all the time....

    From their response, it sounds like Comcast is going to give Senator Leahy the corporate equivalent of the middle finger salute. The blow-off is already starting by dismissing the Senator's inquiry: She pointed out that Senator Leahy isn't on the committee for deciding either the Time Warner Cable merger or net neutrality rules, since that is a decision for the FCC and Department of Justice. She also noted that it was unusual for the senator to target Comcast alone out of all the ISPs.

    I suppose that even if they did tell him "yes", they would refute it later by saying "he doesn't count as he's on the wrong committee" or "we had our fingers crossed..pfffftttt".

  2. DerekCurrie

    Thank you Senator Leahy, but...

    ... I'd rather see Comcast put out of business and broken up into smaller pieces, sold off to younger, hungrier, sane businesses that know how to treat their customers with respect. There is such a thing is too abusive to not FAIL. I'm all for We The People throwing such companies out of business for the sake of the betterment of every citizen. Comcast isn't a capitalist company. They're a parasite biznizz.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: They're a parasite biznizz.

      Yes, but compared to the parasite shaking them down for more contributions to his campaign re-election funds, they're just a small parasite.

  3. unitron
    Holmes

    "She also noted...

    ...that it was unusual for the senator to target Comcast alone out of all the ISPs."

    If the TWC merger goes through, it's going to Goliath (Comcast) and the 7 or so Dwarves, so he's just working the percentages.

    In order to see that, one doesn't have to be, etc., etc.

  4. pierce

    if I want internet faster than 5-6Mbit/sec inbound, 500-600k outbound, I have ONE choice. Comcast.

  5. Neoc

    "...those in favor of paid prioritization argue big websites should pay towards the network infrastructure they're reliant on"

    Because, as everyone knows, traffic from big websites just magically appears on network infrastructures. There isn't any peering agreements to allow company A from sending/receiving data from company B's network. In other words, Netflix somehow manages to get its data on Comcast's network without paying anybody.

    Bull.

    The moment the data leaves Netflix's network, *someone* gets paid. And when that data moves from network to network so does money change hands. Until gets to you and you pay to receive the data (hmm... does this mean your ISP double-dips?).

    So what this basically means to me is that Comcast, like most ISPs, oversold its network capabilities and is now wringing its hands saying "look how our poor networks are being flooded" without acknowledging why said network are having difficulty coping in the first place.

    1. Don Dumb
      Boffin

      Problem solved

      @Neoc -

      ""...those in favor of paid prioritization argue big websites should pay towards the network infrastructure they're reliant on"

      Because, as everyone knows, traffic from big websites just magically appears on network infrastructures."

      Exactly what I thought. ISPs complain that both web service and end-user need to pay for their use of the network, and yet they both do. Problem solved.

      The attacks against net neutrailty seem to always be driven by the false notion* that someone is getting network service for free and should pay. But, unless there is a company perpetrating some truely criminal act, everyone already does pay and the ISPs would rather make companies and end users pay ever more in an infinite "pay more to get the service you already paid for" loop.

      * for false notion read - 'deliberately dishonest'

      1. Robert Helpmann??
        Childcatcher

        Re: Problem solved

        To me, this is a lot like governments setting up toll roads:

        "We used the money you paid us to build this road. What? You want to drive on the lovely new pavement? Well, you have to pay for the privilege."

        I predict that Net Neutrality will prevail if only, as in the case of robbery, because the government hates competition.

  6. P. Lee

    >The moment the data leaves Netflix's network, *someone* gets paid.

    Netflix needs to get its act together with proper caching rather than servers and massive virtual monopoly telco's need to stop whining about how badly done-to they are.

    Raise your end-user prices. Competition is almost non-existent and you could then prioritise netflix for free.

    What? That would make your own over-priced video packages look less attractive? My heart bleeds. Maybe you should get out of internet provision.

  7. This post has been deleted by its author

  8. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

    Title II means you get Comcast forever - a nice little collusion between regulator and regulated. I doubt that's what you really want.

  9. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al vice 'Net Neutrality'

    So, are CDNs good or bad? Argue amongst yourselves. See if a consensus arises. I thought that they were good. But they seem to be a subset of things that are somehow Anti-Net-Neutrality. Imagine, somebody paying money to make delivery of *their* content faster. Evil scum!! (<- sarcasm).

    See if you all can even agree on a future-proof definition of the difference between any future CDN (good?) and any future Anti-Net-Neutrality technology (bad?). Keep in mind that future technology loves to straddle previously-defined boundaries. It's a spectrum of possibilities. Drawing sharp lines in any spectrum leads to paradoxes.

    I think it's all nonsense. Between H.265, multicasting, and fiber optics, the back end of the 'net is going to (over the next five or ten years) simply accelerate away from any and all bandwidth limitations. All that remains is the 'last mile' (something that Bell Aliant FibreOP has cracked; solved problem).

    1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al vice 'Net Neutrality'

      Good post Jeffy - but nothing will happen unless the congestion problem is cracked. I went from 20mbit/s to 120mbit/s here in London and I can't tell the difference. The network is still a scarce resource.

      http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/future-broadband-workshop-presentation/

      All good, but p.29 (The "investment cycle of doom") describes why Comcast, Verrizon and Google should keep their money in their pockets until this can be fixed.

      1. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al vice 'Net Neutrality'

        AO: "The network is still a scarce resource."

        It must be a case of YMMV. Here on the right hand side of the cold colony, earlier this year we were finally able to upgrade from a pathetic 1.4 Mbps ADSL to a FTTH service, and we selected the 175 Mbps option. With four people all active at once, gaming and watching videos, everything just works almost all of the time. Of course the Internet is not always perfectly reliable, but in general there's no evidence of any bandwidth scarcity in the connection from our devices to even some far corners of the web. For example, I can watch 'Periodic Videos' and such on YouTube at 1080p no problem while my lady watches subtitled dramas from Korea (can't explain it) in HD. The two gaming kidiots don't even notice.

        Perhaps there's too many people living in London.

  10. OmgTheyLetMePostInTheUK
    Thumb Down

    Comcast has already violated Net Neutrality... In a huge way!!

    When Comcast forced Netflix into paying for the same speeds every other company was already getting for free, they violated Net Neutrality, which means they violated their agreement with the federal government that they agreed to when they bought NBC.

    And while Senator might not be on a committee as Comcast states, they surely know how much power this Senator wields, and would be quite smart to not piss him off. Comcast has got to learn to stop being the greedy bastard child of the cable industry.

    And I for one, hopes that the federal government drops a gallagher hammer on Comcast to make sure the message comes across loud and clear to every internet provider in this country that you will not double dip by charging more for content providers to get their content to users.

  11. Fred Goldstein

    It is impossible to enforce pi = 3, or no "fast lane"

    Sen. Leahy is playing for the ignorant crowds, demanding that, since chickens are MUCH larger than hogs, that the hog industry must sell whole hogs for a lower price than whole chickens. And no scales are going to convince him otherwise, because the bacon lovers are demanding cheap bacon.

    There are no fast lanes, of course -- all bits travel at the same 300 km/ms * velocity factor. Computers do trade off buffer space, and the internetwork itself is a trading space (the point Martin Geddes, referenced in the above-mentioned post, is always making). Neutrality is a myth.

  12. Uncle Ron

    Who to Vote For

    I suggest US readers research the position on telecom policy of all candidates--inquire if necessary--and vote accordingly next week. Your cost for internet service could SKYROCKET over the next several years if you vote wrong. I mean a $2,000 to $3,000 per year "tax" increase on the average voter. No exaggeration.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like