Comcast clogs net neutrality audience with paid fanboys

the_technocrat

In addition to bcc'ing all of your traffic to the NSA, performing content-based bandwidth throttling and using 'up to' advertising to falsely represent the expected available bandwidth to its customers, Comcast has now been caught paying people to fill up a limited number of seats and cheer for Comcast at a recent FCC net neutrality debate.

Many interested citizens, including reporters, were turned away due to the limited availability of seats.

via BoingBoing and Miro

In related news, Verizon has officially stated that it's a serious privacy concern to filter based on content, and that it will not do so.

Verizon offers 5MB down/2MB up fiber-to-the home internet service for $43/month and 15MB down/2MB up for $53/month. Compare this service to Comcast with 6MB down service to its cable customers for an additional $43/month.

primesuspect

I'm just SO glad that we have a competitor in our area. I use Wide Open West and am very happy with their service. Even if their service or pricing were crap, I'd still be hard pressed to go with Comcast.

I converted my parents over to Wide Open West as well.

QCH

Wish I had an option other than Comcast. DSL is too slow but I might jump anyway.

Trumandrummer

im so confused,

may I ask what is "bcc'ing all traffic to NSA" mean??????

I am a comcast customer and now im pretty concerned lol

I could talk my parents to going back to W.O.W

the_technocrat

Trumandrummer wrote:

im so confused,

may I ask what is "bcc'ing all traffic to NSA" mean??????

I am a comcast customer and now im pretty concerned lol

I could talk my parents to going back to W.O.W

It's not Comcast alone, but every provider that will do so when requested by just about any agency. It's the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and extension of the wiretapping laws to the broadband industry. Doesn't matter what provider you go with in this respect.

Now in terms of shady business practice, it's a whole 'nother argument.

deelife

AS a comcaster in defense, yes this might be shady business but Verizon isnt even close to being innocent. even if they comment they wont do their stradegy like comcast. Verizon FioS didn't even want to put there fiber system everywhere, and they still arent. FCC gave them like 9years to complete only 70% coverage area in the metro Richmond area. So places that Comcast has always been like your projects, Verizon will never see. They wanted to cherrypick the better neighborhoods. Thats SHADY business!!

Also on the speed factor, comcast is right beside verizon on the upload also, well in VA anyway!

Thrax

Verizon <b>can't</b> put their fiber system everywhere, and the reason you described to explain it is a myth. FiOS is officially classified as a telecommunications technology with the FCC. Because of laws related to the dissolution of telecom monopolies and market competition, Verizon must either already own the POTS market in the area, or lease "Space" in the area from a competitor.

For example, former Ameritech (Now SBC/AT&T) cities will never see FiOS rollouts, as AT&T withholds the telecom rights in its area. This means the inferior UVerse system.

Even if they're in a neighborhood where they could achieve 100% deployment, it has to be profitable for them to do so. Rolling fiber through dumpy-ass inner-city 'burbs just isn't going to return their investment. It's basic capitalism, not shady business.

Remarkably, Verizon's ISP division is amongst the most progressive and "Open" national ISPs available. They do not endorse traffic filtering or monitoring of any kind, and have on several occasions resisted MPAA/RIAA subpœnas.

Jengo

im glad we have Qwest, Verizon, Charter Communications and Clearwire all competing for my business. Im also glad that comcast is not one of those choices.

Personally though, i use qwest, never had any major issues with them, they are okay i guess... lol

the_technocrat

Thrax wrote:

Verizon <b>can't</b> put their fiber system everywhere, and the reason you described to explain it is a myth. FiOS is officially classified as a telecommunications technology with the FCC. Because of laws related to the dissolution of telecom monopolies and market competition, Verizon must either already own the POTS market in the area, or lease "Space" in the area from a competitor.

For example, former Ameritech (Now SBC/AT&T) cities will never see FiOS rollouts, as AT&T withholds the telecom rights in its area. This means the inferior UVerse system.

Even if they're in a neighborhood where they could achieve 100% deployment, it has to be profitable for them to do so. Rolling fiber through dumpy-ass inner-city 'burbs just isn't going to return their investment. It's basic capitalism, not shady business.

Remarkably, Verizon's ISP division is amongst the most progressive and "Open" national ISPs available. They do not endorse traffic filtering or monitoring of any kind, and have on several occasions resisted MPAA/RIAA subpœnas.

agreed.

That is all.