Updated with Comcast/FCC antics: BitTorrenters - Edward Markey Has Your Back

From Reuters

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior lawmaker said on Wednesday he had introduced legislation designed to prevent broadband Internet providers from unreasonable interference with subscribers' access to content.

The bill offered by Rep. Edward Markey is the latest to raise concerns about "net neutrality," an issue that pits open-Internet advocates against some service providers such as Comcast Corp, who say they need to take reasonable steps to manage traffic on their networks.

Markey, chairman of a House subcommittee on the Internet, said his bill was aimed at preserving the "open architecture" of the Internet and preventing content providers from being subjected to "unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers."

"Our goal is to ensure that the next generation of Internet innovators will have the same opportunity, the same unfettered access to Internet content, services and applications that fostered the developers of Yahoo, Netscape and Google," Markey said in a statement.

The bill also would require communications regulators to study the issue and hold public hearings.

Markey dismissed fears that his initiative was an attempt to "regulate" the Internet. "The bill contains no requirements for regulations on the Internet whatsoever," he said in another statement.

 

A major offender here is Comcast.  Due to the insane amounts of data that BitTorrent allows users to share, Comcast is claiming that they need to curb the flow of information to reduce overall traffic and maintain performance.  Now I was under the impression that their service was supposed to be unlimited.  Is it really the consumers' fault that they didn't anticipate the amount of bandwidth that would be demanded by super users?  Later in the article, it is mentioned that Time-Warner may go to a system of charging by the kilo-, mega- or giga-byte as opposed to a flat-rate unlimited plan.  While it certainly seems a step backwards (remember when AOL first launched and it was like $20/month for 10 hours and like $2/hour after that?) but it would clear up the current confusion.  Because, quite honestly, if I have a plan that is marketed as and named "Unlimited" I take that at face value.  I mean does "Oh, it's unlimited unless you use it a lot" seem like a decent argument?  If I weren't going to use it a lot would I have needed/wanted an unlimited package?

Cell phone companies have unlimited plans; do you think they could really get away with all-of-a-sudden limiting service because they used too many minutes?

Bottom Line (well, my bottom line):

If you're going to market a service as unlimited that's exactly what it should be.  It really isn't my (or my fellow consumers') fault that you didn't anticipate how much usage that would really be.  If you need to change the billing structure, then do it.  Just be up-front and honest about it and we'll all respect you that much more for it.

Anyone else been surprised by an unlimited plan/service that wasn't as "unlimited" as you thought?

UPDATE -

Here are Comcast's Terms and Conditions for High-Speed Internet, from their website.  These T's and C's are referred to at the end of all of the various cable internet pricing plans.

Speed comparisons for downloads only and compare Comcast download speed of 6.0 Mbps to 1.5 Mbps DSL. Many factors affect speeds. Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. PowerBoost only available with Comcast's 6.0/8.0 speed plans. PowerBoost provides bursts of download speed above the customer's provisioned download speed for the first 10 MB of a file. It then reverts to your provisioned speed for the remainder of the download.  Offer expires 3/31/08. Offer limited to Comcast Video customers who have not subscribed to Comcast High-Speed Internet service for past 120 days. Retail offers may vary. Equipment (including a cable modem) required and offer does not include equipment charges. FOLLOWING THE PROMOTIONAL PERIOD, COMCAST'S REGULAR CHARGES APPLY UNLESS SERVICE IS CANCELED BY CALLING 1-888-COMCAST. May not be combined with any other offer. Professional installation (for an additional fee) required for non-Comcast cable video customers, and rates vary according to service area. Self-Install Kit, requires customer installation, may only be used for existing cable wired outlets, and is not available in all areas. $9.95 shipping and handling applies if Self-Install Kit is shipped. Prices shown do not include taxes and fees. Pricing and content may change. Call Comcast for restrictions, minimum requirements, and details about service and prices. Use subject to Comcast High-Speed Internet terms and conditions. © Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.

Now it should be noted that no where does it say "unlimited." In fact, Comcast pointed that out in its FCC Filing.  But where does it imply a limitation of bandwidth?  Seeing as how most internet services are indeed unlimited nowadays is it really unresonable for someone to assume that, unless stated otherwise, there's won't be as well?

For instance, I used to have mobile broadband from Sprint.  They offered a plan that was unlimited and one that was, I believe, 40MB/Month for $39.99. 

Now if the latter plan didn' t mention that it was limited to 40MB and just said "Sprint Mobile Broadband for $39.99" I would probably assume that it was unlimited.  Now, as much as Andrew might want me to, I'm not getting into the nitty gritty of the filing and actual FCC policy.  This is because a) I am not a lawyer, legislator or lobbyist and b) I don't really care.

I "don't care" not out of indifference but because it isn't fair to the consumer to to use ambiguous terminology in the marketing of your products or its limitations.  If they had just said "during peak usage times some customers may notice a slight drop in performance to accomodate affitional users on the network" I think they could have avoided a lot of headaches. 

Now I'm not saying that I think consumers need to have their hands held every step of the way, being treated like small children who are completely devoid of having personal responsibility.  But, to hammer the point home, if you're providing a service and collecting a fee for it just be up-front with me.  Not by way of an FCC Filing but right up front, right along with the other tech spec's and features. 

So let's make a deal.  Right now.  I'll tell you what I want, you tell me what your product can and will do, and we'll take it from there.  If you can give me what I'll want, I'll buy from you and be happy.  If you can't, that's ok, I'll just go somewhere else.  But please don't promise (or imply by omitting limitations) that you can do things that you can't or won't.  I'm not going to threaten pointless legal action or some annying anti-corporate rally.  I will, however, let anyone who reads know that I think that corporate dishonesty is really shitty.