Net neutrality suffers another blow as court rules in favor of Comcast

A US federal court of appeals today struck down a 2008 FCC sanction against Comcast for blocking P2P channels from its customers. The overruling stated that the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to "regulate an Internet service provider's network management practice." 

The D.C. Court of Appeals stated that the FCC, a US government telecommunications regulation agency, does not explicitly have the legal power to require internet service providers to supply equal and uncensured traffic over their networks. 

The FCC originally used their four-part "Internet Policy Statement" against Comcast in 2008, citing that they were in violation of "reasonable network management" because of their hand in traffic discrimination and ordered the US-based internet provider to stop. Comcast appealed the FCC's case to the court and asserted that they did not have the authority to regulate their network because the "Internet Policy Statement" was just a set of guidelines that had no legal bearing over them or the industry. The court today agreed with them, stipulating that the US Congress gave them no authority to sanction Comcast for their practices.

The FCC has been a strong proponent of net neutrality and the current chairman Julius Genachowski is heading an effort from Congress and the courts to make its net neutrality principles enforceable. The FCC will unquestionably be appealing the ruling and will continue to try and get legislative support from Congress to make net neutrality law in the United States.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

More than just Pink coming on April 12

Next Story

AOL to sell or shut down Bebo

67 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I just got thinking comcast says in there tv ad. you can download at 12 mbs yet they never say there a limit of 250 Gb ... if you can as there tv ad say 12 Mbs how much would the = over a 30 days ... way over 250 Gb .... so there not the fastest ... dialup running at max speed could over 30 24 hr days could get clost to the 250 Gb limit in 30 days ... so comcast would not be no faster then dialup IF ONE download 24/7 for 30 days... I personal havenot done the math but i would bet I'm close to being right.... so maybe they should have to tell about the 250 limit in there TV ads... whart do you think?????

I got a call from comcast yesterday telling me i pass the 250 g limit and if it heppen again i would lost my internet for a year... I live about 1/4 miles aff the road and it cost me $6.00 a ft to get the line run to my house (they pay the first 150 ft) now 2 year later i'm about to lose the money i invested to get internet... yet no one from comcast tode me anything about a download limit.... they clame i download 750 Gb yet my router did not support that tho i was over the limit, so they lie to me in a number of ways.. I think they should tell there custormer about the limit when they sign up and have one to sign and agrement but they think they can just take the service i pay for from me for access a site they don't like. govenment , comcast takeover????

How many of you fail to realize that these cable/internet companies only came around because our government gave them the money to lay the millions of miles of cable all over the nation. It came from out tax dollars. Sure, they paid/are paying it back, but still, when you borrow from something like that, you are in debt to them just as much.
I like how everyone is all against the government getting into things, yet the government is already in ever aspect of your life already. School, jobs, safety, news, and even food.
A big business left alone will just rob from the people, because at the end, its only about money. The government's job is to make sure big business does not do that, and that is what the FCC is trying to do. No where did they say they wanted to control traffic, in fact, they stated they want to make sure that no one controls traffic, and that the internet is a free place for all to share and communicate freely. The ones trying to control the internet as the ones we are paying for the service.

shakey said,
How many of you fail to realize that these cable/internet companies only came around because our government gave them the money to lay the millions of miles of cable all over the nation.....

Cable TV has been around for a long time now... is it true that government paid for this infrastructure? Link please.

Disappointed, but the court is right.
FCC can't "take" the power, Congress will have to make a net neutrality law, then the FCC can enforce it. Not the FCC try to enforce something where a law is not in place.
Now if the gov gets off it's duff and try and pass net neutrality.

I'm all for net neutrality but impossible regulations on private companies is another thing. Since comcast is a private company, they should be allowed to block whatever they so desire. If you don't like it then don't sign up, or get another ISP, or better yet start your own. The government has no right to decide what type of service private companies provide, if enough people complain about comcast's bad service they will either change their ways or people will move to something better. That's the great thing about a free market. I don't really like comcast but they should be able to do as they please. When the government sticks it's hands in things they just end up messing things up.

The entire problem with your argument is that in many if not most parts of the country, there are few if any options for internet service. At best, many places have 2 or 3. And once one company starts filtering traffic, nothing is going to stop the others from doing the same once they realize that its far cheaper to simply boot people off who complain about the service.

The other problem is that comcast screwed over its customers without warning the first time they did this. A friend of mine was playing WoW when they blocked all P2P access on the internet. He never got a warning that it was going to happen. It simply turned off. That is by definition comcast breaking contract. That should be illegal.

They argue they turned off P2P to stop illegal file sharing but its a business. As long as they are getting paid they don't care. They did this to increase their profit margin by disabling the part of the internet that is bandwidth heavy. Thanks to this court ruling, every ISP now has the right to block its customers from using websites like youtube and from playing any games. Comcast doesnt offer a service for more money to get these services either. It simply made the decision to never allow you to use the internet like you contract says you can. ISP's are now open to charge you for using streaming video, music, gaming, downloading anything other than a basic webpage and blocking entire web pages unless you pay extra for it.

BTW, ISP's get money from the government to develop their networks across the country. How can the US government support these companies that sensor the internet while condemning China for doing the exact same thing. According to the qoute below, not only is what China doesn't not illegal, but perfectly ethical.

"The D.C. Court of Appeals stated that the FCC, a US government telecommunications regulation agency, does not explicitly have the legal power to require internet service providers to supply equal and uncensured traffic over their networks. "

I'm with the FCC on this one. Even if I do have nothing to hide then I still hate the thought of having censored and restricted internet.

Let me break it down for every one here since a lot of people on both sides are a bit misinformed about what this is.

What the FCC is trying to do is analogous to the FCC telling Microsoft they can only sell one version of Windows.

People shouldn't fear a tiered internet any more than they should fear a 'tiered' variety of Windows.

Furthermore it is local governments colluding with ISPs to lock them into certain regions, this is what is causing ISPs to maintain local monopolies. On one hand we have government creating a problem and on the other hand we have government (FCC) claiming to be our saviors.

This is the same BS game that happens with gas and electric companies.

Please remember these two points.
1. Government is not our friend, it is a necessary evil and never relinquishes back our rights once taken.
2. Some companies are bad and some are good. However Corporations are much more malleable than government. If a company abuses a monopoly our government can break it apart. If our government abuses a monopoly... tough.

mikefarinha said,
Let me break it down for every one here since a lot of people on both sides are a bit misinformed about what this is.

What the FCC is trying to do is analogous to the FCC telling Microsoft they can only sell one version of Windows.

People shouldn't fear a tiered internet any more than they should fear a 'tiered' variety of Windows.

Furthermore it is local governments colluding with ISPs to lock them into certain regions, this is what is causing ISPs to maintain local monopolies. On one hand we have government creating a problem and on the other hand we have government (FCC) claiming to be our saviors.

This is the same BS game that happens with gas and electric companies.

Please remember these two points.
1. Government is not our friend, it is a necessary evil and never relinquishes back our rights once taken.
2. Some companies are bad and some are good. However Corporations are much more malleable than government. If a company abuses a monopoly our government can break it apart. If our government abuses a monopoly... tough.

lol Shouldn't fear tiered internet eh? One where if Time Warner doesn't want me to watch shows on Hulu, in favor of there own non-free tv site they can and most likely will be able to block Hulu on there network unless I pay extra for it. No thanks, I'll take my open internet over that **** any day.

Edited by SharpGreen, Apr 7 2010, 4:37am : spelling error.

SharpGreen said,

lol Shouldn't fear tiered internet eh? One where if Time Warner doesn't want me to watch shows on Hulu, in favor of there own non-free tv site they can and most likely will be able to block Hulu on there network unless I pay extra for it. No thanks, I'll take my open internet over that **** any day.


If you live in an area where TW is locked in and giving crappy service take it up with your local government. They are the ones screwing you over. What kind of ignoramus thinks that an ISP will shut down Hulu?
If your local market was opened up to free competition you could easily vote with your wallet... but you and your ilk prefer to live in your simple little world where government is good and corporations are evil.
What do you think the internet would be like today if it weren't for corporations? It would still be a novelty relegated to universities and the military.

mikefarinha said,

If you live in an area where TW is locked in and giving crappy service take it up with your local government. They are the ones screwing you over. What kind of ignoramus thinks that an ISP will shut down Hulu?
If your local market was opened up to free competition you could easily vote with your wallet... but you and your ilk prefer to live in your simple little world where government is good and corporations are evil.
What do you think the internet would be like today if it weren't for corporations? It would still be a novelty relegated to universities and the military.

If it wasn't for the oh so evil Government the internet wouldn't even exist, since I started as government project. The hulu thing I was using as an example of what could happen if the telcos get there way and get complete control over the net like they want.

Want to download that 12GB game on Steam? throttled! Want to play on a 32man Battlefield server? RST packeted! Want to update that MMO? throttled and RST packeted, oh joy.

Taking $60/month to give someone some internet only to screw over that connection 24/7 so the subscriber can't use it, sounds great. So great in fact that to show Comcast my appreciation I moved from where they were the only choice to somewhere else where I got 50Mb down/up fiber for the same $60/month.

Troll said,
+1 for Americans and freedom of speech.

Truth. Yet few will understand it because of the pathetically biased way this gets reported by failed bloggers and journalists, and a complete lack of understanding over what the "Net Neutrality" scam is.

Troll said,
+1 for Americans and freedom of speech.

Uhhh, no. This ruling is exactly the opposite of that. This ruling grants ISPs the freedom to limit what content you can transfer via the internet and how you can transfer it. How is that a win for freedom of speech?

roadwarrior said,

Uhhh, no. This ruling is exactly the opposite of that. This ruling grants ISPs the freedom to limit what content you can transfer via the internet and how you can transfer it. How is that a win for freedom of speech?

Comcast is a private entity, like you are a private entity. Just as you do not want the government to tell you what you can and cannot say, Comcast shouldn't have the government telling it what it can and cannot do with it's own network.

Net Neutrality laws are no different from "speech regulation" laws. It basically tells a free entity that they are no longer free to do as they see fit for themselves.

There are some deadset idiots on Neowin, and well, most of them have posted in this thread.

Comcast maybe helping the bottom line, but this is also helping all Internet users in your country. It's going to stop the FCC from forcing ISP's to either stop or throttle certain services that you pay for.

How is this a bad thing?

Um NO, the FCC was trying to stop ISPs from doing just that. You got it backwards!!

So who is the idiot again?

war said,
Um NO, the FCC was trying to stop ISPs from doing just that. You got it backwards!!

So who is the idiot again?

You are naive if you think that the FCC wants this power to free things up. This issue is simply the poster issue so that the FCC can establish that it has authority and power. Once that authority and power is established, they will certainly eliminate freedoms and regulate content.

You'll notice the ruling says the FCC doesn't have the jurisdiction or power. The court's ruling protected the constitution and freedom without speaking to the merits of Net Neutrality's ideals.

This comes down to property rights. Who owns the Comcast network? They built it - they provide the service. Who is the federal government to come in and tell Comcast how they should run it?

And besides, the limits they put in place did not "cut it off" or "severely limit" it for 99% of Comcast customers. 250GB a month is a ridiculous amount of data and if Comcast slowed down P2P traffic while people were trying to download a movie during peak times, GOOD.

This "entitlement" attitude is interesting. You have no constitutional right to internet access. And if you don't like Comcast, you are free to go elsewhere.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
This comes down to property rights. Who owns the Comcast network? They built it - they provide the service. Who is the federal government to come in and tell Comcast how they should run it?

And besides, the limits they put in place did not "cut it off" or "severely limit" it for 99% of Comcast customers. 250GB a month is a ridiculous amount of data and if Comcast slowed down P2P traffic while people were trying to download a movie during peak times, GOOD.

This "entitlement" attitude is interesting. You have no constitutional right to internet access. And if you don't like Comcast, you are free to go elsewhere.

Comcast im sure was given help by the government to set up lines everywhere...
Also, if you are paying for a service, you should get that service. No reason, just because I'm dling a bigger file, if we both pay 50$ a month, that I should be slowed down. They should not be giving the speeds of internet out to the customers if they can not handle the customers using such speeds.
This "entitlement" attitude comes from people who purchase $50+ dollar a month internet speeds of 10mbps or higher and don't get it becuase of a program you are using to get something anyone else can get and should be able to get legally. ALso, since you see to be so blind to the plight of the people, what about those where Comcast is the only choice for broadband service? You seem to think there is this wealth of broadband providers in america that we can just pick and choose from, when in reality, there is probably but 4 to choose from in each state, give or take depending on where you are.
Yes, government control is not good on most things, but neither is a business saying, " if you want to watch youtube, pay $5 extra dollars, and if you want to reply to post on neowin, pay another $5 extra dollars....
Of course, the real problem is just the RIAA and other legal associations trying to force their regulations upon companies and users.
and you can't +1 yourself....

Edited by shakey, Apr 6 2010, 9:46pm : saw something else to comment on.

shakey said,

....

like where I live, there is only 1 provider. And they don't serve everywhere, those people are stuck with dialup, and have been told service will not go there due to it costing comcast to much to provide service

shakey said,

Comcast im sure was given help by the government to set up lines everywhere...
Also, if you are paying for a service, you should get that service. No reason, just because I'm dling a bigger file, if we both pay 50$ a month, that I should be slowed down. They should not be giving the speeds of internet out to the customers if they can not handle the customers using such speeds.
This "entitlement" attitude comes from people who purchase $50+ dollar a month internet speeds of 10mbps or higher and don't get it becuase of a program you are using to get something anyone else can get and should be able to get legally. ALso, since you see to be so blind to the plight of the people, what about those where Comcast is the only choice for broadband service? You seem to think there is this wealth of broadband providers in america that we can just pick and choose from, when in reality, there is probably but 4 to choose from in each state, give or take depending on where you are.
Yes, government control is not good on most things, but neither is a business saying, " if you want to watch youtube, pay $5 extra dollars, and if you want to reply to post on neowin, pay another $5 extra dollars....
Of course, the real problem is just the RIAA and other legal associations trying to force their regulations upon companies and users.
and you can't +1 yourself....

Don't forget breaking it down by town. Here in Simsbury, CT you have a choice of Comcast or AT&T (previously SNET; DSL or U-Verse is available). Move a bit and it's Cox and AT&T, or perhaps Cox and Verizon. Comcast has also taken over Adelphia in the Old Lyme area. I see commercials for Charter, but I don't know where that's available.

So really, there isn't any option, it's one or the other. For me, if I had to choose between unsteady speeds, capping, and download restricting vs slightly higher prices, consistent speeds, no caps, no restrictions... I'd choose the more open connection.

Right now, AT&T U-Verse all the way. Consistent 2.0 MBps download speed from anywhere, vs Comcast's start around there and drop to around 1.0 and fluctuate.

But it's really about what is best for you. If you like Comcast's bundles or something, then go with it. If you aren't happy with DSL speeds and U-Verse isn't available, then go with Comcast. It's all about what you need.

Tanshin said,

Don't forget breaking it down by town. Here in Simsbury, CT you have a choice of Comcast or AT&T (previously SNET; DSL or U-Verse is available). Move a bit and it's Cox and AT&T, or perhaps Cox and Verizon. Comcast has also taken over Adelphia in the Old Lyme area. I see commercials for Charter, but I don't know where that's available.

So really, there isn't any option, it's one or the other. For me, if I had to choose between unsteady speeds, capping, and download restricting vs slightly higher prices, consistent speeds, no caps, no restrictions... I'd choose the more open connection.

Right now, AT&T U-Verse all the way. Consistent 2.0 MBps download speed from anywhere, vs Comcast's start around there and drop to around 1.0 and fluctuate.

But it's really about what is best for you. If you like Comcast's bundles or something, then go with it. If you aren't happy with DSL speeds and U-Verse isn't available, then go with Comcast. It's all about what you need.

Exactly, far to few providers to be picky about who we choose. Hell, Here in texas, I tried to get my sister internet at her house. Timewarner doesn't provide for her complex, neither does Cox (even though they are on the same lines and basically the same company... ) as it seemed the complex had some contract with only Suddenlink and AT&T. ATT wanted a $300 security deposit, which they are crazy demanding, So I chose Suddenlink... if you called choosing your only option a real choice. I have no clue how suddenlink acts, but their customer service has been horrible to start. But, I can not go anywhere else, so I am forced, if I want my sister and nephew to be have internet, to stick with them and whatever they put me through.

shakey said,

Exactly, far to few providers to be picky about who we choose. Hell, Here in texas, I tried to get my sister internet at her house. Timewarner doesn't provide for her complex, neither does Cox (even though they are on the same lines and basically the same company... ) as it seemed the complex had some contract with only Suddenlink and AT&T. ATT wanted a $300 security deposit, which they are crazy demanding, So I chose Suddenlink... if you called choosing your only option a real choice. I have no clue how suddenlink acts, but their customer service has been horrible to start. But, I can not go anywhere else, so I am forced, if I want my sister and nephew to be have internet, to stick with them and whatever they put me through.

This is sadly too common for both internet and television. Many apartment complexes or their management will make deals with a company and forbid other companies from providing service to the tenants.

These are also not decisions based on existing infrastructure, as I have seen many apartment complexes that were originally cable wired, but the only subscription TV tenants could get was by going through DirecTV or Dish and have new cabling installed because the owners or the management got kick backs from the local dish installers.

Sadly this is not a free market either, as people have been residents and getting a service and had that service terminated by the apartment complex as their loyalties and kick backs changed.

Who owns the network? Good question. I know I "own" some of it, being a tax payer and all.

Seeing as Comcast used millions in government funding to build "their" network.

So screw the 1% um. I guess we, US, should just say screw hati then?

250GB is nothing, cheap as hell these days for ISP.

So if its not a constitutional right then no right at all? Sure buddy!!

And like others have stated, um know cant really go else where.

Here in good old SC, Time Warner is the only high speed provider. Damn monopoly.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
This "entitlement" attitude is interesting. You have no constitutional right to internet access. And if you don't like Comcast, you are free to go elsewhere.

That's not entirely true. Comcast has a monopoly in my town. Can I get iO or Time-Warner? Nope. I can't even get FIOS because Comcast refuses to sign the agreement to allow Verizon to work on all of the above ground lines on or around their cabling. I could look into DSL but the nearest central hub is 6 miles away from me and I was already told my access would be equivalent to that of 56k by the Verizon rep. What are my other options? Nothing?

Rob2687 said,
If there's money to be made it will be made to happen. Tiered Internet won't be too far off now.
Negative. I'll kill my congressman before than happens. Whooo I'll be famous.

Rob2687 said,
If there's money to be made it will be made to happen. Tiered Internet won't be too far off now.

Exactly the kind of thing Net Neutrality is designed to prevent. And exactly the reason why this ruling is bad.

If I'm right, doesn't WoW use P2P to connect to their servers? And there are legal methods of using P2P (like WoW) and downloading linux distributions through torrenting etc... so I don't understand why the FCC want to totally block it. Maybe it's because I don't live in the US and that I know little about the FCC

djdanster said,
If I'm right, doesn't WoW use P2P to connect to their servers? And there are legal methods of using P2P (like WoW) and downloading linux distributions through torrenting etc... so I don't understand why the FCC want to totally block it. Maybe it's because I don't live in the US and that I know little about the FCC

You're almost right. Blizzard uses BitTorrent to distribute patches and software downloads, but their downloader does fall back to HTTP if there's a problem.

You also have it backwards. The FCC ordered Comcast to open up P2P traffic after Comcast cut it off/severely limited it.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 6 2010, 8:01pm :

On the one hand I can see where Comcast is coming from, however if this is handled wrong or any future rulings misread then it has the potential to do alot of damage in the name of the almight dollar.

Neoauld said,
Ive been seeing lots of US court rulings turning bad lately, no longer there for the people.

whatever you dont know crap about the US, stop trying to start a flame war

Neoauld said,
Ive been seeing lots of US court rulings turning bad lately, no longer there for the people.

This is a power grab by the FCC to take control of the internet the way they already control broadcast television. I'm relieved we still have a few non-statist judges in the country to give good rulings like this one.

Edited by Osirus23, Apr 6 2010, 9:15pm : grammar

Osirus23 said,

This is a power grab by the FCC to take control of the internet the way they already control broadcast television. I'm relieved we still have a few non-statist judges in the country to give good rulings like this one.


I'd much rather have the government control the internet than a few "do-what's-best-for-the-bottom-line-not-for-the-customer" companies.

SharpGreen said,

I'd much rather have the government control the internet than a few "do-what's-best-for-the-bottom-line-not-for-the-customer" companies.

Yeah, living under tyranny is great. The government destroys everything it touches.
Also explain why you think you have the right to someone else's property.

Edited by Osirus23, Apr 6 2010, 9:42pm :

Osirus23 said,

Yeah, living under tyranny is great. The government destroys everything it touches.
Also explain why you think you have the right to someone else's property.

Exactly, we should adopt minimal government policies with no regulation like Haiti, it works so well for the people to not have common services or building codes. Geesh.

Everytime you think government is bad, go look at a video of Haiti, and remind yourself of the good things government does for people.

Neoauld said,
Ive been seeing lots of US court rulings turning bad lately, no longer there for the people.

Sounds like someone is using cheap class analysis to define "people". Corporations consist of people too. In fact, profit making ensures that a lot of people can get jobs at decent wages - hence the purchase-power-parity is doing quite well in the US despite the recent economic crisis.

thenetavenger said,

Exactly, we should adopt minimal government policies with no regulation like Haiti, it works so well for the people to not have common services or building codes. Geesh.

Everytime you think government is bad, go look at a video of Haiti, and remind yourself of the good things government does for people.

You do realize that private individuals and corporations provided more aid to Haiti than any government, sans the USA, which they were within $100k of? http://ocha.unog.ch/fts/report...R24_E15797___1004070205.pdf

Haiti's problems weren't due to a lack of government, it was due to poor government. Big difference.

Osirus23 said,

Yeah, living under tyranny is great. The government destroys everything it touches.
Also explain why you think you have the right to someone else's property.

I seem to recall at one point the Department of Commerce (ie The Government) having control over the root DNS servers of the internet. Don't recall any issues occurring there. What are you talking about? Never said I had right to anyone property.

thenetavenger said,

Exactly, we should adopt minimal government policies with no regulation like Haiti, it works so well for the people to not have common services or building codes. Geesh.

Everytime you think government is bad, go look at a video of Haiti, and remind yourself of the good things government does for people.

Haiti has an authoritarian government. They are a good example of how more government power breeds more corruption.

The problem here in the USA is that if the FCC (AKA the government) starts regulating the internet, that means they say what can and cannot go on the internet. NetNeutrality sounds good, but really it gives away constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (such as free speech). NetNeutrality and the FCC are after government control of the internet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's FCC try to take over internet providers like he's done with the Auto industry (GM), the banking industry (Citi), the Insurance industry (AIG), health care industry, Education, the student loan industry, and any other industry he can weasel his way into and take over. He's already trying to make high speed internet a "right" guaranteed by the government as it is in other socialist countries (such as Finland).

Gup20 said,

Haiti has an authoritarian government. They are a good example of how more government power breeds more corruption.

The problem here in the USA is that if the FCC (AKA the government) starts regulating the internet, that means they say what can and cannot go on the internet. NetNeutrality sounds good, but really it gives away constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (such as free speech). NetNeutrality and the FCC are after government control of the internet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's FCC try to take over internet providers like he's done with the Auto industry (GM), the banking industry (Citi), the Insurance industry (AIG), health care industry, Education, the student loan industry, and any other industry he can weasel his way into and take over. He's already trying to make high speed internet a "right" guaranteed by the government as it is in other socialist countries (such as Finland).


I guess you don't know the definition of neutrality then. Being neutral means not taking a side. So taking that definition and applying it to the internet, would mean that no side gets complete control of the networks that make up the internet. Basically taking the way the internet is now (little regulation and almost no interference) and making it a mandated policy. How hard is that to understand?

Beastage said,
Comcast are fighting for all wrong reasons, this will get legislated anyway in the end.

It doesn't mean they support piraters or child pornography viewers. They just don't agree with the FCC restraining their services.

Skullpture said,
It doesn't mean they support piraters or child pornography viewers. They just don't agree with the FCC restraining their services.

Uh... your statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If Comcast did support pirating (child porn is a totally separate issue from P2P), they wouldn't be fighting the FCC.

vaximily said,

Uh... your statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If Comcast did support pirating (child porn is a totally separate issue from P2P), they wouldn't be fighting the FCC.

Agreed

Beastage said,
Comcast are fighting for all wrong reasons, this will get legislated anyway in the end.

Comcast has little choice. They need to oversell their network to compete with options like FiOS in their most profitable markets and possible government limits on pricing to push universal broadband access in the future. In order to pull these off they need to ensure that the bandwidth intensive applications are throttled or blocked so they can expand this overselling.

It is bad for consumers as Comcast shouldn't oversell their network to such insane amounts, but without legislation from Congress this won't happen.

ISPs should be restricted to the principals of Net Neutrality. If you can't actually offer a customer 10Megabits down 24/7 then you shouldn't sell them 10Megabits down...

The reason this needs to be fixed by congress is more on the honesty and consumer discloure points than anything else... Not to forget the monopoly nature of service in many parts of the US.