The FCC reportedly stands ready to punish Comcast for its "network management" practices, a decision that may bolster the prospect of CRTC action against Canadian providers who engage in similar traffic shaping.
FCC To Punish Comcast Over Traffic Shaping
July 11, 2008
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
byMichael Geist

May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
Make It Make Sense: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Plan
Why Social Media and AI Chatbot Bans for Kids Are Bad Policy: Making the Case at the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Tech Committee

I think this is good news for the Net Neutrality movement in Canada. I just hope the CRTC identifies the need for transparency with ISPs and the dangers of using DPI.
Great news!! I wonder if/how many law suits will occur even after they are penalized. Im certainly no expert but shouldn’t the customers who sat and watched their internet throttled on bit torrent etc be entitled to some kind of compensation especially if they were well within their policy agreements?
sanction of Comcast
This might be not so much a ruling on net neutrality, as on the method used to accomplish it. They killed bittorrent connections by forging reset packets from the other end of the communication. That can be interpreted as a man-in-the-middle attack on an ongoing communication, rather than a slow-down or refusal to carry.