FCC set to punish Comcast on P2P blocking

The five FCC commissioners grill Comcast representatives at a public hearing held in Cambridge, Mass., earlier this year.

(Credit: Anne Broache/CNET News)

The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to take steps to punish Comcast for allegedly blocking access to file-sharing traffic.

Three of the five FCC commissioners have voted in favor of an item saying Comcast violated federal policy by dialing down peer-to-peer traffic over its network, according to FCC officials cited in The Wall Street Journal.

The news isn't much of a surprise, given that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has publicly criticized Comcast for the practice and recommended to the rest of the commissioners that they vote in favor of the decision.

"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers' access to the Internet," the Associated Press quoted Martin saying earlier this month. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

If the punishment comes through, which is all but assured now, Comcast wouldn't be fined. But it would be ordered to stop blocking or slowing traffic to peer-to-peer sites like BitTorrent, explain to consumers and the commission how it has blocked such traffic in the past, and publicly disclose how it plans to manage its network in the future.

Comcast hasn't denied slowing traffic to file-sharing sites. At a public hearing in February, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said, "Comcast may on a limited basis temporarily delay certain P2P traffic when that traffic has or is projected to have an adverse effect on other customers' use of the service."

However, Cohen did deny blocking such sites outright, saying, "Comcast does not block any Web site, application, or Web protocol, including peer-to-peer services, period. What we are doing is a limited form of network management objectively based upon an excessive bandwidth-consumptive protocol during limited periods of network congestion," he explained.

A final ruling on the issue is expected to come at a commission meeting scheduled for August 1.

[Trerro]

It'd be nice if what Comcast said actually matched reality. If I run a single torrent capped at a tiny fraction of my bandwidth at 4 in the morning, my entire connection slows to a crawl. If I pause the torrent, it'll return to normal a minute or two later.
While I'm not sure what they consider "peak time", and "abnormally high congestion", I can say pretty confidently that neither of those occurs at 4 AM.
I'm glad the FCC is stepping in here, because if don't go after one company for this, it won't be long before all the major ones do it.

[quarky42]

This described exactly what happens to me. I would be glad to limit my bandwidth usage to something reasonable, however their practices involve EFFECTIVELY blocking connections/transfers to other torrent users.

[BandwidthGuru]

Its likely that Comcast management has a policy consistent with what they say, but don't have their equipment properly configured to implement it. I can assure you that virtually ALL ISPs do some sort of bandwidth management. "Good" equipment will allow bursting for some reasonable amount of time, several minutes to allow for full speed downloads of reasonably sized files, and then knock down the bandwidth after that. Cablevision will actually permanently cap your bandwidth and you have to call them to remove the block (they always play dumb but then it magically starts working ok). Cable companies have wholly incompetent staffs so its highly possible that corporate policy and what the technicians do aren't in sync.

[nicmart]

It Comcast is stating the truth about its reason for slowing the connections, then it seems like a sensible practice.

[quarky42]

Comcast is lying about what they are doing to the traffic so why expect them to tell the truth as for the reason? torrents are pretty much blocked 100% of the time....not "limited" or "delayed"... unless you count "indefinite" and "100% loss" as limited and delayed.

[MarkBentley]

I don't think it's unreasonable to selectively block traffic, as long as the practice is entirely disclosed to present and potential users. If they don't deliver what they say they will, then it's simply fraud. If Comcast is going to promise 6 Mb/s, 8 Mb/s, or whatever, in exchange for my money, then they need to provide it. If they're going to limit me, then they need to tell me before I sign up for the service so I know what I'm paying for. They wouldn't like it if I selectively refused to pay some of my monthly expenses because the demands on my budget are higher at some times than they are at others...

[sys6656]

A few things... I am so happy to read that the FCC is going to fine Comcast! Very great news for all!
First, it's not only "bandwidth usage" in question. It is the "you can not use this application" that is also a concern of many people. I bet if Comcast and other big ISP's had their way.. they would be saying "oh no.. you can use this application to download files.. for a $$$additional price$$$.
Second, Using a application like bit torrent is very awesome for downloading large .ISO files.. for instance different versions of the Linux Operating System is easier to download on a Bit Torrent Client then straight from a FTP server... faster at any rate. So Bit Torrent does have "legit" uses.
Third, If a ISP does not have the bandwidth to support their users activities, they should get out of the ISP business.. period.
That's all folks..

[Lerianis]

I agree with your last statement most of all. You are EXACTLY right that if an ISP cannot afford to give people the service that they paid for (and Comcast gets a VERY good rate of 5 dollars per 500GB's from the backbone guys) then they should get out of this business.

[Gayle Edwards]

This is completely ridiculous...

First, Comcast WASNT, just, "...slowing connections". They were shown to have actually TERMINATED them by sending bogus (I.E. fraudulent) reset-packets.

Second, Comcast WASNT, simply, "...managing" traffic/bandwidth. They were, indiscriminately, attacking very-specific applications... (apparently, 24/7).

Third, Comcast has, actually, pretty-much, been given a complete get-out-of-jail-free pass, by the FCC, on this entire matter.

Fourth, Comcast still refuses to even admit, what they have been PROVEN to have actually done (claiming that, since there are no actual "Network-Neutrality" laws... what they did was, and is, completely legitimate. And, that they [Comcast] fully intend to continue these, very, types of practices).

Fifth, the FCC ISNT going to actually -punish- Comcast (...or even stop these practices in the future). And, based upon these realities, I defy anyone to demonstrate that the FCC isnt actually, fully, on the side of such big-business actions. In short, I will believe that the government is on the side of the -consumer-, when I see REAL consumer-protection (...NOT before).

And, finally... simply, publicly, telling consumers that they are going to continue to be subjected to such unreasonable, and unacceptable, business-practices... DOES NOT make them okay.

[Lerianis]

Yep, the forged reset packets thing was what turned me against Comcast on this subject as well. Slowing down a person's connection (as long as they gave them a credit on their account!) was okay with me..... forging my identity on their network and making it seem that I was unreachable while using certain p2p and other applications was NOT.

[Staticontheline]

A ++++++ Completely Agree

[jessiepdx]

I totally agree! I had business class account (with the worse tech support response time - 5 days!) and was using a torrent application here and there. Every time I used a torrent app, I would completely lose my connection and have to have tech support out to fix it... the modem became "unpingable" and they couldn't reset it remotely. I asked the tech the 3rd time this happened what the deal was and he said I was trying to access a port that was reserved for Comcast use and that is why my connection was terminated. Total BS of course and when I asked what port range was reserved he had no reply. If the government won't punish companies that do this to their customers than a class action lawsuit is the only answer.

[tekwiz4u]

It's a good thing the FCC is considering to punish them. As much money Comcast makes, I think they take upon themselves to realize it's not the customer's fault to get what they pay for. Hire consultants and spend some of that millions on upgrading to a better network infrastructure. Get fiber if you have to, but stop imposing caps!

[Lerianis]

I just have to say: Go FCC go! Take them to task for their saying that people are 'overusing' their system as well and downloading or uploading too much, since they are selling 'unlimited' service.

[Staticontheline]

Yeah its nice to see the FCC stepping in, however lets be realistic about this. Comcast already charges a Ridiculous amount for their service and you dont actually get what that service promises. They slime their way threw loop holes saying, Up to a speed of and dependent upon network congestion, all the time throwing out big numbers like 16mbps. Come on! I have not once seen any speed differ when switching packages. The max speed I have ever seen comcast deliver was 300kbps and believe it or not was on the lesser package. Still 50+ dollars for interent is insane!. So yea, step in FCC and fine them, Its the users that will pay that fine, not comcast!!!

[theprofessional747]

Go FCC!

[IronbirdAIT]

finally our government actually stood up for the people for once. i hope this goes as a warning to all other isps that try to do the same thing in the US. I honestly believe that an amendment should be added to the constitution that protects the internet from government and corporate attack. after all the internet we use today was a byproduct of the US military's ARPANET.

[lowkei]

[FikeForce]

This is the beginning of the end. The FCC should keep it's paws off. We don't need government stepping in and pretending they have control over the internets. <-W 4tw

[perogi21]

I wish that when I got into trouble, someone would "punish" me the way the FCC is punishing Comcast. What a joke.

[Dead Soulman]

That's right. Punish that MoFo. About time government agencies started to look out for those they should be working for, the American people.

[Magicland]

What's the FCC going to do to "punish" them? Make them go to bed without dessert for a month? It's a BS slap on the wrist, when they should be getting a multi-million dollar fine, something that will make them think twice before doing it again. They're STILL doing it. All I've got to do is fire up BitTorrent, make a file available (bandwidth capped, mind you), and as soon as anyone starts downloading, my connection speed goes to crap. It's so bad that I can't even use my VOIP phone for a conversation. THAT is a CRIME, and Comcast should pay.

[BandwidthGuru]

The truth is that networks could not provide access speeds that they do for the price they do if they didn't do bandwidth management. Its reasonable to do things generally like "if you download continously for X amount of time your bandwidth will be reduced for some amount of time". What not ok is cable companies deciding what applications are ok and which are not ok. You're paying for bandwidth. The p2p programs typically are abusive by nature, but if you choose to use them to pull down a song once in a while (without leaving it running all day) then you should be able to do it.