FCC wants to know: Is degrading P2P traffic 'reasonable'?

Update 10:53 a.m. PST: This blog was updated to add information about a third petition related to antidiscrimination rules for text messaging.

As foreshadowed at the Consumer Electronics Show last week, federal regulators this week took the first formal step into investigating complaints about how Internet service providers, such as Comcast, manage peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic on their networks.

The Federal Communications Commission late on Monday posted requests for public comment about two such petitions, both of which deal with the question of what practices constitute "reasonable network management"--and therefore jibe with the FCC's policies. The agency is also seeking feedback on how to handle a third petition dealing with wireless companies' policies for shuttling text messages.

One petition was filed in November by a collection of consumer advocacy groups that supports Net neutrality regulations, including Free Press, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, and Consumers Union. Responding to reports that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, they asked the FCC to declare that "degrading peer-to-peer traffic" violates the FCC's Internet policy statement, which says consumers can generally use the applications and access the Web sites of their choosing, with an exception for "reasonable network management."

Comcast, for its part, has maintained all along that it abides by those principles and that any traffic management falls within that exception.

The second related petition came from Vuze, a file-sharing application that specializes in videos. The firm asked the FCC to "clarify" what it means by "reasonable network management" and, clearly in an attempt to protect its service, "to establish that such network management does not permit network operators to block, degrade or unreasonably discriminate against lawful Internet applications, content or technologies."

A third petition, filed jointly by many of the same consumer groups that filed the peer-to-peer petition, asks the FCC to declare that text-messaging services are subject to a portion of federal communications law that bars telecommunications companies from engaging in "any unjust or unreasonable discrimination" related to charges, services, and other practices. The request, filed in December, appears to stem primarily from a situation in which Verizon Wireless initially refused to carry text messages from a prominent reproductive rights activist group.

Anyone who has something to say about the petitions will have until February 13 to do so at the FCC's Web site or by postal mail. After reviewing the comments, the FCC is expected to decide whether to grant what the petitioners are requesting.

"These inquiries will go a long way to setting out a road map for determining who will control the Internet," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge.

The petitions being addressed are fairly broad, but FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said at CES last week that the agency would also be looking into the specific situations involving Comcast Verizon Wireless. According to an Associated Press report from Monday, Comcast confirmed receiving a "letter of inquiry" from the FCC and said it looked forward to responding.

What will actually emerge from the inquiry--for instance, what sort of penalties would be imposed on companies found to have violated the FCC's principles--seems less clear.

"We don't comment on potential enforcement matters," FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin said Tuesday.

[scdecade]

I'm from the government and...

I'm here to help you.

[svendster]

Well, it's not the government that's violating its contract with and discriminating against particular customers. Mocking all government efforts to regulate and oversee the market just plays into the hands of special interest groups and Big Business who want to be able to screw consumers at will.<br /><br />Given the pattern that repeats itself ad nauseam, I'd like to see people quip occasionally, "I'm from a big corporation and I'm here to get government handouts and suck consumers dry without even paying my already low income taxes." A recent study shows that most corps don't pay *any* income taxes! For link and my $0.02: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2008/08/yeah-those-liberals-dont-understand-the-economy.html" target="_newWindow">http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2008/08/yeah-those-liberals-dont-understand-the-economy.html</a>

[mmccaull]

Monopoly justifies not honoring contract...

...story at 11.<br /><br />When you sign up for an ISP (like Comcast) they advertise a certain upload speed and a certain download speed. They should be held to honoring this committment. Degrading P2P is violating that committment.<br /><br />I suspect that Comcast uses this tactic to garner money from the record companies. In Vonage's case they used this tactic to 'convince' (strong arm) their customers to pay extra for IP phone service.<br /><br />The government exists to do what business won't (in a pure market economy). Our market economy is far from pure. This article is 'case in point'...

[Leria]

No degradation of p2p traffic is reasonable

However, limiting Bittorrent speeds is somewhat reasonable, as long as it doesn't go too far.<br /><br />Really, I think that Comcast is being a whiny baby and violating the agreements that people have with them when they are forging reset packets to clients...... maybe it's time that Azureus and the other Bittorrent client makers found out a way that they can tell if a reset packet is forged or not.<br /><br />Comcast does have the right to limit someone's internet speeds in order to keep from degrading other people's service, HOWEVER..... let's be blunt: Comcast is really doing this to save on Gigabyte-costs and to deter people from using their service to the full extent they should be able to, NOT for consideration of other customers.

[Kissmyne]

Ok then..

The funny thing is the limiting of Bittorrent speeds is in fact what some are calling degradation. <br /><br />Network prioritizing is a necessity, and p2p should have a considerably lower priority. I like my bandwidth. I even use p2p from time to time.. lower priority really doesn't seem to affect it.<br /><br />Not to say reset packets are wrong, but as far as anything besides that goes, Comcast is in fact on the money. <br /><br />If you really don't like Comcasts moves, go to Qwest(Or what ever other alternative you see fit. No ones stopping ya.

[The_Decider]

Comcast

Comcasts network has nothing to do with net neutrality. I am not sure why people who should know better keep bringing it up.<br /><br />It has everything to do with Comcast needing QOS to guarantee all the real time services it charges for.

[Leria]

Absolutely wrong.

I am sorry, but I have to say this: Are you a Comcast shill?<br /><br />Heck, even the people who WORK for Comcast who I know, realize that this is not QoS, and they are the people who take care of Comcast's network.<br /><br />They realized that this falls SQUARELY on the issue of network neutrality, i.e. not forcing someone to use or NOT use a specific program, or degrading the service of that program solely because you don't like it being run on your network.<br /><br />QoS would be if Comcast limited bandwidth or connections for BitTorrent softare, not forging reset packets and making it appear that people cannot be reached after they finish downloading something via BitTorrent.

[directorblue]

Comcast's approach appears to be a denial of service (DOS) attack

Forging TCP RST packets isn't exactly the recommended approach to bandwidth limiting, especially when it is only targeting certain types of TCP traffic (e.g., BitTorrent).

[The_Decider]

LOL

DoS attack? LOL <br /><br />It is called QoS. Quality of service. Certain packets get lower priority then those that need certain guarantees.<br /><br />It is used on almost any private network(which Comcast has), unless the network admins are retards.

[Eryoe]

Direct link ?.

I have gone to the FCC website (link from here) and find nothing related to this story. Are any links available direct to the FCC website for the public comments on Comcast degrading P2P traffic ?.<br /><br />Thanks.

[Imalittleteapot]

How to deal with this.

Limiting bandwidth in anyway is simply saying we can?t handle the load. America is already behind some other countries in bandwidth. The mistake is the mind set of a normal user that just wants to check their mail.<br /><br />How much bandwidth does checking your mail or surfing the web take? Well the fallacy here is that because it has been a low bandwidth task in the past that it still is, and it always will be.<br /><br />With more people wanting to send video mails, and transfer high-res images of their new born to grandma or stream video from YouTube instead of watching TV we have to realize that mail and web browsing isn?t all that low bandwidth anymore. No one can deny that web use continues to suck up more bandwidth then it did before. I?m not using my 14.4 anymore.<br /><br />Bittorrent should be thought of as a blessing because it is a warning that we need more infrastructure. Think of every flash advertisement that you see when you are browsing the web. I don?t know when, but one day those advertisements will all be high-def streaming video and there could be two or three on every page. Also, nobody knows what bandwidth requirements new technologies will require.<br /><br />Low bandwidth has already held us back. Video conferencing over the web has always been crap. Streaming video is horrible quality. Being able to access your files from anywhere and at anytime has been held back by bandwidth. Some companies are trying to market online backup services, but who wants to back up 100 gigs of data online. I have two 500 gig hard drives. I don?t think I?ll be backing that up to online storage any time soon.<br /><br />Comcast needs to stop being a babies and running to the Government saying, ?Please don?t make us innovate or actually spend money. Let us just cancel transfers we don?t like.? Well that?s just the equivalence of rolling blackouts for the Internet. It?s only going to get worse. It isn?t like you are going to wake up tomorrow and the Internet is going to require less bandwidth.<br /><br />If you have to run five dedicated lines to my house alone then just do it. Stop complaining about it. I know it would take some time and require some investment, but that?s what business do so do it. This is just another example of an artificial shortage so they can up the price.

[inachu]

Time to step in when.

When a linux torrent has 900 seeds and over 3000 leechers and the download is only around 700 to 2. gig in size and it takes 1 week to download then yes FCC needs to step in.<br />Obvious traffic shaping there. <br /><br />This used to take me only a day and a half to download.

[Matthew Saroff]

It;'s Not Just Bittorrent

It interferes with people who use Lotus Notes too.

[darenshawn]

In my opinion degrading P2P service will not help in data control. Neither it will help in a better network management. It will only limit the imaginations and competitiveness of the citizens because even if the degrading is carried out here that will not equally carried out else where. By that time the citizens will lose a powerful medium to the whatever data.<br /><br />Daren<br />&lt;a href="http://www.reviewhostgator.org/"&gt;hostgator&lt;/a&gt;