Comments on: FCC: We'll investigate Comcast-BitTorrent flap

At CES, chief Kevin Martin says agency plans to determine whether Comcast's reported interference with file-sharing traffic is "reasonable network management."

[cidman2001]

Bandwidth Throttling from Charter

It's about time someone has taken notice of this sleazy practice. Comcast isn't the only company throttling bandwidth. Charter Communications uses Ellacoya equipment to throttle voip and file-sharing traffic.

I think using bandwidth throttling is fraudulent. This notion that 'taking "reasonable" steps to manage the functioning of its network so that its users get the best possible service' is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors way to say "We're not going to invest in the network to ensure that everyone gets the bandwidth advertised."

For instance, in my area, Charter just bumped everyone who had 3meg service to 5meg. In reality the "spped boost" did nothing for Voip and file-sharing customers because they're being throttled. It's not up to the ISP to determine what type of legal traffic I'm generating, but they are responsible to deliver the bandwidth they advertise.
This is a classic case of false advertising as far as I can see it.......

I hope Congress and the FCC will make sure this practice is punished as harshly as file-sharers get....

[The_Decider]

Name 1 network

Whether it is a private network which is what Comcast is(which makes net neutrality irrelevant).

It is no different then a university network throttling certain types of traffic, or any competent business network.

Throttling packing on Comcasts network is far different then prioritizing packets on major internet routers. It is not only close to the same thing.

Comcast provides many services that require real time service for a fee on their network. Bit Torrent has no such requirements. Guess what is going to be throttled from time to time?

If you want a dedicated internet connection where you are not competing with your neighbors for bandwidth, why the hell are you using cable broadband?

[dargon19888]

Its Comcast's network...

This has got to be the worst example of government interference with an ISP.

Its the ISP's network they have a right to control the type of traffic that is carried over their network.

You don't like the quality of service? Then leave.
That simple.

[lynxss]

Its censorship

Carriers are specifically prohibited from censoring content that passes through their network. This is to prevent say AT&T from disconnecting all calls discussing a political view they dont agree with or competitors pricing etc. Until only recently when the laws changed ISPs were also classified as a "carrier" of information, meaning they owned the network but they could not censor any of the content that flowed through that network.

I agree that torrent traffic is a bandwidth hog and not high priority, although I use it for linux distros, so its within the ISPs right to slow that down for the betterment of everyone else if they choose but this isn't what Comcast was doing. Comcast was actively disconnecting torrent clients as a way to completely block traffic. That is censorship, they are not traffic shaping by slowing down some traffic to let higher priority packets through first they are blocking torrent traffic all together.

Also the way these broadband plans are sold, by bandwidth, the language basically says you get X amount of bandwidth and you can use it for whatever you want. It should be up to the consumer to choose what they use their block of bandwidth for not the ISP. And if the ISP cant provide the bandwidth they say they can, they need to change. Add capacity or lower the bandwidth per user.

If I pay for X amount of bandwidth, thats what I expect to get not some lower amount, otherwise I'd be ticked and be wanting a refund. It would be like the cell phone companies selling you 1000 mins but only allowing you to use 400 of it because you talk to much and are a bandwidth hog.

[slimpunk]

Tell that to most Comcast subscribers...

And they'll tell you they couldn't change services if they wanted to.
In a lot of places (like the Bay Area where I live), Comcast has a
monopoly on the cable TV and internet.

I agree with the above comment too. Corporate censorship or any
kind is wrong anti-democratic. Switching providers may be a good
solution...if you can do it.

[directorblue]

Martin's a former telco guy - of course he'll investigate Comcast!

Martin's quite a character, isn't he?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/12/700-mhz-and-tim-wus-wireless.html

[LarryBowler]

And the FCC will.....

be a waste of time for everyone.

I agree with Raynovich* "the FCC has been a disaster ever since Reed Hundt convinced us that loading up telecom companies with debt through wireless spectrum auctions was a good idea."

*http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=140252

[libertyforall1776]

Comcast should disclose, but it is private, hence free market

Comcast should disclose what it is dong, but it is a private
business/network and has the right to do what it wants, hence
free-market, and we have the right to select one of their
competitors which does not do such things! ;-)

Go Ron Paul 2008 -- the free-markets President!
http://ronpaul2008.com

[astormchaser]

A nice compromise already exists for ISPs

The solution for Comcast or any ISP is quite simple. NEVER make judgements on what type of traffic is acceptable or not. I think it is this playing "god" role that riles people and customers. An ISP can simply allocate bandwidth resources based on usage patterns without invading privacy. Much the same way a power company meters gas. (they don't tell you what you can cook on your stove?)

As for Bittorrent the problem is generally that these applications open up hundreds of connections to the Internet. Too many internet Connections can bring down a Network , I have diagnosed this problem all the time for my customers.

To resolve it comcast could simply provide each customer with a fixed number of connections to the internet as well as a total amount of throughput (which they already do) This would not single out Bittorrent but rather the resources that a Bittorrent uses. The result would be the same ... Bittorrents might run a bit slower; however there would be no need for the ISP to look at traffic, simply just monitor the Internet resources used.

Although this may sounds like it is the same thing
as just straight out limiting Bittorrent it is quite different.

Think of the Internet as a community resource, if one person in the community is using more than their share most people would agree something should be done about it.

I personally don't like the government telling me not to water my lawn on Tuesdays, I'd much rather have them tell me if I use too much water they will shut me off. So if Comcast would adopt a policy of limiting total connections per user I think they would solve this issue without controversy. Limit the resource NOT the application!

Art Reisman
CTO
www.netequalizer.com