Comcast vs. BitTorrent to be focus of FCC hearing

The high-profile squabble over Comcast's slowdown of BitTorrent file-sharing traffic--and broader questions of network handling by Internet service providers--is set for public scrutiny Monday at a federal hearing.

This time, the Federal Communications Commission will depart its headquarters just off the National Mall in Washington and head north to a courtroom on Harvard Law School's campus in Cambridge, Mass. (The FCC wouldn't comment on why the site was selected, but Boston is the home turf of Democratic Rep. Ed Markey, who chairs a House Internet subcommittee.)

The hearing, which will be open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis and be otherwise accessible via an "audio-only" Webcast on the FCC site. It's an outgrowth of the agency's recently launched inquiry into what constitutes "reasonable" network management practices by Internet service providers.

The FCC in 2005 said broadband companies should not block or interfere with lawful Internet use, unless they're doing so for "reasonable" network management purposes, but revelations that Comcast was stalling uploads to BitTorrent protocol clients raised new questions about what "reasonable" means.

The public forum will give the commissioners a chance to quiz company executives and networking experts, and perhaps reveal what they may do next. The regulators have already accepted thousands of written comments from private citizens, interest groups, and corporations concerned about the topic. They may choose, based on the comments, to start a process that would more clearly establish what Internet service providers may and may not do, but they're not obligated to do so.

The event--coupled with Rep. Markey's introduction of an arguably less-regulatory Net neutrality bill last week--also signals a clear revival of a temporarily dormant debate over whether Net neutrality laws are needed.

"What we're going to see on Monday is a trial of the Internet," said Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu who has written extensively in favor of Net neutrality regulations and is slated to speak on a panel Monday. "Comcast is in the docket, accused of crimes against the public interest, and we'll see how well they are able to defend themselves."

Net neutrality, of course, is the idea that network operators like AT&T and Comcast should be prohibited from prioritizing Web content and applications, or charging content owners extra fees for premium delivery. Two years ago, Congress considered handing the FCC extensive power to regulate Internet practices, but it rejected the proposals.

Proponents say such policies are necessary to promote democracy itself--and to ensure that little guys won't be squeezed out of the Internet ecosystem in favor of larger, deeper-pocketed entities. But opponents, including the network operators, say they deserve flexibility to manage their networks as they see fit to serve their customers' interests--for instance, blocking spam and ensuring that use of high-bandwidth applications by some users at peak times doesn't clog the pipes for everyone else.

[zeroplane]

Peak Congestion? 24/7?

Unfortunately I am a Comcast customer and I am very invested in the outcome of this battle. I don't believe that the FCC will actually do anything. But the added press on the issue is encouraging.

Even though Comcast states that they "shape" aka block traffic on peak congestion times it would appear to me, based on my meager testing over the last month that "peak" must mean 24/7.

Three months ago I was getting throughput as high as 6000 Kb/s downloading from services I pay for such as usenet and a few content vendors that provide their content via HTTP. Now, I am lucky to get about 200 Kb/s and my usenet downloads are at 1000 Kb/s. Sometimes my download rate drops to 25 to 10 Kb/s for hours on end. I checked with the services I pay for and they didn't change anything on their end. One can only conclude that it was a change in the ISP not the vendor.

I might also bring up that fact that the services I am mentioning are not like bittorrent they don't upload at all rather it is download only.

How does that fit into their convenient little lie.

[saadhusain]

Next the phone companies will listen in on our voice conversation

And if my wife starts idle talk, they will cut in and impersonating the other side say the call is over. Please explain how this is different.

[nakoa]

regulation hinders growth

Rather than complaining about users tying up the bandwidth, perhaps they should be looking into research and development of new ways to expand the way information is processed. Technology will only continue to move forward when pushed. Regulation of that technology is simply a way for big business to keep things in their comfort zone while striving to get the most money as possible out of the system. It would be a mistake to regulate the internet or the bandwidth that connects to it. I think it is time to look at other ways of doing business instead.

[paulej]

Comcast is simply wrong

What Comcast is doing it not delivering the service that subscribers have purchased, plain and simple.

I use BitTorent for one purpose: to download the most recent version of Fedora when it gets released. No matter whether I download it via HTTP, FTP, or BitTorrent, the amount of inbound bandwidth I will consume is roughly the same.

The difference with BitTorrent is that the amount of bandwidth consumed uploading increases. But, this balances out in the end, because my computer would only transmit packets if somebody else wanted them, right? So, if my system is not transmitting the data, then the users are consuming bandwidth via HTTP or FTP. So, where is the increased traffic?

I think the real problem is that there is a huge amount of illegal content that gets shared in this manner. My guess is that if things like BitTorrent did not exist, then the overall bandwidth would decrease since people would not be otherwise downloading illegal content.

Whatever the case, every subscriber pays for service and it is Comcast's responsibility to deliver the service for which customers provided payment. What they do with that bandwidth is their business, no? If Comcast feels differently, then they should sell their cable lines to another company who would be more "net friendly."

Comcast always has the option to increase network capacity, increase subscriber fees, etc. They can always offer multiple tiers of service for those who use less bandwidth and those who use more.

The real solution, though, is to increase bandwidth. With more and more services on the Internet, lots of new streaming video services, increased utilization of video conferencing, etc., then there is absolutely no question that all broadband providers need to put a certain amount of revenue into constantly improving network capacity. I get the impression that Comcast does not want to make that investment.

[Mike9302]

Comcast isn't managing their network, they're....

Covering up a massive under engineering problem. A properly
engineered network requires management to deal with abnormal
conditions... fire, flood, hurricane, earthquake, terrorist attack,
etc. Covering up for being too cheap and sneaky, etc. to provide
the equipment needed to meet customer demand is not network
management... it is CRIMINAL behavior. If the phone companies
under engineered the way comcast does, you could die in a fire
waiting for dial tone or a line or both to reach 911.

[wp enterprises]

comcast

Comcast is going to be a phone company just like rogers is now in canada. If they don't upgrade their networks soon, your phone will be screwed too

[jowewo]

Protecting customer interests? Really?

AT&T wants to police the internet. Controlling downloads is a way - they say - not to penalize law-abiding "surfers." Comcast is limiting the bandwidth of connections to BitTorrent (and other p2p networks?) for the same reason(s).

But in fact, the consumer is - in both cases - the first one to suffer. Do we really need our service providers to police us? To patronize us? Isn't most of the Internet Traffic pornography? Any chance these control freaks do something about it? Of course not.

Our lives get more and more "internetized" every day. We pay online, we buy online, we rent online, we travel online, we fill taxes online... Our personal information is already out there, and we do not need our ISPs to have more power over. Letting them control where we go and what we do is a first step that should not be - legally - allowed.

But then again, who REALLY cares about - us - consumers?

[nuckelhedd]

Do you suppose?

This "management of bandwidth" issue is directly related to Comcast providing telephony and streaming HD and standard video themselves? Hmmm... I might run out of bandwidth too if i didn't plan for the need for throughput. Not to mention if this passes and the FCC (Federal Criminal Conspiritists) does nothing or even worse allow this, it will only lead to limiting other services and site traffic. All in the name of "reasonable network management" of course.
This debacle does prove one thing IMHO however. Our representatives need to clearly understand that net neutrality legislation IS MOST ASSUREDLY NEEDED. I suggest we ALL write to these folks who are SUPPOSED to be working in our favor and tell them we will fire them if they don't stop pandering to BIG BUSINESS.

Period

[menotbug]

Comcast is right.

In our neighborhood, we don't have Comcast. But we do have two or three kids who monopolize the cable system by downloading illegal movies and World of Warcraft. The load is bad enough to slow everyone else in the neighborhood down. Vonage barely works. Our cable provider says that it would take thousands of dollars to beef up the system to add more bandwidth, and then those kids could soak up the added capacity right away. They say they could take measures to stop the bandwidth hogs but they are spooked by this FCC action and are waiting on the outcome of the Comcast hearing. Please, FCC, do the sensible thing and let our cable company stop the hogs and give us reasonable service.

[deloprator20000]

Strategy

Though I am avid supporter of internet neutrality, I believe that the best strategy to reinstate internet neutrality is to first elect a democrat as president.

Once a democrat is president we can campaign for internet neutrality with greater force and greater success.

So we should bide our time and strike when the chances of success appear to be greatest.

[writeby]

Better Question: What does "free" mean?

This is the "Who-owns-the-airwaves?" debate transferred to cyber space. The answer is: No one--but broadcasters DO own the equipment and, by extension, their broadcast signals. Piggybacking on broadcaster signals is like squatting on private property. It's wrong--a clear violation of any individual's property rights, said rights beginning with one's own life, i.e., body & mind.

Now we have the same type of "squatting proposal" that gave rise to the Fairness Doctrine (among other forms of censorship) in broadcasting, except it's called "Net Neutrality"--that is, when it comes to property rights in cyber space, there are none. It should be called, for accuracy sake, "Rights Neutral."

Cyber space is open to all who wish to investment in the necessary infra-structure costs to become an ISP. That infrastructure and the "roadway" it lays on the Net is *private property." Those who wish to loot that wealth in the name of "fairness" haven't clue one about the meaning nor the application of justice.

Net Neutrality is a license to steal--to steal the billions of infrastructure created by Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, etc.--and then to censor them by limiting their choices of what they may or may not send out (or limit) over/on their "broadcast signal."

Democracy is a very old and very failed form of political philosophy. Our Founding Fathers did *not* create a democracy when they wrote the Constitution. They knew history and knew well its failure. They create a Constitutionally limited (by property rights, including individual rights), democratic republic--with "democratic" strictly contextualized to mean the electorate (and their representatives) are to be checked & balanced AND trumped by the rights of the individual, whether that individual is a man or a corporation (of men).

If you want to see real Internet regulation, taxation and eventual censorship, just allow the FCC this toehold. Give a rat a cookie--and he'll next want a glass o milk.

As for academe's who support this trash, someone opined a few years ago, after the Soviet Union crashed & burned, that the only sanctuary left for Marxism was America's universityies.

As for the rich who declare their support of the State--whether it's increasing taxes, maintaining capital gains or inheritance taxes, establishing forced volunteerism or net neutrality--well, Hitler had his Krupps and Voglers.

And we have our Soros's, Buffets, Gates's & Newmarks's.

[businesscontacts]

If you are paying for certain speed, you should get it

If customers pay for certain speed, comcast should provide that speed, not give the false impression that they provide almost unlimited bandwidth when that's not the case.

A new pricing structure is what is needed.

Do you go to an "all you can eat" buffet, only to be allowed one serving?

[mjd420nova]

Comcast throttling users

If Comcast wants to be the big brother of the internet maybe if they concentrated on blocking spam and killing viruses before they even get to the users would be a better approach. My children are constantly downloading games and music which slows things down considerably but to just pick on provider of services and either slow down their cownloads or terminate the links is discriminatory.

[MadLyb]

Mixed feelings

I hate the fact that power downloaders negatively impact my download speeds, but I also have concerns with Comcast doing this on the sly.

No easy solution.

[Numbuh4]

Followup

I had called Comcast to address a limited / no connectivity issue; theire response - just use one computer at a time (which is usual scenario anyway); charged $39.99 for advice. Still cannot access full internet as $60 a month dosen't cut it I guess . . gotta change here