Back Off the Internet -- FCC to Comcast
Techtree News Staff, Aug 02, 2008 1653 hrs IST
FCC vote sets precedent on unfettered web usage and brings the net neutrality debate into the open
Comcast, the largest cable company in the U.S., had claimed that BitTorrent traffic consumed a disproportionate amount of its network's bandwidth, degrading the Internet access of other customers. To 'fix' this, Comcast had installed equipment that slowed down, not block -- file transfers using BitTorrent. This move led public advocacy groups Free Press and Public Knowledge to file a complaint against the network provider, a complaint that the Federal Communications Commission upheld against Comcast.
"We are preserving the open character of the Internet," Kevin J. Martin, the F.C.C chairman told New York Times. He added the motion was a message to all communication companies that they "can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications."
This issue highlights a broader topic of network neutrality -- a principle that posits that all content, sites, and platforms be treated equally, such that access to publically available infomation is not hindered in any way. Net neutrality is thus about equal access to the Internet, regardless of where you are connecting from or what equipment you are using, or indeed, which applications. On the other side of the fence are network operators toying with the idea of favouring one application over another: a P2P packet stream, over say, a UDP packet carrying a video conference. So is data created equal?
The debate rages on, as Wall Street Journal through its editorial page states: "There's no evidence that Comcast was trying to suppress a political view or favor one of its own services. By all appearances, the company's policies were motivated by nothing more than making sure a tiny percentage of bandwidth hogs didn't slow down Internet traffic for everyone else on the network. Giving the government more say in network management, by contrast, introduces all kinds of potential for political mischief. Net neutrality is a slippery slope toward interventions of all kinds -- not merely over access but ultimately over content."
Andy Kessler of the Wall Street Journal earlier labelled net neutrality a bad idea -- "[...]because the only thing [net neutrality] will preserve is mediocrity via the lack of competition... With net neutrality, there will be no new competition and no incentives for build outs. Bandwidth speeds will stagnate, and new services will wither from bandwidth starvation."
In an interview with Ars Technica, Jay Monahan, an attorney argued that -- "If net neutrality means anything, it means not that each of us is made equal in the marketplace, but that at least we have an equal set of rules that are transparent to all of us in order to compete."
USER COMMENTS
Will this in any way affect my gaming COD-4 since they are limiting packet flow?
by DT-CUZHATE, Seattle, on Aug 03, 2008 08:48 PM, Report abuse Reply
That would be a first - where demand (for bandwidth) failed to make any impact on supply.
by Jack, STL, on Aug 02, 2008 08:22 PM, Report abuse Reply
To function like all other economic systems, the net must adopt usage pricing -- you pay for what you use, just like cell phones, long distance, water, gas electric, etc. Your monthly bill should be based on bytes received and transmitted. Without cost feedback to users, the net will continue to degrade from abuse by freeloaders. Supply and demand are always regulated by pricing the supply. The net is like any other utility -- i.e., nobody gets unlimited water for a flat fee per month.
by jal, Minneapolis, on Aug 02, 2008 09:48 PM, Report abuse
wooooooooooooooohooooooooooooooooooooo
by guest, here, on Aug 02, 2008 09:46 PM, Report abuse Reply
The internet is just a medium for expression, data is the means of expression, the consequences of having a single large entity limit your innate capacity to express yourself and communicate with others are evident throughout history, data existed in many forms before, beginning with the inherent human capacity to propagate sound waves into the air, to express opinions, followed by radio waves, and now the internet, the rules of freedom are constant regardless of the medium, we know what happens when these rules are broken, we've seen it happening.
by anonymous, NY, on Aug 02, 2008 09:30 PM, Report abuse Reply
Cable Internet infrastructure is predetermined as an asynchronous bandwidth system. That is bandwidth is available far greater on the downstream than the upstream. And the customer agreement reflects this reality by having a policy that states that there are to be no home servers to the Internet, as these require an inequitable amount of bandwidth on the upstream. P2P programs such as Bittorrent and Limewire turn the home PC into a server to the Internet, robbing the Cable infrastructure UNFAIRLY of the scarcer upstream bandwidth that is necessary to provide fast downstream service. The FCC doesn't have the facts straight or they never would have made such an idiot ruling.
by Robert Hanlon, Pleasanton, CA, on Aug 02, 2008 05:52 PM, Report abuse Reply
That's a valid point but Comcast did not handle this situation well. It throttled without initimating users, even letting them think it was a problem at their end. There needs to be greater transparency from the network providers.
by ahm, mum, on Aug 02, 2008 05:57 PM, Report abuse
C'mon Robert. The bottom line is that our government has given tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to telecos that were supposed to be using the money to upgrade the networks WHICH NEVER HAPPENED!!! They should be indicted not just scolded. All this would be moot if every household had a fiber optic line going to it which was promised by the telecos years ago. The US has the lowest bandwidth capability to the home of any developed country. What are they going to attempt to throttle next.....You can use Skype but you can't use Skype with video??? If I upload pictures to my Picassa account all day long every day am I "robbing" the cable infrastructure or using what I pay for? The only reason that the internet is predetermined asynchronous is because it is set up that way by the telecos so that they can artificially increase the download speed to make it appear that the service is faster than it really is since they reneged on their agreement with the government to upgrade the infrastructure.
by Marshal Mathers, Chicago, on Aug 02, 2008 06:55 PM, Report abuse
look this comment poster earlier "Using P2P applications do not create "servers" at your house. If that was the case then hosting a game or video conference would be against the TOS. P2P is just an application just like your web browser or itunes that allows you to communicate with other computers..."
by Roy, Roy, on Aug 02, 2008 07:55 PM, Report abuse
Once a computer is put online it becomes a server. You can mesh mash allday about what exactly a "server" is. In the end it realy comes down to they put it in the contract to #$%^ over people if they have to, or make them switch to a buissnes plan. I have cox internet and they have it set up so that alot of p2p do not work because the cable modem is a router and it rejects all the incoming pacs on most ports.
by teclord, rogers, on Aug 02, 2008 09:02 PM, Report abuse
You're missing out on two key points, here. First, when I pay for Internet service, I'm paying for a certain upload speed and a certain download speed. If I hack my service to make my upload speed faster, then, and only then, am I robbing upload from the ISP. If, on the other hand, I am utilizing my allotted upload and download speeds, then I am simply using what I pay for. The reason why companies don't want home-based servers isn't because you'll hog all the bandwidth, it's because you'll constantly be maximizing what you pay for, thus keeping them from being able to have "extra" bandwidth available. This wouldn't be a problem at all if ISP's would upgrade their networks. FiOS for the win! Verizon is, as far as I can tell, the only one who's really getting on the ball with this idea. Second, a peer to peer program is not turning your computer into a server. Furthermore, BitTorrent isn't really your typical P2P anyway. Most torrents are available from the web. Sure, you help to seed the torrent by sending small packets upstream back onto the network so others can download them, but it's not like you're opening up your computer and saying "here are my files, take what you like." The FCC is well aware of what P2P software is, and you know Comcast would have made their policies regarding home servers very clear to the FCC if that were a valid argument, their lawyers aren't stupid.
by Tyson, Glendale, on Aug 02, 2008 09:19 PM, Report abuse
Kessler is correct. 'Net neutrality', means we're all entitled to a free ride without having to invest in making sure the tires don't go flat due to the weight of everyone on board.
by Zaidi, Baltimore, on Aug 02, 2008 07:06 PM, Report abuse Reply
To apply upon the subject. I'm GLAD, As a former COMCAST customer, I was tired of the Constant Filter, DNS Re-routing, and Upload limits! Its not a Fair Business action, And Certainly Shouldn't Be legal!. And Finally, to all you Saying that Net Neutrality is a Sort of 'Free Ride' as you say... Stop using HTTP communication to any Web Server, Your Hogging all my Bandwith with you STUPID COMMENTS! Think about something then.. If company's are this incompetent at Creating Network Infrastructures that are Powerful enough to handle a few hundred thousand Connections On bit-torrent(TOR) networks, then Why are they even in Business! Seems Odd that it worked Fine in the 90's when 56k Modems were around and there was 400 Times more Use of the TOR Protocol, On Less Bandwidth Infrastructures of the time!... 200 Gigabit Backbones and they cant handle less than 4 Gigabits of Communication over a hour? Sounds more like some ones messing with youre minds kids, go back to School and learn a little something about Networking and you might learn a little about the real truth to the story. Comcast is in Business to make money, There TOS Does NOT state that you CANNOT upload ANY data on Any Protocol, but yet, they filter and Slow Anything Deemed for any Non-Commercial Entity inside there network, and ALL competitor Networks around the country! That be just like Me driving down I-80 and NY state Hating Toyota, so they Shoot out my tires every time i get on the Road! So if you're With 'Comcast' you can Deal with it till the end, And dont come Complaining When it Ends up Being that the only Websites you can go to Is Comcast Approved!, But my Vote is with The free Press and Net-Neutrality, because i don't want to be Dealing with Another CNN by 2012! Information and Data is meant to be free, not meant to be hindered with, Re-conformed and Fitted to Corporate Standards to better Suit there WALLET!
by Michael Novick, NY, NY, on Aug 02, 2008 09:12 PM, Report abuse
Common sense tells us: If customers using the full-advertised bandwidth is such a problem for these companies, they shouldn't be advertising these speeds as the capacity to begin with! Why give people hell when they utilize the bandwidth as advertised, which drew them to these services in the first place? THAT is a crock. And I can't help but wonder how many of the commenters here are just hacks for the telcoms, possibly Comcast themselves? Net Neutrality is most definitely the way to go, and all your specious arguments about the anti-competitive element are proven erroneous by the very internet we now have; it has continued to grow by leaps and bounds, even with the non-tiered, pay-for-privilege system put into place. Information should not be tiered, should not be compartmentalized by price tags!!! Only a fascist mentality would hold such a view. And I haven't even gone into the fact that Americans pay among the highest fees for internet services as it is, (and for such meager speeds overall) whilst there are other countries which provide significantly higher bandwidth at a fraction of the cost, and there's NO b*tching going on! Know why?--AMERICAN CORPORATE GREED!!! It is killing this country!!! Just look around you!
by ArX, NYC, on Aug 02, 2008 08:26 PM, Report abuse Reply
by Anonymous, kasnas city, on Aug 02, 2008 08:57 PM, Report abuse
I dissagree with your assessment of this situation. Comcast is working within the FCCs rules to advertise their speeds. That is whay you see the phrase "downloads as fast as..." with regard to Internet speed. It's not an exact science and depends on many factors. The most important factor is bandwidth utilization by its customers. By slowing down BitTorrent traffic, they were merely trying to live up to their customers' expectations for bandwith. when a small group is creating a disproportional amount of traffic, a good steward of the equipment should monitor and correct that. It's about providing a consistent experience for all users. This is simply a case of Comcast doing what they should be doing: managing the network. The FCC in this case ruled in favor of the few customers who were put out by this practice because they caved in to those who were citing this as a "free speech" issue. It isn't. It is an issue of a company trying to manage its network for the benefit of all its customers.
by Craig Worley, Holiday, FL, on Aug 02, 2008 08:58 PM, Report abuse
Wow, there are a lot of ignorant people commenting on this article, in particular, the ones who charge head first into a topic they don't yet fully understand. Research your information with no prejudice, before deciding to place a judgement on this topic. I personally never use P2P applications but I've felt the hindered performance of my comcast service. Why should I have to suffer the consequences of the few and pay for a service advertised that I cannot use? If I pay for a service, I expect to use it. What I do with my bandwidth is entirely my business, especially if it does not violate any AUP/TOS.
by CAPITALIST PIGS, hollywood, on Aug 02, 2008 08:57 PM, Report abuse Reply
Hey, comcast users: RTFM!! P2P networking is a violation of the end user agreement for having "servers" on the Internet. On the "net neutrality" issue: if I want to run an ISP that blocks porn, and I have consumers who WANT the service, Net Neutrality is telling me that I cannot offer that as a service, which is a market differentiator. Down with Net Neutrality, it's a joke...
by Dave, Salt Lake City, on Aug 02, 2008 06:15 PM, Report abuse Reply
Using P2P applications do not create "servers" at your house. If that was the case then hosting a game or video conference would be against the TOS. P2P is just an application just like your web browser or itunes that allows you to communicate with other computers...Get your facts straight before you go ranting like a flaming idiot. Who are you to say what gets blocked? Porn in not illegal. Your personal morals should not regulate what others want to do with their bought and paid for bandwidth.
by Brent M, Groveland, on Aug 02, 2008 06:28 PM, Report abuse
just a little comment on that "personal beliefs" i think also just as i cannot block such or such content, nobody should force to access it...
by Roy, Roy, on Aug 02, 2008 07:51 PM, Report abuse
I agree and disagree. If someone wanted to run an ISP that blocks all porn, then the users upfront know that is what they are getting. On the other hand, if you are advertising "highspeed, unlimited internet" then you cannot. If you are not providing "unlimited internet access" then you -must- advertised yourself as a "limited" internet connection.
by James Little, Houston, on Aug 02, 2008 08:53 PM, Report abuse
Comcast is not the only one doing it. I use Cable One and they have been doing it for years!
by AlyS, Long Beach, on Aug 02, 2008 08:41 PM, Report abuse Reply
Comcast is the most crapiest service in the world. They charge for sevice calls and don't fix anything when it brakes. They must worry about providing good service then worry about torrents. I am a very dissatisfied customer i am off line more than i am on becouse comcast sucks. all comcast employees are not knowledgeable about how the internet, cable, or anything works. bandwidth satrvation is extremly false this proves that comcast is a crapy company and does not have the knowledge to operate its company.
by Pissed at comca, Longmont Colorado, on Aug 02, 2008 08:21 PM, Report abuse Reply
by learned speller, Denver, on Aug 02, 2008 08:28 PM, Report abuse
Dude, you spell like a third grader. Who is even going to consider your post a rational thought?
by John McCain, Cincinnati, on Aug 02, 2008 08:35 PM, Report abuse
The argument that "bandwidth speeds will stagnate, and new services will wither from bandwidth starvation" is flawed. This argument, as described in the article, stems from the belief that free loaders (i.e. bandwidth hogs) do not change the behaviors of people currently not hogs. If someone was giving something out for the cheap or free and at first only one person exploited this, it won't stay that way forever. More and more people will exploit it. This will either lead to the hypothosized stagnation where it just runs out and people get sad, or more likely drive up prices and demand for the good. Back to the internet thing again, most likely what will happen is that either Comcast will raise prices to the point where hogs feel the cost (and everyone else just doesn't want to use the internet since it costs too much...and thus be a business suicide technique), or invest in expanding their infrastructure to handle the hogs, which in turn will make more hogs...and which in turn will make more bandwidth. Sure prices will increase there too, but everyone wins. The hogs get more bandwidth, and everyone else feels about the same or feels a little better with the added bandwidth. oh. p.s. this doesn't even include other internet companies. This assumes that Comcast is operating more like a monopoly. If it had competitors the stagnation argument doesn't even make sense. Say if TimeWarner decided to upgrade it's networks more people would just migrate over to TimeWarner and either Comcast will have to upgrade too, or trim their own fat somehow.
by Dltprm, Rochester, on Aug 02, 2008 07:50 PM, Report abuse Reply
This slowing down of traffic also affects ligetimate services as well. I paid to upgrade my bandwidth with Comcast so that I could use the Watch Now service of Netflix but that didn't help any. Found that on the Netflix forums I was not alone. With a network monitoring software app loaded on my machine I could see Comcast bursting the feed for one second every 5 seconds. Though any test with Netflix's main site or any other site feeding video I received the bandwidth I paid for. Because Comcast is doing this at such a low level they are hindering legitimate usage. Not to mention the fact that Netflix Watch Now is a competitive product to Comcast's Channel One product.
by Emerson, Houston, on Aug 02, 2008 07:49 PM, Report abuse Reply
Americans have the least access to the best technology we've helped to create. You should travel outside the US and one will find that access to cell phones technology and the best of their functionalities are available and affordable around the world. Comcast like the rest of corporate America will like to regulate and control access to that they can develop it as an extra product line available only to a few who can afford them. This greed mentality is what motivates the likes of Enron and Exxon to continue to milk us with impunity. On the other hand, we are to blame because we elected the lame ducks to be the guard dogs at the White House. If we continue down this path, allowing the wealthy few and corporate America to exert their greed on us by electing average or less than average "thinkers" to lead us all, we will not need a prophet to predict the doom of the American Empire.
by Sam, NV, on Aug 02, 2008 07:47 PM, Report abuse Reply
The problem wasn't just BitTorrent users. I have never used the program and Comcast still blocked us. We were kinda heavy on uploading videos of my daughter to youtube to share with family. I also hosted a podcast at that time, so obviously we were uploading a couple hundred megs a month. My wife worked from home online and when we had problems they lied to us and told us that they couldn't find anything wrong with. "It must be our equipment" is all we would hear. Meanwhile my wife lost a thousand dollars because of intermittent access through Comcast. When we almost missed our mortgage payment that month, I switched to a DSL provider and now everything works fine. At one point Comcast even told us that there were no trucks working in our area, yet the amber strobes of the truck in my front yard were bouncing off my windows. They were sneaky, deceitful, and outright lied to us one too many times. You should have seen the line at the Comcast facility the day we took their equipment to them to cancel our service! LOL!
by Rev. Kenny, Marietta, Georgia, on Aug 02, 2008 07:35 PM, Report abuse Reply
First, a grateful thank you to Robert Holman for his illuminating comment. It clarified the subject far better then the author of the article. I was beginning to doubt my ability to understand a basic news story regarding the internet. I have to wonder if the articles author wanted to obscure the information. As to the question: ?is it legal for an internet provider to alter the format of data transmission through their system? the answer is yes, as long as it is done along the lines of their agreement with their customers. Also, it may not be legal for the FCC to make rulings effecting both future and historical contracts in the same way in the same ruling. Comcast will probably appeal the ruling. The FCC is safe on the future tense but shaky on the past tense. For that issue their best alternative is to require providers to ?offer? their customers a new contract containing the new rules. And while providers may then be forced to offer a new contract they are free to increase transmission fees for those who wish to play by the new rules.
by Art, Cambridge, on Aug 02, 2008 07:08 PM, Report abuse Reply
Remember Orwell's famous party slogan? "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." Well, now we have a new one, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal: "Neutrality is intervention." I frickin' love the "conservative" mind. It is so endlessly fascinating what they can come up with!
by Mark R., Coon Rapids, MN, on Aug 02, 2008 07:03 PM, Report abuse Reply
I pay for the bandwidth I get at my house just like everyone else. What I do with my bandwidth is my business. If I was using a free internet service then I would not have a problem with being throttled back if I was using a certain application....On the other hand if companies start limiting bandwidth for certain applications then all we are going to do is making those applications look like an application that is not throttled back. This is already happening for online gaming which makes the game traffic look like video traffic so it is not limited.
by Brent M, Groveland, on Aug 02, 2008 06:20 PM, Report abuse Reply
A slippery slope... so to prevent government intervention on content, we allow corporate intervention on content? This slope slides both ways. As for the lack of competition, most areas have an established cable company, and it's very hard to find another without moving. Allowing your cable company to remove features that some consumers may use, without informing them or offering them another option, leaves those consumers high and dry. Personally, I think equal competition of ideas and software is more valuable to the consumer.
by Sam P., Boston, on Aug 02, 2008 06:05 PM, Report abuse Reply
VIEW ALL LATEST
Sony Ericsson C510 or 'Filipa'
News > Gadgets , December 05, 2008 1835 hrs IST
Mysterious as ever ...
Mumbaikars Love Shopping Online
News > Internet , December 05, 2008 1825 hrs IST
Don't we all... ...
Sony May Come Out With Netbook
News > Consumer Electronics , December 05, 2008 1818 hrs IST
Getting set to become a netbook manufacturer ...
HyperX DDR3 RAM For Notebooks
News > Hardware , December 05, 2008 1715 hrs IST
Kingston launches modules with clock speed of 1066MHz and priced at $228 ...
Tekken 6: Game Preview
News > Gaming , December 05, 2008 1809 hrs IST
Slated for August 2009 release ...
send me some of your books
by stella godwin, jos, on Aug 04, 2008 02:50 PM, Report abuse Reply