RSSFCC opens the Comcast throttling debate to public comment
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published January 15, 2008, 11:47 AM
Demonstrating it's taking seriously charges that Comcast's "network management" practices for slowing down P2P traffic constitute discrimination, the government agency has asked the public to weigh in.
Comcast no longer denies that it implements certain network management techniques to help regulate its traffic, and it now clearly warns its customers -- albeit in a tucked-away location -- that it has the right to slow down certain classes of traffic. The company has argued that such management is not only within its rights, but that it works within the parameters for "reasonable network management" set forth in the Federal Communications' principles.
But last November's petition by P2P service provider Vuze has apparently succeeded in elevating the problem to the status of a formal public debate. Yesterday, the FCC called for public comments with regard to Vuze's petition, which the Commission now describes as having argued "that the practice by broadband service providers of degrading peer-to-peer traffic violates the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, and that such practices do not meet the Commission's exception for reasonable network management."
Without saying so directly, Comcast's statement to BetaNews and others last week implied that the network must implement some kind of bandwidth throttling in order to preserve a certain quality of service level for customers running other Internet applications, including simple Web browsing. Thus no discrimination is involved.
But the type of service that Vuze provides consists of entertainment programming on demand, some of it in high definition. That lends weight to Vuze's argument that any throttling of P2P traffic serves only to constrain others from competing in one aspect of the market against Comcast, whose CATV service -- offered alongside its broadband Internet service -- isn't subject to throttling.
"Comcast's actions starkly raise the issue of whether broadband network operators should be permitted the unfettered discretion to restrict or block traffic carried on their networks," reads Vuze's petition last November, "and to censor legal content or discriminate against applications and services that they may perceive as competing with their offerings. While Comcast has apparently justified its actions as legitimate 'network management' or mere traffic 'shaping,' Vuze believes that such overbroad and clandestine attempts to interfere with traffic - regardless of the legality of the content or the specific impact on the network - cannot amount to 'reasonable network management."'
Throttling not only harms users of P2P services, Vuze goes on to argue, but also content providers who may be using Vuze as a way to create a market for their own content -- a market that isn't open to them through Comcast's CATV channels.
But Cato Institute analyst David S. Isenberg believes it should perhaps not be up to the government to dictate the policies by which any broadband service provider regulates traffic on its own network.
"Like food providers, Internet access providers should tell us clearly what's in the can," Isenberg wrote in November just after Vuze filed its petition. "If they're traffic shaping, or throttling, or port blocking, or site blocking, or injecting reset packets, or app blocking, they should have a legal duty to say so...But asking the FCC to set out rules about which of those practices is reasonable is asking for trouble."
Meanwhile, Precursor Group analyst Scott Cleland believes it's well within Comcast's rights for it to design its traffic flow to bypass those whom the service provider has reason believe are disturbing the network.
"It is perfectly reasonable to manage communications network traffic in a similar way so that the counterproductive actions of the few at the wrong time do not make the network unworkable for the many," Cleland wrote in November. "The petitioners [Vuze] have taken the unreasonable and narrow position that any differential restriction of IP traffic or applications are per se discriminatory and bad and could not have a legitimate or beneficial impact. The petitioners' view is unreasonable because any network requires a modicum of management to make the network functional."
With the FCC's public review period now open between now and February 28, the matter of whose rights should prevail could very well be decided by a single persuasive argument one way or the other. Comments may be filed electronically with the FCC through this address.
Does anyone have the DOC number or DA number or whatever it is I need to make a comment to the FCC? In the area I live, we can't get anything but dial-up. My connection is usually less than 56k. What really annoys me is that my dial-up ISP is putting the same restrictions on my service as someone with high-speed access. So if *I* torrent a file, my speed mysteriously goes from (for example) 48k to 16k. I can understand saying that someone at 12mips is hogging the bandwidth, but how can they say that about someone stuck at a max of 56k? *grump*!
Score: 0
|i feel they shouldent be allowed to do it
ive been a victom of there so called Throttling
it brought my download to a stand still
dirty lieing basterderds when we get some company here that can offer a compeating service then camcast can kiss my ass
Score: 0
|From the "Comcast High-Speed Internet Acceptable Use Policy":
"....
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
....
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers
....
You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network"
Talk about some fine print there!
I say drop Comcast (if you can) & get another provider.
Score: 0
|This Comcast logic is incredible. Here is a company that encourages subscribers to download videos and music from its sites, brags about speed in its marketing and for the past several years has frequently touted how it is increasing bandwidth to it's customers.
Comcasts throttling practices don't even match their own statements as Comcast will throttle traffic in the predawn hours when network usage is at its lowest. This isn't about managing traffic, but filtering traffic content. If Comcast had any other motive then why did it spend months denying that it was injecting its "shaping" techniques into the user experience? ....the experience that has been marketed as fast with lots of reliable bandwidth.
I would love to see congress hold hearings,subpoena Comcast's internal communications concerning the implementation of these techniques and review company records and documents concerning their real practices. It would be particularly interesting to see how and why Comcast has "managed" USENET usage, P2P, file transfers and why Comcast (time and time again) advertises increased bandwidth only to back 'er off weeks later.
It find it amazing that Comcast falls back on "reasonable network management" when local Comcast subscribers deal with poor QOS, third party voip and other service interruptions, poor reliability and downtime while charging very profitable rates for usage.
Score: 0
|Clearly Comcast cannot deliver what they promise but continue to charge exorbitant costs for it.
Ethical business practices would be that instead of cheating its customers, it should use the profits to expand and upgrade its inadequate system and services.
In any case, if I'm not mistaken, the business of cheating customers is not within the responsibility or scope of the FCC anyways.
The real question is why the FCC would need a full blown hearing to review unscrupulous business practices when the FCC rules in favor of big business consistently
Score: 0
|Has Comcast released any evidence of it's users complaints about their quality of service? I haven't heard anything about that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Score: 0
|If the companies are concerned about their overall bandwidth being gobbled up, WHY are most of them continuing to up their pipe speeds to the house?? I do understand that there are people who barely scratch the surface speed-wise of their connection, but why penalize those who are actually using the speed we signed up for? Isn't this a big slap in the face of net neutrality?
Score: 0
|Let us be judged not by the color of our data, but by the content of our packets!
Seriously though, as a shared network Comcast has to be able to manage their network. That's just how it's designed. If your neighbor is streaming HDTV over the internet and you can't check your email because they're hogging all the bandwidth, is that really what you want? I agree that Comcast should clearly label their traffic restrictions, but it's wrong to pretend that lifting those restrictions will magically make everything better.
Score: 0
|quote: By Vimm edited Jan 15, 2008 - 12:23 PM
Let us be judged not by the color of our data, but by the content of our packets!
Seriously though, as a shared network Comcast has to be able to manage their network. That's just how it's designed. If your neighbor is streaming HDTV over the internet and you can't check your email because they're hogging all the bandwidth, is that really what you want? I agree that Comcast should clearly label their traffic restrictions, but it's wrong to pretend that lifting those restrictions will magically make everything better.
_______________________________________________
Wrong!!!!!!
1. How would you like it if telephones, faxes, cellular, radio, etc. operated in that same manner?
2. Let cable operators:
A. Upgrade their hardware(some of it decades ancient)
B. Practice 'some' truth in advertising re actual speeds.
3. Internet(like cellular, electricity, sewage and other basic necessities / progressive technologies ad nauseam) needs to be unfettered, unmetered AND 'affordably available @ high levels to the entire populace'.
Add to the above interoperability / common standards... and the world's leading nations will be the ones at the forefront of fulfilling those stated requisites, while those unwilling / unable will fall by the wayside.
Score: 0
|I have to agree with Horse...
I know a few Comcast techs who almost refuse to work in some sections of San Jose (particularly south San Jose) because of the age of the equipment. (Other people from San Jose will remember Castle Cable and the old A/B switches... a lot of that equipment is still in use today and Castle has been gone for almost a decade now!)
If Comcast wants to be able to offer enough bandwidth for the masses, they should put some of the money into said equipment.
In your example, if my neighbor (or in most cases, me) is streaming HDTV over IP, then the network should be able to handle it, plain and simple.
Finally, since when is it ok for a company to tell me what I can and cannot do with a service I pay for? The water company does not tell me that I can only use 80% of the water they supply. Electric company, same thing... They will let me yes as much of my service as I want and just continue to happily charge away as I use more and more. The same thing should apply to bandwidth. If I choose to utilize my full bandwidth then my bandwidth provider should just charge me more when I go above my quota.
These restrictions are ways to work with (yes, get ready for the conspiracy theory, lol) the music industry and the movie studios to cut down on perceived (real or unreal as that might be) piracy.
Score: 0
|Cablevision is another pig, in fact, even worse..
Some folks may disagree-- both companies may have a small area here and there with brand spanking new equipment... but overall both sux.
Score: 0
|gonna have to disagree with you on this one..
if comcast can only give me a constant 4mb connection so that my neighbors can still access email and download content, than they should only offer me that 4mb connection.. not the 8mb connection i'm paying more for.. if they can not supply me with a constant 8mb, than they should not sell that package to me plain and simple. but they do and then throttle it back because i download a lot.. please explain to me how that is right?
Score: 0
|