RSSNew legislation could lead to ISP throttling ban
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 13, 2008, 6:21 PM
Comcast's response yesterday to its public thrashing by the FCC may have had a second, more important, purpose: A prominent Congressman has introduced legislation paving the way for a ban on Internet throttling.
In the midst of an already overflowing legislative calendar, Rep. Ed Markey (D - Mass.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, introduced a bill yesterday whose end result could be the illegalization of throttling of bandwidth to certain customers by Internet service providers.
But the bill, tentatively entitled the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, would not actually declare throttling illegal specifically. Instead, it would call upon the Federal Communications Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether or not throttling is a bad thing, and whether it has the right to take action to stop it.
"Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission...shall commence a proceeding on broadband services and consumer rights," reads the text of the first draft of H. R. 5353. "As part of the proceeding...the Commission shall assess whether broadband network providers adhere to the Commission's Broadband Policy Statement of August, 2005 including whether, consistent with the needs of law enforcement, such providers refrain from blocking, thwarting, or unreasonably interfering with the ability of consumers to -- access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over broadband networks, including the Internet."
The FCC's opinion of throttling as a business practice would seem to be wholly negative, if it weren't simultaneously so tentative. Last month, the Commission tasked its Wireline Competition Bureau to seek comments on allegations by P2P provider Vuze that Comcast's throttling practice -- intended to curb high-bandwidth file sharing that Comcast believes to typically be unlicensed -- is actually cutting into its legitimate business.
The Bureau's call for comments was anything but neutral, declaring outright "that the practice of 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."
Yesterday, Comcast filed a formal response to the Bureau which dared to invoke a political hot potato usually reserved for attacking Comcast, in its own defense.
"The [Bureau's] Petitions assert that it is per se unreasonable for Comcast to manage certain P2P protocols, even ones that have been proven to degrade customers' abilities to surf the web, watch video streaming, make voice-over-Internet Protocol calls, or access other Internet content, applications, and services, particularly during periods of peak network congestion," reads Comcast's public comment. "The Petitions base their claims primarily on a 'test' of Comcast's network management practices using P2P protocol services. As demonstrated [later in this document], no valid conclusions about the effects of Comcast's network management practices could be drawn from that test because the test did not replicate how P2P protocols operate in the real world.
"The carefully limited measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network -- including its very limited management of certain P2P protocols -- are a reasonable part of Comcast's strategy to ensure a high-quality, reliable Internet experience for all Comcast High-Speed Internet customers," the company continued. "Importantly, in managing its network, Comcast does not block any content, application, or service; discriminate among providers; or otherwise violate any aspect of the principles set forth in the [FCC's] Internet Policy Statement."
How the FCC chooses to address Comcast's assertions may have a direct impact on whether the Markey bill, also introduced yesterday, will have any teeth whatsoever, or whether it would instead serve merely to place Rep. Markey on the populist side of a prominent argument.
As Rep. Markey stated on the House floor yesterday, "There are some who may wish to assert that this bill regulates the Internet. It does no such thing. The bill contains no requirements for regulations on the Internet whatsoever. It does, however, suggest that the principles which have guided the Internet's development and expansion are highly worthy of retention, and it seeks to enshrine such principles in the law as guide stars for US broadband policy. The bill tasks the FCC with the job of conducting an assessment of broadband practices and consumer rights. Finally, it requires the FCC to hold eight broadband summits around the nation and to report back to Congress on its findings and any recommendations for further action."
But the bill has already garnered prominent opposition on the part of the wireless industry association CTIA. This afternoon, its president and CEO, former Oklahoma Republican representative (and former Tulsa Hurricane football great) Steve Largent issued this response: "This bill is an attempt to cure a problem that simply does not exist. Overwhelming evidence collected by the [FCC], the Federal Trade Commission, and independent research analysts proves that wireless broadband adoption is spreading like wildfire across this country. This wouldn't be happening if consumers weren't getting the service, value, and access to content they desire...These are serious issues for carriers and consumers alike, and we believe a thoughtful and balanced examination will lead to what we already know: Government intervention is not necessary."
ISPS and corporations all need to monitor and manage end users using their bandwidth to ensure reliability and adequate performance for all. I even sell devices to help do this. You don't want non-real time traffic, like FTP downloads, to swamp out real time traffic like video conferences. You also don't want a single user to degrade the performance of many other users. Intelligent traffic engineering is a good idea and we should encourage it. Even outright blocks should be encouraged. To avoid the proliferation of spam, ISPs are encouraged to block outbound SMTP (mail) port 25 traffic on their networks except through authorized servers. That way, they can easily track outbound mail and quarantine end user machines that have been infected with mailing programs that would unnecessarily tie up bandwidth and hinder other people's ability to enjoy their uninfected connections.
Score: 0
|Ha...they think cable throttling bandwidth is bad.. the morons need to do something about these satellite providers. These guys throttle to the extreme. I mean come on a pitiful 200megs a day. that is just plain pathetic.
Score: 0
|"Importantly, in managing its network, Comcast does not block any content, application, or service"
Don't they block incoming on port 80?
Score: 0
|They refer to inbound service, I am sure. It's still against the ToS to host servers from your (residential) connection, I believe.
Score: 0
|Not in my case they don't.
Score: 0
|ISPs need to be more clear on what you are allowed to use bandwidth wise.
My ISP lists exactly what you are allowed right with the package price shouldn't that be made standard?
Score: 0
|No.
Other ISPs should see and hear about the positive customer reaction to that and act accordingly to follow suit. It should never be *required*, at least not in a sense of some government mandate.
It should be required that they cannot outright lie about it, and such information should be available to those who request it, but other than that, how they package and market their service should be up to them.
Out of curiosity, what ISP are you using? That sounds like a wonderful idea.
Score: 0
|I'm with shaw cable it's a Canadian company i don't think that are available in the states.
The only complaint i have with it is the package i want isn't available here yet 60gigs isn't enough i watch a lot of steaming video from places like stage6 and other bandwidth hungry sites with no signs of throttling at all.
Score: 0
|Hopefully they'll increase the package amounts as nominal use increases.
Do they cap your monthly usage? Do they allow over-run for an additional charge? If you don't use it all, does it roll-over?
Right now I use a service that charges a monthly fee for a set amount of bandwidth usage. I can re-up if it goes over (it won't allow me to otherwise), resetting the monthly alottment, and it will also roll over if I don't use it.
It's a web-host, but it's an excellent idea for other services. There's no overage charges (no further bandwidth allowed unless you re-up or wait for the next cycle) and anything unused gets "put in the bank".
I am allowed 20GB a month. For 2 years I regularly went over that (gaming site) and had to re-up every other month or so. Nowadays, it's just a family domain and I am sitting on about 80GB right now. I suppose I could lower my plan, but I'll probably be needing it again soon and I would hate to lose all the banked bandwidth.
That kind of plan would be very enticing to me from an ISP while still allowing them to get paid on usage and giving the customer a good deal of options.
Score: 0
|No banking but they have enough plans to fit almost anybody 10,60,100 and 150gigs with download/upload speeds going up accordingly.
I've nerver been over my limit so i'm not sure what the charge for being over the limit is and thats only because i try to keep track of what i use in a day.(usualy try to limit streaming videos to 1.5 gigs a day plus normal web browsing)
Price wise not to bad $50(with taxes) for the 60gig plan $60 for the 100gig plan but jumps up a little over $100 for the 150gig plan and you get a discount if you bundle it with cable or phone service.
Score: 0
|Dang...
Tell 'em to allow roll-over and head south! :p
Score: 0
|Comcast wants to limit P2P because it is cutting into Comcast's video on demand revenue, and may significant reduce the future expansion of video on demand.
That is what is really behind all of the posturing that Comcast is doing.
Score: 0
|Riiiiight.
It's not at all because cable is shared bandwidth and a few users are very close to limiting the availability of that bandwidth for others, eh?
may significant reduce the future expansion of video on demand
If that were the case, we'd be seeing this same throttling in DSL services, just like we're seeing it in Comcast, Charter, and Cox (all cable providers)
I know...it's so much *fun* to think it's all about the "Big Corporations" trying to "Screw The Little Guy", but sometimes...sometimes that just isn't the case.
Score: 0
|DSL services are usually offered across phone lines that filter the internet to be separate. Therefore yes we not expect to see this thottling on those services as there do not offer video ondemand services for tv's. Cable companyies however do. I agree that this is a ploy to keep video on-demand services profitable.
And if the case is that bandwidth is suffering because of these services running, then why don't these cable comanies up the capacity of their servers. If I am going to pay for a 3meg download rate I expect to be able to use all 3megs of it not 2 and then be throttled.
Score: 0
|And if the case is that bandwidth is suffering because of these services running, then why don't these cable comanies up the capacity of their servers.
Epic fail? Servers!=bandwidth. They need to lay more fiber/cable to increase bandwidth, or buy and light more dark fiber. This is *not* cheap, and the fees you are paying now don't cover the expansion costs necessary.
If I am going to pay for a 3meg download rate I expect to be able to use all 3megs of it not 2 and then be throttled.
But you are not. You are paying for *up to* 3 Meg, and you agreed to the ToS which specifically states they can limit you if your use is excessive.
What is excessive? The average user on any given network *might* download a gig a month. *maybe*. Anything 50% or more over that and you can be labeled as an excessive user.
Read the ToS. Stop expecting to be handed an unlimited, private, un-throttled connection unless you pay for it (Business-class dedicated line).
Score: 0
|I *might* download ~ a gig a day :-)
Score: 0
|I was just throwing a number out there, and 1GB may be low-balling, but I also highly doubt, at a gig a day, you would qualify as an average user.
Most folks can go days without doing much more than checking their email.
Score: 0
|"would not actually declare throttling illegal specifically. Instead, it would call upon the Federal Communications Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether or not throttling is a bad thing, and whether it has the right to take action to stop it."
The legislative calendar wouldn't be so heavy laden if spineless legislators would grow a back bone and actually call for a declaration of illegal or legal.
Score: 0
|Quick law is usually bad law. Look at the Patriot Act.
Score: 0
|