A Slippery Slope

Sorry to open up with a title so lacking in originality, but it really best fits what I'm jumping into.  Also, I know it looks like we're bashing Comcast a lot, but it's really only because right now they're in the Net Neutrality spotlight (if Net Neutrality has a spotlight).

The fact of the matter is that what Comcast has done to BitTorrent could be done by other ISPs to other content providers and in turn their customers.  To summarize, Comcast restricted bandwidth when users of BitTorrent (a high-speed file transfer system) started to, allegedly, use enough bandwidth to slow down the connection speeds of other users.  Comcast was allowed to do this under the guise of "reasonable network management."  A big problem is that there aren't guidelines for what is or is not "reasonable."

Andrew has made this point repeatedly, but I'm going to make it here, and more publicly.  Also, with some non-Comcast examples. In an attempt to show that this isn't just Comcast bashing.  In addition, to make the peril a little more relatable for those of us who don't use Comcast.

The first example is Comcast and BitTorrent.  Comcast has already given the official reason for limiting BitTorrent bandwidth but here's the conspiracy theorist logic behind it:  BitTorrent is largely used to transfer video files at high speed.  Comcast has video-on-demand (VoD) services of their own.  Who can say that they won't start to limit bandwidth to and from any VoD source?  They could, under "reasonable network management", limit the accessibility of YouTube, AOL VoD offerings and even MySpace, which is riddled with videos. 

Number 2 is AOL.  Almost everyone uses or has used AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) regardless of who their ISP is.  What if AOL is your ISP but you prefer Windows Live Messenger.  Well, AOL could say that other IM clients are too much of a drain on bandwidth and thanks to good old "reasonable network management" could make your non-AIM IMs not-so-instant.

Number 3 is Sprint.  What if I decided to use my Sprint Mobile Broadband connection to use Skype (a service allowing for unlimited long-distance calling over the internet) so that I can save my precious anytime minutes?  Sprint could kill my bandwidth when I try and use Skype and force me into using the phone service that they provide.

Now, remember that the latter 2 examples have not occurred.  They are just possibilities that could stem form Comcast's actions.  Legally (remember that I am in no way a lawyer) it would seem that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent is ok thanks to the vaguery of "reasonable network management."  Whether or not it's "right" or potentially dishonest (seeing as I couldn't find any concrete policy on how much bandwidth you would have to consume before being restricted) is still to be determined.  Situations like this very real one and my 2 hypotheticals are why the tech industry and Silicon Valley cannot ignore the Beltway.  If the companies whose products are used and distributed online, at the mercy of ISPs, had banded together they could have, at the very least, gotten a firm definition of what constitutes "reasonable" when it comes to network management policies.  As it stands, thanks to the reactionary standpoint that so many of these companies take, we have to wait until after there's a problem in order to work with the FCC towards finding a solution.  In the meantime, customers are left with neutered service.

Are there plenty of non-Beltway concerns for businesses (and not just the 'Web 2.0" variety) to worry about?  Certainly.  We're all familiar with how dirty words like "lobbyist" and "special interest" have become, but a voice in Washington, who can potentially speak on behalf of an entire industry, can protect not only the companies who retain them but their customers as well.  And I don't think anyone reading needs to be reminded of what happens to a business without customers.