Recently in BitTorrent Category

Talking with Declan McCullough, Ashwin Navin scored a few cool points.

Reuters (in an article devoid of links to scary websites) broke the news that Comcast is working with BitTorrent to rework its network management policies to be more neutral.  While it will still reserve its right to curb a super user's bandwidth if it starts to decrease the usability of the service for others, it won't take in to account what that super user is using the bandwidth for.

 

Here's a snippet from Reuters

 

Comcast's announcement on Thursday drew a tepid response from Martin.

The FCC chairman said in a statement he was "pleased that Comcast has reversed course." But he questioned why the company was not moving more quickly to end the practice of blocking some applications.

"While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn't stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications," Martin said.

 

In April the FCC will have a meeting at Stanford University (home of Professor Lessig) to try and define exactly what in the heck constitutes "resonable network management."

 

Finally.

 

 

Here's Comcast's official press release.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) is about to jump into the net neutrality fray.  Although ISPs limiting users' access to certain content, like BitTorrent video transfers, under the guise of "reasonable network management" has gotten more press lately, there's another issue to look at.

 

Here's a very brief excerpt from the article at Reuters

 

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress may have to stop broadband Internet providers from charging content providers higher fees for priority access to the Internet, a senior House of Representatives Democrat said on Tuesday.

"I am concerned that if Congress stands by and does nothing, we will soon find ourselves living in a world where those who pay, can play (on the Internet), but those who don't are simply out of luck," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said.

 

 

 

 

This is almost the reverse of the issue that we've covered so heavily.  As opposed to limiting a customer's ability to access someone's content they're limiting a company's ability to distribute the content by way of higher service fees.  Does it make sense that ISPs would want to charge a higher rate to businesses because they're more likely to use a lot of bandwidth?  Sure.  But unless it is made very clear how that pricing is determined we could run into trouble.  If it's settled on as a pay-by-usage syste, like your water or electric bill, then they'd get the (implied) desired effect of limiting the ability of competing companies (like companies who provide competing video on demand content, for instance) from distributing their content.  If a suit was filed the ISP could very easily say "Hey, we make it very clear that businesses pay $xxx for xxxMB of access each month.  We couldn't care less what they're using the bandwidth for." and be reasonably safe.

 

Either way, we're still in potentially dangerous territory.  We're still trying to regulate how public companies provide access to public space.  If there's anything that walks the tightrope between what is and isn't within the Government's jurisdiction, I think this is it.

 

Hopefully, the Government and the ISPs can keep the best interest of the public in mind while they work it out.

 

 

We've had a string of posts on Comcast's repeated anti-consumer actions regarding "reasonable network management" and their throttling of BitTorrent downloads.  We also covered the fact that they hired people to take up space at an open FCC hearing on the subject to keep out people who might not have been there to cheer for Comcast.  Now their shenanigans have brought Net Neutrality into the spotlight and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin may be ready to make his move.

The scoop from Broadcasting & Cable

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/3/2008

The issue of network neutrality was back with a vengeance last week, with Comcast in the hot seat and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin leading the interrogation.

Network neutrality is an umbrella term for the debate over whether the FCC or Congress needs to spell out what broadband networks--essentially, an entity like Comcast.net that provides an Internet connection to customers--can and can't do in managing Internet traffic to their customers.

Martin said last week he thought the FCC had the authority to fine or otherwise penalize Comcast if allegations of blocking peer-to-peer file-sharing services are true. Comcast says the allegations aren't true, but according to Martin, the FCC is taking the matter very seriously.

It certainly seemed that way. At a day-long open meeting on network management practices last week, Martin repeatedly grilled pro-network-neutrality advocates about the allegations against Comcast, which was represented at the meeting by Executive VP David Cohen.

More fuel was added to the fire after activists accused Comcast of packing the meeting with its own executives. Comcast denied that but admitted to hiring line-sitters, not to keep out the public, but rather to accommodate its interested employees.

...

And while trying to define "network neutrality" was the seemingly impossible quest when the issue dominated the telecom agenda in the last Congress, "What is 'reasonable network management?'" appears to be the $64,000 question this time around.

The issue is more than an academic question for content companies. Much of the bandwidth-heavy content in question is the sort of high-resolution video that studios and networks are increasingly putting on the Web.

Indeed, the other company complaining about Comcast, online content distributor VUSE, pointed out during the hearing that the content it is distributing using the peer-to-peer application includes programming from CBS, Showtime, A&E and others.

Mike McCurry, co-chair of Hands Off the Internet Coalition, the anti-regulation net-neutrality group, contends that legislation, rather than FCC enforcement of its own guidelines, could be a big problem. "[Content providers] really need to watch this debate because regulated network neutrality is a killer for them," McCurry says. "It basically makes it impossible for network providers to manage data flow that would give the consumer a satisfactory experience."

McCurry says that Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee chairman, is clearly signaling that this will be the year for the debate because the U.S. will have a new president, a new commission and a new Congress in 2009. "It is a good time right now for people concerned, particularly the content providers, to think about what kind of universe they want to live in," he says.

So Comcast's actions have brought it to the forefront, but now what?  The content providers are sure to argue (probably on their own, sadly) that there should be true neutrality and that the ISPs should just provide the gateway to the content and call it a day.  I'm sorry, but that won't happen.  Do you really think that multi-billion dollar companies are going to accept legislation that effectively says that they have no control over their own network?  I'm sorry, but no.

If the various content providers would band together, maybe with VUZE, the so-far largest and most vocal, at the helm they'd have a better chance of reaching a compromise that doesn't favor the "big boys"; the ISPs.  This definitely plays into one of Andrew's big things, which is that a lot of tech companies seem to ignore Washington.  If the content providers were represented by one single entity they might have the weight, not to push around, but to bargain on an equal lever with Comcast, AOL Time/Warner and Cox.

Time/Warner mentioned possibly going to a pay-per-use system where, like your electric bill, you would get charged accordingly with your usage.  That way, instead of limiting high-bandwidth users who pay the same flat rate as casual users they would just pay more.  Unfortunately, Comcast's actions have forced the FCC to jump in and probably in a big way.

With all the changes in Washington in the next year everyone will be looking to make their mark - can you really make a bigger mark than the one you'd make by putting a giant like Comcast in their place?

Once again, I'm sorry to seem like we're picking on Comcast.  It's just that the recent bringing of net neutrality to the forefront of FCC hearings is thanks to them.  It started with their limiting of bandwidth for BitTorrent users.  We also remarked (with non-Comcast hypotheticals) how this bandwidth throttling could be seen as a way to promote Comcast's services (like VoD) over their competitors.  This is a sentiment echoed over at Portfolio.com in their coverage of the FCC's hearing on net neutrality yesterday.  The FCC is trying to determine the legality of "reasonable network management" and potentially remove an ISP's ability to favor one for of net access over another by way of limiting the bandwidth allocated to one activity versus another. 

I don't know if I agree with that.  Even FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that "Consumers need to know if and how network management practices distinguish between different applications, so they can configure their own applications and systems properly," which is something I've been saying for a while.  There really isn't any logical reason why Comcast shouldn't be able to determine how their network is used.  If they want to allow unfettered access to their proprietary content and services.  If they want to start limiting bandwidth hogs, then I guess that's their prerogative.  Where I, and apparently Chairman Martin, have a problem is when it isn't made clear to the consumers what actions could cause their access to be limited.  If they gave clear limits on bandwidth usage along with a simple way to monitor it or maybe gave some examples of practices that would or would not result in limitations.  Maybe something like "Casual e-mail and web surfing with a download the size of a movie once per day is ok, whereas downloading an entire season's worth of 'Friends' each day will probably result in bandwidth being reduced."


Now Edward Markey (D - MA) wants to make net neutrality law.  He feels that the internet needs to stay as open as possible.  Think about the other major means of mass communication:  Television.  TV programs can reach millions and millions of people, but only if licensed broadcasters deem your content important or profitable enough and can convince advertisers to agree.   The internet is totally different.  Right now, I am taking my view on a topic and submitting it for public ridicule and praise.  There's no one telling me what I can or cannot post.  I have to say that this paragraph has me feeling torn.  There's the first part of me who believes that the owner of a network should have a say over how it is used.  Then there's the other part of me who feels that the internet is a public space and that a company might not have the right to limit how I access that space and to what ends.

I think that if pressed to choose, I would have to side with Congressman Markey.  If Comcast, or any company, wants me to pick their content over someone else's just let the content speak for itself.  If your video or method of video delivery is better than another I'll pick you.  You shouldn't need to rely on limiting your competitors' access to consumers to boost your own sales. 

This isn't even something limited entirely to the internet.  Look at Wal-Mart.  They have their various "house" brands but they let those brands compete on the same shelf as brand name products.  They don't limit Coke and Pepsi to small shelves that are hard to reach while placing their Sam's Club brand front-and-center.  It's the same thing at grocery stores where the generics and brand names are side-by-side.  Do these retailers promote the benefits of their products versus the brands?  Of course they do.  They promote the benefits of their products and let you, the consumer decide which you'd rather purchase.

And then, to add insult to injury, Comcast actually paid people off the street to take up space at the FCC hearing in Cambridge.  Here they had an amazing opportunity to explain and exonerate themselves to the public and instead they just did more to damage their reputation.  Once again, Comcast is hiding when they should be embracing the opportunity to turn around their tarnished image.

Again, and I really can't stress this enough, I'm not out to kill Comcast or make them look bad.  When I rant about bad experiences with Sprint's customer service department I'm not trying to create some sort of mass exodus of Sprint customers.  Any "negative" post I write about a company's activities are made in the hopes of affecting change.  These are open challenges that I hope are accepted by these companies.  I'm not here to say "F*** this company" and "You should never buy anything from these guys again."  There are plenty of people who can do that.  That would be taking the easy way out.  Now if Comcast and Sprint and the others want to write off us, and our readers, like that then they're the ones taking the easy way out. 

Once again, please prove me wrong, guys.  Turn me around.  Offer awesome content and services.  Be up front about your policies and limitations.  Offer the best and you'll attract more customers than you'll know what to do with.

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.

 

As usual, Ars does it better than I could on short notice:

Just about every big phone company has filed a statement challenging the FCC's authority to deal with this problem. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all submitted lengthy remarks on February 13th, the last day for comments on the proceeding (parties can still reply to comments through the 28th).

In addition, the RIAA and NBC-Universal also submitted fillings, which included praise of French President Nicholas Sarkozy's attempts to have French ISPs disconnect "suspected copyright infringers."

Wait a minute...I thought we didn't want to be like the French...

On the other hand, Sony, the National Association of Realtors, Vonage, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, and the American Library Association have come out against the Telcos/Comcast in one way or another. This could get fun.

What's happening is we're seeing the Net Neutrality battle the FCC didn't want to take up, and Congress won't touch, being forced to the front by Comcast's heavy-handedness. I'm not convinced that the Commission is going to be reflexively against Vuze or in favor of the Telcos, especially with the widespread support that Vuze appears to be getting from many sides. Remember, the last day to submit comments is the 28th, and most of the big boys have weighed in. The people with stakes in this who have yet to comment are more "Web 2.0" entrepreneurs,  alternative content providers, etc. I'm surprised that Google hasn't submitted a comment, considering they own YouTube.

Where is Facebook, the largest photo sharing site on the 'net? What about Yahoo!, or anyone who wants to serve up their own content?

I'm actually rather surprised the RIAA and MPAA are being so shortsighted on this. The way things are going, they should want to be able to figure out new ways to get their content distributed. Without some kind of limitation on what the Telcos can and can't do, they could monopolize all distribution rights throguh "network management."

Oh, where in the name of Steve is APPLE? iTunes is growing, and uses more and more bandwidth every day. With the arrival of HD content, it's going to use more. You think Comcast isn't going to want to "manage" that?

What if Comcast started their own music and video download service and "managed" all the others' off their network?

Think about that one for a while...

I'll read the various filings and have some remarks later as they come in and the picture becomes more fully formed.

From Reuters

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior lawmaker said on Wednesday he had introduced legislation designed to prevent broadband Internet providers from unreasonable interference with subscribers' access to content.

The bill offered by Rep. Edward Markey is the latest to raise concerns about "net neutrality," an issue that pits open-Internet advocates against some service providers such as Comcast Corp, who say they need to take reasonable steps to manage traffic on their networks.

Markey, chairman of a House subcommittee on the Internet, said his bill was aimed at preserving the "open architecture" of the Internet and preventing content providers from being subjected to "unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers."

"Our goal is to ensure that the next generation of Internet innovators will have the same opportunity, the same unfettered access to Internet content, services and applications that fostered the developers of Yahoo, Netscape and Google," Markey said in a statement.

The bill also would require communications regulators to study the issue and hold public hearings.

Markey dismissed fears that his initiative was an attempt to "regulate" the Internet. "The bill contains no requirements for regulations on the Internet whatsoever," he said in another statement.

 

A major offender here is Comcast.  Due to the insane amounts of data that BitTorrent allows users to share, Comcast is claiming that they need to curb the flow of information to reduce overall traffic and maintain performance.  Now I was under the impression that their service was supposed to be unlimited.  Is it really the consumers' fault that they didn't anticipate the amount of bandwidth that would be demanded by super users?  Later in the article, it is mentioned that Time-Warner may go to a system of charging by the kilo-, mega- or giga-byte as opposed to a flat-rate unlimited plan.  While it certainly seems a step backwards (remember when AOL first launched and it was like $20/month for 10 hours and like $2/hour after that?) but it would clear up the current confusion.  Because, quite honestly, if I have a plan that is marketed as and named "Unlimited" I take that at face value.  I mean does "Oh, it's unlimited unless you use it a lot" seem like a decent argument?  If I weren't going to use it a lot would I have needed/wanted an unlimited package?

 

Cell phone companies have unlimited plans; do you think they could really get away with all-of-a-sudden limiting service because they used too many minutes?

 

Bottom Line (well, my bottom line):

 

If you're going to market a service as unlimited that's exactly what it should be.  It really isn't my (or my fellow consumers') fault that you didn't anticipate how much usage that would really be.  If you need to change the billing structure, then do it.  Just be up-front and honest about it and we'll all respect you that much more for it.

 

Anyone else been surprised by an unlimited plan/service that wasn't as "unlimited" as you thought?

 

UPDATE -

Here are Comcast's Terms and Conditions for High-Speed Internet, from their website.  These T's and C's are referred to at the end of all of the various cable internet pricing plans.

Speed comparisons for downloads only and compare Comcast download speed of 6.0 Mbps to 1.5 Mbps DSL. Many factors affect speeds. Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. PowerBoost only available with Comcast's 6.0/8.0 speed plans. PowerBoost provides bursts of download speed above the customer's provisioned download speed for the first 10 MB of a file. It then reverts to your provisioned speed for the remainder of the download.  Offer expires 3/31/08. Offer limited to Comcast Video customers who have not subscribed to Comcast High-Speed Internet service for past 120 days. Retail offers may vary. Equipment (including a cable modem) required and offer does not include equipment charges. FOLLOWING THE PROMOTIONAL PERIOD, COMCAST'S REGULAR CHARGES APPLY UNLESS SERVICE IS CANCELED BY CALLING 1-888-COMCAST. May not be combined with any other offer. Professional installation (for an additional fee) required for non-Comcast cable video customers, and rates vary according to service area. Self-Install Kit, requires customer installation, may only be used for existing cable wired outlets, and is not available in all areas. $9.95 shipping and handling applies if Self-Install Kit is shipped. Prices shown do not include taxes and fees. Pricing and content may change. Call Comcast for restrictions, minimum requirements, and details about service and prices. Use subject to Comcast High-Speed Internet terms and conditions. © Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.

 

Now it should be noted that no where does it say "unlimited." In fact, Comcast pointed that out in its FCC Filing.  But where does it imply a limitation of bandwidth?  Seeing as how most internet services are indeed unlimited nowadays is it really unresonable for someone to assume that, unless stated otherwise, there's won't be as well?

For instance, I used to have mobile broadband from Sprint.  They offered a plan that was unlimited and one that was, I believe, 40MB/Month for $39.99. 

Now if the latter plan didn' t mention that it was limited to 40MB and just said "Sprint Mobile Broadband for $39.99" I would probably assume that it was unlimited.  Now, as much as Andrew might want me to, I'm not getting into the nitty gritty of the filing and actual FCC policy.  This is because a) I am not a lawyer, legislator or lobbyist and b) I don't really care.

I "don't care" not out of indifference but because it isn't fair to the consumer to to use ambiguous terminology in the marketing of your products or its limitations.  If they had just said "during peak usage times some customers may notice a slight drop in performance to accomodate affitional users on the network" I think they could have avoided a lot of headaches. 

Now I'm not saying that I think consumers need to have their hands held every step of the way, being treated like small children who are completely devoid of having personal responsibility.  But, to hammer the point home, if you're providing a service and collecting a fee for it just be up-front with me.  Not by way of an FCC Filing but right up front, right along with the other tech spec's and features. 

 

So let's make a deal.  Right now.  I'll tell you what I want, you tell me what your product can and will do, and we'll take it from there.  If you can give me what I'll want, I'll buy from you and be happy.  If you can't, that's ok, I'll just go somewhere else.  But please don't promise (or imply by omitting limitations) that you can do things that you can't or won't.  I'm not going to threaten pointless legal action or some annying anti-corporate rally.  I will, however, let anyone who reads know that I think that corporate dishonesty is really shitty.

Bob Mould has become one of my favorite artists over the years. Needless to say, when his live DVD came out last year, I snapped it up. Giving into my pirate temptation after preordering a copy of his upcoming release District Line I downloaded a bittorrent. Bob now considers himself a DC artist, so the album art and title are evocative of our ever loving Metro system. That being forgiven, down to the music, which if you want you can go and find yourself. If not, preorder the damn thing and give the man his due. Sorry purists, there are some elements of technology in there, which he uses judiciously to enhance his guitar-driven (and it is a guitar-driven cd) and emphasize the Mouldian hooks which he's known for and delivers in droves. The lead single The Silence Between Us, available on iTunes, is Classic Mould. The rest simply expands on his multi-faceted sound which is loud as it is evocative of strong emotions that Bob is known for. I'd call this one Workbook on steroids. I won't link to any downloads because I don't want to make it easy for you to steal his music. I've already preordered my copy, and I won't be sharing. If you want it that badly, go and find it. It's worth enough that even if you do, you should pay him his $12 and get a hard copy. He also plays the 9:30 Club (with Morel, Canty, and Narducy, the lineup from his '05 tour) on March 15th. Pay him $25 for that too. He's earned it. In the mean time, here's a clip from his Circle of Friends: Live at the 9:30 Club DVD (recorded October '05)