Results tagged “Bittorrent” from Capitol Valley

Another filing deadline, another blast of press releases about the Comcast "network management" debacle.

To quote the great philosopher Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

No, really. This topic gets people in an uproar, whether it's the good and well-meaning people at Free Press and Public Knowledge, who brought the complaint, or the folks at Comcast and their NCTA brethren, who have made a valiant effort at reaching out to the Internet community and explaining themselves. They have a great blog. Seriously.

At first, I think there was some justified anger out there. I know there was some major ranting on this blog about what was, in hindsight was a poor P.R. response on the part of Comcast.

See, Network Neutrality was originally this fear that the owners of the big pipes were going to charge Google and others premiums to have their content carried, despite the fact that GOOG and their ilk already pay. This came out of some rather inartful comments by the CEO of what was then AT&T, who ranted about Internet companies making money using "his" infrastructure.

This whole "network management" issue is totally different, but the Network Neutrality debate shifted from the long-haul to the last mile. And Comcast, bless them, didn't react well. First they said there was nothing going on, then admitted it. Then back in March they announced an agreement to try and work out the technical issues that make Cable so difficult a platform to deliver consistant bandwidth on when P2P applications come into play.

Skip ahead to today. Free Press blasted out a release saying it's time for Comcast to "come clean" on their practices, when we know what they are doing, and have known for months.

"Last month, the FCC found Comcast guilty of violating users' online rights," Free Press said. But let's be honest here. Guilty? Last time I looked, not only was the FCC not a criminal court, but there is even dispute over whether or not the FCC can regulate broadband.

But a Free Press spokesperson said that guilty, which has a specific meaning in criminal law, was appropriate as a term of art, "given the amount of deception involved."

Ben Scott, FP's Policy Director even suggested that Comcast might go "AWOL," and not file. But a spokesperson for Comcast was quite adamant in assuring me that the "highly technical" filings would be in the commission's hands "by close of business." Comcast will also make them available at http://www.comcast.net/networkmanagement after filing them with the commission.

Let's cool off until we see what everyone's cards are, shall we?

Did I call that or what? CTIA - The Wireless Association has filed comments before the FCC

The good people at the NYT have given me more reason to get excited about next month's NCTA Cable Show in New Orleans: Watching the speculation, rumour and intrigue behind who might try and take over Time Warner's cable systems, which are about to become sort of "up for grabs" as they get spun off.

Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chief executive of Time Warner Inc., continued to trim what has for years been the world's largest media company by announcing Wednesday that it would completely spin off its cable company.

The news -- which was not unexpected and follows an earlier transaction in which a portion of the cable unit was spun off into a separate public company -- came as Time Warner reported quarterly earnings that were largely in line with Wall Street's expectations.

This is going to be fun to watch for a number of reasons. Last time there was a major group of systems up for sale was when AT&T sold off their Cable systems, leading to a "friendly" competition between Cox Communications, and the eventual winner Comcast. That victory gave Comcast a huge market advantage in the number of subscribers, but Comcast, which has a reputation for fighting like Rocky, the unofficial mascot of its' home city of Philadelpha, may not be able to benefit from going after TIme Warner without helping Cox, their old Atlanta-based foes. 

Besides their live-blogging at Tech Policy Central the kind people over there had some great off-the-cuff commentary on their Twitter stream. 

I think we've all encountered a Short Code, whether we knew it or not.  Any time that a TV show or radio station wants you to send a text message to a 5-digit number, you're being asked to use a Short Code.  Some cost extra money (especially those bastardly ones that sign you up for the joke of the day) and some just cost the same as a regular text message.  They're used for a variety of purposes.  San Francisco alt rock radio station Live 105 (KITS) uses them to conduct listener polls and as an avenue for receiving requests.  Twitter uses them so that you can send and receive Tweets via SMS.

Carriers have to reach agreements with the companies that distribute content and information via Short Code before their subscribers will have access to them.  Verizon Wireless (VZW) caused quite a stink when they decided not to allow pro-choice organization NARAL to distribute Opt-In messages to its subscribers via Short Code SMS.  VZW quickly reversed their decision.

Ars Technica has details on why the FCC should get involved

Tech freedom advocacy group Public Knowledge, Free Press and other groups were unsatisfied with Verizon's turnaround and have asked the FCC to issue a clear policy position that will block Verizon from engaging in similar practices in the future. Noting that the FCC already unambiguously forbids similar discrimination in voice calls and e-mails, the activist groups argue that there is no reason why those same protections shouldn't extend to SMS messaging, especially since it is becoming an increasingly important vector for communication.

Verizon has also been accused of denying short code access to companies that intend to use SMS to promote of facilitate services that compete directly with other services offered by the carrier. Critics argue that this practice stifles innovation and discourages third-party development of some SMS-based services that are potentially advantageous to consumers.

The first paragraph makes a lot of (common) sense.  I mean, if you can use your mobile phone to make an appointment at planned parenthood, why can't you receive equally pro-choice text messages?  There's always the argument (expressed later in the article) that if carriers are limited in censoring of text messages that spam messages could run amok.  Well, not really.  Federal Law already prohibits the heck out of that.

The second paragraph that we included sounds more than a little like the net neutrality stories that we've posted about (like Comcast and BitTorrent).  Could mobile phone carriers do the same thing by limiting Short Code access?  We've all seen ads on TV telling us to text something like VERYNICE to 12345 to get buy a Borat ringtone.  All of our mobile phone carriers sell ringtones too.  Well, if they decide that they'd rather have you buy their Ali G ringtone as opposed to someone else's, they could deny your access to that company's Short Codes.

The Net Neutrality/Reasonable Network Management debate and the one about Short Codes go hand-in-hand.  Seeing as how there would appear to be a precedent forbidding the restrictions on a voice call because of content, the same would seem to apply to text message content as well.  If that argument hold up, then, seeing as how Short Code/SMS censorship is so similar to "Reasonable Network Management" that could help usher in official Net Neutrality legislation.

Full article at Ars Technica.

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.

 

 

Drew Clark reported for TechDaily for a long time. He also runs the Broadband Census. So, I pretty much take what he says about the Cable/Internet industry as gold, and I won't try to "reinvent the wheel" by saying something better than he does. I missed this story yesterday where he does a good job of explaining the hole a certain cable operator is in, both politically and technically.

After going into some background on Monday's FCC hearing which we both covered, Drew notes the back story:

Besides, Comcast is not a very good FOK, or Friend of Kevin -- as in Kevin Martin, the chairman of the agency. Martin has done nearly everything in his power to harm Comcast and the cable industry since he took over the FCC in March 2005.

 

That political battle with the cable industry is all about a la carte, or per-channel television programming.

So, the company that fought tooth-and-nail to keep Net Neutrality off the table last year has a guy who really, really doesn't like them. As we reported yesterday, the "family tiers" were the compromise to Martin's a la carte proposal. Martin is apparently still a bit miffed. It also didn't help that the Verizon VP who was at the hearing said that Verizon doesn't need to manage their network at all. Drew (who was at the hearing) even noticed the name tags:

 

Note even the pre-ordained and subtle digs, visible in this photograph: It is "The Honorable Tom Tauke" on the left, but merely "David L. Cohen" on the right. (Tauke received this honorific because he is a former Congressman, a Republican from Iowa.)

 So, when you walk in with a politically stacked deck, and the other guy says he doesn't even need to do what you're accused of doing...that's bad. But when you admit that your product has a technical limitation, and he manages to plug his products? Ouch. Quoth Mr. Clark:

 

The basic problem for Comcast is that users of P2P applications like BitTorrent do consume an extraordinary amount of bandwidth . But BitTorrent users aren't hogging the fat, downstream pipe that cable offers. It's the the scrawny upstream trickle that everyone is fighting over.

 

DSL service, in general, has the same "asymetrical" character, offering far greater downstream speeds than upstream speeds. But the cable modem service's shared network compounds this problem.

 

Contrast this with the message that Tauke imparted. Given the capacity of Verizon's fiber optic service (FiOS), "at the current time, we do not have the necessity of thwarting or curtailing traffic." Tauke even touted Verizon's 20/20 service, or 20 megabits downstream and 20 megabits upstream. The Bell company announced this symmetrical during the same week in which the revelations of Comcast's BitTorrent behavior surfaced last fall.

At this point, I'm going to stop keeping score. Thanks, Drew.

Two gems today before I head to the office. First is from B&C:

NBC is working with Pando Networks, a peer-to-peer content-delivery-technology company, to revamp its NBC Direct service...

...

The NBC Direct Service lets users download high-resolution, ad-supported versions of NBC shows including 30 Rock, The Office, Heroes, American Gladiators and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. The service -- currently only available for PCs using Internet Explorer -- uses P2P technology to quickly and efficiently download the shows, which are automatically deleted after viewing or after a viewing window has lapsed. Taking a cue from TiVo, the service lets users "subscribe" to their favorite shows, automatically downloading new episodes when available.

NBC will use Pando technology to improve the efficiency of its P2P-delivery system, as well as protecting it through encryption and digital-rights management, including "hash-matching, digital-fingerprinting and content-watermarking technologies," according to Pando.

If you read this space last week, you'd remember that NBC filed comments with the FCC against Vuse, making an uncited assertion that "at least 50% of broadband capacity is taken up by a small minority of users (about 5%) using peer-to-peer networks to traffic in pirated music, video and software." It is a bit interesting that so soon after Monday's hearing that they have announced their intention to use P2P technology to distribute their lawful content, presumably with the expectation that it will not be throttled or blocked by ISPs, especially ones with competing Video On Demand service.

I guess you need a network TV weatherman to know which way the FCC wind blows. Apologies to Bob Dylan.

Next up, the Senate joined their friends in the House of Representatives yesterday in passing legislation giving cable and VOIP providers like Vonage equal access to 911 systems, so that operators can determine the physical location of a call. To their credit, the differences between the bills should be easily fixable, according to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI). In a statement yesterday, Dingell said:

"I am confident that we can resolve the minor differences between the House and Senate legislation in short order...and present a final measure to the president."

With GPS becoming more common on mobile phones, hopefully this will pave the way for more confidence in the 911 system, and faster responses to emergencies for all, no matter who you get your phone service from. Kudos to the FCC for leading the way, and to Congress for putting more teeth behind the initiative. Sometimes these guys really do get things right for the right reasons.

Eager to nail a corporate head to the wall in the mold of his predecessor Elliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has (according to AP, via The Register) has issued a subpoena for traffic data for Comcast's New York subscribers, despite the company's relatively small footprint in the state.

Cuomo may be a small fish for the company to worry about. When FCC Chairman Martin says things like

"While networks may have reasonable practices, they obviously cannot operate without taking some reasonable steps...but that does not mean they can arbitrarily block access to certain services."

you know you might have a problem. Martin (R), whose tenure at the FCC has been known for fines as massive as his love for deregulation, may join fellow Commissioners and usual suspects Michael Copps (D) and Jonathan Adelstein (D) in issuing an official order and possibly fining the nation's largest Cable TV provider and ISP for their throttling of BitTorrent traffic and subsequent attempts to cover-up or obfuscate the issue.

Martin has indicated his unwavering support for competition in all arenas, and although one would suspect he would naturally side with the business, the fact that Comcast operates a "competing" Video service throws a wrinkle into what would otherwise be a clear-cut "reasonable network management" practice. Also, Martin and several of his colleagues were adamant in their desire to encourage more disclosure and transparency in broadband subscription limitations.

 

Meanwhile, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued the U.S. Department of Justice. Again. They're curious to hear about discussions, negotiations or conversations between Google and Jayne Horvath, who was USDOJ's first "chief privacy and civil liberties officer" in 2006, when Google fought off a subpoena for a massive amount of search records. In an extreme cross-country case of "DC revolving door," Horvath is now Google's senior privacy counsel.

According to EFF counsel David Sobel, "

Google has an unprecedented ability to collect and retain very personal information about millions of Americans, and the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have developed a huge appetite for that information...We want to know what discussions DOJ's top privacy lawyer had with Google before leaving her government position to join the company."

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, and I'm certainly used to revolving door type moves like this. I can understand the EFF's concern, but perhaps they doth protest too much?

They've filed a FOIA request about this, six months ago. Given the DOJ's normal FOIA time lag, maybe it would be better to just ask Google. Heck, if you want a bigger headline, sue them! At least it would be more than EFF's business as usual.

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.

 

The FCC meets this Monday, in Cambridge, MA. They plan to do nothing.

Straight from the meeting agenda:

The Commission will hear from expert panelists regarding broadband network
management practices.  The hearing is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first- come, first-served basis.

There will be two panels and a technology demonstration.  Additionally, there will be a
technology fair.

Let me get this straight. They have multiple pleas from different parties about network management, which is a de facto net neutrality proceeding, and they're...going to do nothing? No votes? They're going to listen to some executives from Comcast and Verizon, and Tim Wu from Columbia (gotta be fair, I guess) among other people, and after lunch they'll hear from some technical people, including Eric Klinker from BitTorrent. No vote? This question has been up for over a year now...can we get some kind of decision on what's ok? Please?

Oh, and don't forget about the technology fair! Will there be a moon bounce? I want a moon bounce? Pleaaaase, Kevin, can I play on the net neutrality moon bounce? I promise I'll let all the other kids jump just as high. I swear.

Fine. I'll settle for some cotton candy. Delicious.

By the way, we can still send them comments by going to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and entering proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7.  Speak up, eh?

Also, NYT picks up on Draft Lessig. Good times. Oh, by the way,we've raised $20,000 in 48 hours. Bring it.

Courtesy of TorrentFreak!

Several BitTorrent developers have joined forces to propose a new protocol extension with the ability to bypass the BitTorrent interfering techniques used by Comcast and other ISPs. This new form of encryption will be implemented in BitTorrent clients including uTorrent, so Comcast subscribers are free to share again.

BitTorrent throttling is not a new phenomenon, ISPs have been doing it for years. When the first ISPs started to throttle BitTorrent traffic most BitTorrent clientsintroduced a countermeasure, namely, protocol header encryption. This was the beginning of an ongoing cat and mouse game between ISPs and BitTorrent client developers, which is about to enter new level.

Unfortunately, protocol header encryption doesn't help against more aggressive forms of BitTorrent interference, like the Sandvine application used by Comcast. A new extension to the BitTorrent protocol is needed to stay ahead of the ISPs, and that is exactly what is happening right now.

Back in August we were the first to report that Comcast was actively disconnecting BitTorrent seeds. Comcast of course denied our allegations, and ever since there has been a lot of debate about the rights and wrongs of Comcast's actions. On Wednesday, Comcast explained their BitTorrent interference to the FCC in a 57-page filing. Unfortunately they haven't stopped lying yet, since they now argue that they only delay BitTorrent traffic, while in fact they disconnect people, making it impossible for them to share files with non-Comcast users.

We wrote in this space at length previously about Comcast's zealous, if not a bit lengthly, hair-splitting and Clintonian defense of their "network management" techniques which they use to throttle (legitimate) Bittorrent traffic from reaching their cable customers by forging reset packets. 

Vuze, Inc. ("Vuze") hereby requests the Commission to commence a rulemaking 

proceeding to determine the parameters of "reasonable network management" by 

broadband network operators and to establish that such network management does not 

permit network operators to block, degrade, or unreasonably discriminate against 

lawful Internet applications, content or technologies. 

Sounds reasonable enough to me, right? If Comcast wants to use "reasonable network management," reasonable people can agree on what reasonable is, right? If I'm a network guy, I want my network to be stable and allow my users to "get things done." But, as always the devil is in the details. Comcast wants to decide what "things" should "get done" when online videos are concerned. When your company's "thing" is pretty unique and special, you tend to want people to get access to it. That's the point of the Internet, right? 

Vuze is one of the fastest growing platforms for delivery of high-resolution 

digital content over the Internet.  Consumers can use Vuze's desktop application to 

download and view licensed and self-published DVD-quality and High Definition 

("HD") content from a variety of sources, ranging from "traditional" networks such as 

A&E, The History Channel, National Geographic, BBC and PBS, to newer sources that, 

until now, have lacked an effective means of finding viewers and efficiently delivering 

content to them.  Vuze also provides access to a growing number of licensed video 

game software applications.  Put simply, Vuze delivers on the promise of the Internet to 

serve as an outlet for a richer and wider array of content than is available through 

traditional distribution mechanisms.  Vuze is powered by an award-winning peer-to- 

peer ("P2P") client that enables consumers to download large files conveniently and 

efficiently. 

As described in greater detail below, Vuze is aware that at least one major 

broadband network operator, Comcast, is attempting deliberately to degrade and, at 

times, block content from Vuze and other Internet companies that use similar P2P 

technology.  Vuze believes that other broadband network operators are engaging in 

similar tactics.  Such arbitrary discrimination against traffic carried on their networks 

runs counter to the Commission's policy of "preserv[ing] and promot[ing] the open and 

interconnected nature of the public Internet."1  The deliberate degrading and blocking 

of content also calls into question whether consumers are effectively able to "access the 

lawful Internet content of their choice," "run applications and use services of their 

choice," and benefit fully from "competition among network providers, application and 

service providers, and content providers," again as required by Commission policy.2

------

1 

 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Policy 

Statement, CC Docket No. 02-33, FCC 05-151, at 3 ("Broadband Policy Statement"). 

2 

 Id. 

Really, they're paraphrasing TV's Judge Judy, who famously wrote a book entitled Don't Piss on my Leg and Tell Me it's Raining. 

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 and to censor legal content or discriminate against 

applications and services that they may perceive as competing with their offerings. 

Even major copyright holders have embraced the utility of torrent technology for distributing large video and software files efficiently and rapidly. In addition to Vuze, other legal video sources that use torrent technology include companies that together distribute content from sources such as CBS, MTV, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, the Discovery Channel, BET, Dow Jones, Sony Pictures Television, Sports Illustrated, and sports leagues such as the NHL and 

MLB.  

You may have heard of those guys. They use it, too, and they're getting blocked while Comcast's Video on Demand service flies right on by. Does that make the picture any clearer?

While the Comcast example most vividly exemplifies the betrayal of the 

Commission's open Internet principles by a large network operator, there have been 

other recent actions by network operators that should give policymakers cause for 

concern.  Recently, it was reported that Verizon refused to allow opt-in text messages 

from NARAL, a large pro-choice advocacy group -- a decision which it quickly reversed following a story in the New York Times and subsequent outcry.14  Within the 

last few weeks, Rebtel, a VoIP company offering low-cost international calls on mobile 

phones, was denied access to wireless networks by Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and 

Alltel.15  A few months ago, AT&T was in the news for allegedly censoring comments 

critical of President Bush during a webcast of a concert by Pearl Jam.16  Finally, at least 

two major broadband network operators, Verizon and AT&T, include clauses in their 

Terms of Service that allow them to terminate the service contracts of subscribers who 

criticize the network operators or their business partners.

The common thread in the above examples is that network operators exert 

unfettered control over their users' ability to communicate (including engaging in 

political speech) and over providers of Internet applications, content and technologies 

that seek to reach their subscribers.  The public interest is harmed whenever network 

operators restrict innovation and access to content, censor political speech, or 

unreasonably discriminate against or frustrate the legitimate efforts of their 

competitors.

If you read the Communications Act of 1934 and the Communications Act of 1996, the FCC is given the responsibility of acting to protect the public interest. Vuze isn't even asking for some nanny-statish over-regulation. They even seal the deal with an appeal to let the market work:

Vuze and a growing number of content  distribution companies are distributing legal content using a particular lawful  technology -- a technology that it now finds is being discriminated against by at least  one of the major broadband network operators.  While network operators certainly  should have the ability to engage in reasonable network management, without clear 

rules and greater transparency, Vuze and other content distribution companies will 

have no assurance that a redesigned distribution mechanism will be acceptable to 

network operators.  While some uncertainty -- technical and otherwise -- is part of any 

Internet business, the uncertainty in this case stems from the whims of network 

operators rather than the effects of the free market.  

Not only that, but they'd like the FCC to keep the fox from guarding the henhouse.

Third, while Comcast asserts that its actions amount to nothing more than 

"reasonable network management," such characterizations must be met with a degree 

of skepticism when the content they are degrading is likely perceived as a threat to their 

dominance in the market for electronic distribution of video content.  As discussed

above, Vuze is a rapidly growing source of legal downloads of high quality video 

content from a variety of traditional and new sources. Distribution of such video 

content is no doubt looked upon with apprehension by network operators who would 

prefer to restrict their subscribers to content in which the network operator has a 

financial interest.   Indeed, by degrading the high-quality video content by which Vuze 

differentiates itself in the marketplace, network operators can seek a competitive edge.  

Network operators must not be allowed to undermine the promise of the Internet as a 

means for distributing diverse content and satisfying actual consumer demand for 

particular content.

Free markets? Consumer demand? Sounds good to me. 
In addition to Vuze,  Comcast and Free Press have also filed comments with the FCC, and they're joined by the Center for Democracy & Technology, the ITIF, and the Progress & Freedom Foundation. I don't have time for all of them now, but they should make for some interesting reading later. Watch this space.

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.