Recently in Net Neutrality Category

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?

Comcast responded to the FCC's order to revise and explain their network management practice.

It's simple, really. They're just going to cut you off at 250GB.

Now think about this. The original premise behind this issue was that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, and potentially cutting off a rival provider of video downloads. Now it's being turned into the more general issue of what is a fair amount of bandwidth.

But here are two points to consider when evaluating Comcast's announcement:

1. Comcast doesn't believe the FCC has the authority to tell them what to do on this. They may be right. The guys over at Technology Liberation Front have some good rationale behind it, and even Bill Kennard, former FCC chairman says that the Commission's K-Mart led majority (since when does Martin agree with Adelstein and Copps?) is probably overreaching.

2. Comcast doesn't care about downloads. They care about uploads. The big idea is that if you can create content, they are no longer the gatekeeper. Already discussion on FriendFeed is saying this. I'm not so sure it's true. Sure, Comcast has an interest in getting you to pay them for cable, etc, but how do they benefit from screwing their customers? Free Press says the real issue is one of monopoly. This might be true where Verizon and ATT haven't been able to roll out Fiber To The Home and where you can't get DBS or DSL, but Comcast doesn't have a monopoly on Internet access.

I would be more interested in discussing #1 than making emotional arguments about #2.

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

Ok, so yesterday I posted the witness list for today's Net Neutrality/Broadband hearing. I could have woken up at 5am to beat the line standers and get a seat with the lobbyists who pay people to stand in line for them in the halls of the Rayburn building, but I didn't. I could be listening on the Audio Webcast. I tuned in for about 10 minutes, and haven't been impressed yet. I've got other projects, other things to work on, so I'm listening but my attention has not been caught. Why? Have you ever turned on your favorite TV show expecting a new episode and instead getting a rerun, or worse yet, a 3 hour extended version of American Idol? You know what you'll be seeing and hearing. No surprises, nothing to discuss with your friends. Just the same, this hearing, despite a few new faces, was a rerun in a series over the past year or so, including a few at the FCC. 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and his Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will be holding a hearing tomorrow on H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. The bill would direct the FCC to figure out exactly how many households get real Broadband service, as well as establish very basic Net Neutrality protections.

Steve Peterman, Executive Producer, Hannah Montana (against)
Mitch Bainwol, CEO, RIAA (against)
Kyle McSlarrow, CEO, NCTA (against)
Ben Scott, Director, Free Press (for)
Walter McCormick, CEO, USTA (against)
Christopher Yoo, CDT (against, academically)
Michelle Coombs, Christian Coalition (for)
Scott Savitz, Shoebuy.com (for)

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

Courtesy of Free Press

We got this super-cool email from Comcast today.  It outlines their plans, in partnership with Pando Networks to create a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for P2P users.  P2P users are the people who got their bandwidth throttled when they used "too much."  This announcement is really exciting because it moves towards something that I'm pretty vocal about - giving consumers all the info about a product or service so that they can make the decision that's best for them.  Comcast and Pando are both deserving of a big big BIG "Way to go!"

 

Here it is, right from Comcast.

 

For Immediate Release

 

Comcast and Pando Networks To Lead Creation of "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" for Peer-to-Peer Users and Internet Service Providers

 

Companies also announce plans to test Pando Network Aware? P2P technology on Comcast's network to identify faster and more efficient ways to deliver legal P2P content

 

Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY - April 15, 2008 - Comcast Corporation and Pando Networks, Inc. announced today they will lead an industry-wide effort to create a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" (BRR) for peer-to-peer (P2P) users and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  The two companies plan to collaborate and engage with industry experts, other ISPs and P2P companies, content providers and others to set a framework for the BRR that can serve as a best practice.  The purpose would be to clarify what choices and controls consumers should have when using P2P applications as well as what processes and practices ISPs should use to manage P2P applications running on their networks.  For example, P2P users should have the right to control their computers' resources when using P2P applications.

 

In addition, Comcast and Pando plan to conduct a test of Pando Network Aware? P2P technology on Comcast's fiber-optic network.  The purpose of the test will be to capture and analyze the data flow associated with downloading a file using Pando's P2P application.  These tests, along with tests Pando will conduct on a variety of other ISP networks, including cable, DSL, fiber and wireless, will measure things like performance, speed, distance and geography as well as the bandwidth consumption impact to the ISP.  Comcast, Pando and the P4P Working Group plan to publish the results of these tests so other ISPs can benefit from understanding how P2P applications might be optimized for traveling over different types of networks in different environments and geographies.

 

Today's announcement builds on Comcast's March 27^th announcement to collaborate with BitTorrent and the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with rich media content and network capacity management.  It also builds on Pando's recent announcements of its P4P test results which demonstrated Pando's ability to reduce network congestion and speed content delivery by routing P2P traffic more effectively across cable, DSL, and fiber broadband networks.

 

The Pando test will provide additional data to help Comcast migrate to a protocol-agnostic network management technique by the end of this year.  The arrangement is yet another example of how these technical issues can be worked out through private business discussions and without the need for government intervention.

 

"Working together, Comcast and Pando can help lead the discussion about what consumers should expect in terms of a 'P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' for P2P users and ISPs," said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer.  "Doing so is in the best interest of everyone involved - ISPs, P2P companies and consumers.  We hope to get other industry experts, ISPs and P2P companies together this spring and publish the 'P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' later this year.  By having this framework in place, we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content."

 

- MORE -

Comcast and Pando announcement PAGE 2

 

"At Pando, we have always believed that good P2P applications give users control.  Now we are committing to lead the industry in codifying that," said Robert Levitan, CEO of Pando Networks.  "In addition, we need more data and analysis of how P2P applications deliver content over a variety of different networks.  By sharing the test methodology and results, all P2P companies and ISPs can learn how to more efficiently deliver legal content.  This will ultimately benefit consumers who are relying on P2P programs as well as content providers who are interested in delivering their content to consumers where and how they want it."

 

 

By now everyone is buzzing/blogging/bitching about this article where VirginMedia's CEO claims to be negotiating secret deals to have his content delivered, undermining so-called "net neutrality" principles. Money quote:

In an interview with the Royal Television Society's Television magazine, Berkett said that "this net neutrality thing is a load of b****cks", and revealed that Virgin is already in talks with unnamed content providers about paying to have their content delivered faster than others.

Just a bit of fact-clarifying for everyone:

1. Virgin Media is in the UK. The UK has a completely different infrastructure for content delivery than the U.S. does.
2. Because there is much more state-run media in the UK, their regulator "Ofcom" has far more authority to regulate content delivery systems.
   
3. Despite Ofcom's previous statements to be "hands-off" I suspect that these types of comments will probably inspire some kind of action.
4. None of this has anything to do with the U.S. where the largest Cable provider is a known enemy of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (aka K-Mart) for their refusal to acquiesce to his desire for "a la carte" programmming.
   

Calm down, everyone. This is bloviating with no concrete effects. Wait and see.

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.