Comcast Stumps the FCC
The FCC held a hearing in Boston on Tuesday to delve into the subject of Network Neutrality. Comcast had been caught blocking Bit Torrent on its high speed network. The reason Comcast is blocking P2P is that it uses extensive upstream bandwidth. All cable Internet is architected asymmetrically for 20-1 downstream. They never thought customers would want to send big file upstream. Now they are probably going to have to completely overhaul the way they have built their networks.
Comcast decided not to leave anything to chance with the FCC so they hired a bunch of locals to fill all the seats in the hearing so the Internet activists could not get in. Save The Internet put the whole fiasco up on You Tube. A reluctant FCC is going to have to weigh in on keep the Net an open space. We are in a Telecom Duopoly and any economist will tell you that that means a regulator has got to weigh in.
The issue of net neutrality seems to be under-reported on TPM. This is not merely a technical issue. The "real" issue in two words is "Free Speach". The internet providers and the telecom industry are seeking the "right" to inspect any data a person may be sending and/or receiving and to do something to that data at their unilateral discretion without any pretense of due process.
The recent concern with Comcast is just one example of an ISP doing something underhanded. Of course Comcast does not admit to any underhanded behavior. They, as well as the other ISP hide behind the disingenuous argument of "technical concerns".
Recently, the concept of "filtering" packets has been floated. In the case of filtering, the stated purpose is to stop piracy. While this raises the "protect the children" flag, this is akin to the post office reading your mail. Additionally where is this slippery slope to stop. Will we filter content because of some obscure objection by an unknown person? Will companies fight net neutrality because of supposed public technical concerns where the real intent is to stealthy disable the movement of data from competitors? We have real freedom of speech issues that are not being adequately discussed.
February 28, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Felten wrote "The key battle line is whether Comcast is just managing its network reasonably in the face of routine network congestion, as it claims, or whether it is singling out certain kinds of traffic for unnecessary discrimination, as its critics claim."
TechDirt" reports "It appears that Comcast relies on rather questionable "experts" in trying to present its traffic shaping as reasonable."
Ed Foster writes "Can a vendor with a monopoly on providing one type of service to you cripple it if you refuse to buy other services from them as well? That's what many readers suspect Comcast of doing, and not just because of the recent revelations about its throttling of P2P traffic. Quietly charging more for less whenever possible is what many of its customers think Comcast is all about."
February 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve- Filtering can also mean slowing down P2P traffic to the point that its useless. Much of this is done under the "protecting you from Piracy" flag.
February 28, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use comcast as my isp.
A couple of months ago they upgraded their spam filters, and as a result, I can no longer receive email from a client that manufactures teaching aids to elementary and middle schools. Hardly un-family friendly, this small company would get a "G" rating by any measure.
Or to be more accurate, spotty acceptance. They allow it after complaints and objections?corrections by said company and it's customers and vendors, and then it kicks in again. Very frustrating, and their MIS department is sick of spending time and funds re-correcting their poorly implemented and inaccurate spam filter.
It's true that I do upload and download large graphic files to their FTP server fairly regularly. I also figured that's why I'm paying premium prices.
At this point, if I do have an alternative, I'll take it. They've lost a longtime customer with this foolishness.
I spent a lot of time helping to stop the FCC from expanding their big-media ownership gravy train, and we the people did defeat it. Everyone I spoke to about it, whether democrat or republican was solidly against it. That is why they had groups as diverse as Code Pink and the NRA protesting it. Colin's son didn't know what hit him, so they bundled him off to some peachy media job and got someone more effective in there.
In order to free our fourth estate, it's CRITICAL to get a democrat elected, so that Micheal Copps can become the commissioner, or John Addlestein. They've proven that they are acting in the publics interest because they held non-sanctioned, public meetings around the country. That generated enough press, (as anemic as it was) to notify the public of the upcoming rules changes. The courts did their part, too.
A free society requires a free press. This is a good question for the candidates, as this issue will have far reaching consequences. We've seen that the 1996 telecommunications act which was a huge mistake. No one likes the results of consolidation has resulted in shallow news coverage and poor quality entertainment, void of any redeeming feature.
It's not even a partisan problem. It's an American one.
Free the Press.
February 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink