Comcast and Net Neutrality

[evkl]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SCEBLG0&show_article=1

I don't think this is quite soap box worthy, but what do you guys think about Net Neutrality now?

NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high- speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file- sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.

Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access"—Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.

Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.

Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer—it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive.

"There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a computer consultant.

Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible—as would someone pirating music.

Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment.

"We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers."

The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.

Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic—in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down—and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic.

The "Net Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally.

To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.

The FCC's stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says that "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.

Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.

"We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.

Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.

"It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet."

Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology, including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by different groups and companies).

Ashwin Navin, the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.

"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.

BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content.

Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype video- conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is hampering those services.

Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.

In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas.

Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method.

"By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way to report any problems with it," Topolski said.

___

Associated Press Writers Ron Harris, Brian Bergstein, Deborah Yao and Kathy Matheson contributed to this story.

 

[Nekusagi]

Wow... that is completely LAME. But I can see where it would be in Comcast's best interests. I mean, they're mostly a cable company, and BitTorrent does give you the opportunity to download TV shows. I can see how that would seem to their execs as being the equivalent of a liquor store selling loaded AK-47s.

Still, this is very wrong. Consumers should be the ones deciding how they want to use the Internet, not the companies. And the FCC's position seems to me like the equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission telling a Chevy or something they could say "well, you can have this Suburban, but if you try driving it on the interstate, it'll shut the engine off."

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I don't see the problem. From what I've heard, it only starts to affect people who download the equivalent of 1000 songs a day. Not too many people are going to reach that point. And if it really does affect other subscribers' services, then there's another good reason.

 

[evkl]

It's not on downloads, it's on uploads--even a single upload, for legal purposes.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

It's not on downloads, it's on uploads--even a single upload, for legal purposes.

Bleh, misread upload as download. Does anyone know if it WAS Comcast who was doing what I mentioned?

I still don't think this is THAT bad in theory, but unless they can determine the nature of the file being uploaded (i.e., its copyright terms), they should only limit it, not completely disallow it. Limiting is one thing, but a complete ban on it is just...stupid.

 

[evkl]

Yeah, Comcast has secret limits on your down bandwidth.

 

[Zhen Lin]

This isn't really about net neutrality. Prioritising traffic based on their nature (e.g. VoIP, videoconferencing, gaming and other time-sensitive traffic taking priority over email, web browsing, etc.) is not being non-neutral. Even the telephone networks do that - emergency calls over normal calls, etc. Prioritising traffic based on its origin (e.g. Google, MSN, YouTube, etc.) in order to extort businesses into paying to bump up their priority - that's what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.

 

[evkl]

I thought net neutrality was not giving preference to anyone--treating all traffic coming across a network the same.

 

[Zhen Lin]

Not quite. That would actually make things worse for certain classes of traffic.

 

[Trip]

Yeah, what we're talking about here is QoS. QoS is fine, prioritizing VoIP, for instance, over other traffic.

Breaking Net Neutrality would be Comcast putting QoS on their own VoIP and not on Vonage service. Which they do as well, from what I hear.

As long as all similar traffic is prioritized similarly, it's not about net neutrality.

That still doesn't make me happy about this development, since BitTorrent is gaining in legitimate uses (Joost, WoW Updates, iPlayer, etc).

- Trip

 

[darkpikachu02]

Comcast Digital Voice

There was an article a while back accusing Comcast of blocking people from using Comast Digital Voice to call other phone companies to switch their phone service from Comcast Digital Voice to somebody else. It is things like this that makes me glad that I got Verizon DSL. It is cheaper and less restrictive.
Ben