Comcast’s Closed Internet
February 15th, 2008 by caaronThe FCC investigation of Comcast’s violations of Net Neutrality is in full swing. Thousands of activists have weighed in, and on Wednesday Free Press and its allies in the SavetheInternet.com Coalition filed extensive research and a lengthy legal analysis of what Comcast is doing (if you have been following the issue closely, you should enjoy all 100 pages).
Comcast is now playing defense.
Employing 10 lawyers and countless minions, Comcast claimed in its filing with the FCC that the crippling of innovative online video competitors such as BitTorrent, Vuze and Miro is no big deal. They claim to be only targeting the miniscule .01 percent of users who actually use the bandwidth they pay for every month. But this is completely false — even their army of high priced lawyers couldn’t mask their true aims.
What Comcast Is Really Doing
Let’s review what we know about Comcast’s actions:
1. It is crippling the content-delivery systems that have emerged as real threat to its $17 billion video business — and it’s own plans to dominate online video.
2. The company is limiting access for everyone — not just the mythical “bandwidth hogs.” Comcast isn’t just blocking the .01 percent from using these programs. They’re are also cutting off the other 99.99% — regardless of the size of the files being transferred. (The AP couldn’t even download a copy of the Bible.)
3. Comcast promised the public and the FCC over and over again that it has no reason to limit people’s connection and would never do so. Let’s review the history:
- Comcast, December 2000: We will value an open Internet.
- Comcast, May 2003: We don’t prevent our customers from doing anything.
- Comcast, August 2007: We do not mess with your connection.
- Comcast, October 2007: We (only slightly) mess with your connection, but it is “reasonable network management.”
- Comcast, February 2008: We mess with your connection and you can’t do anything about it.
That’s right. Now the Comcast lawyer army claims that the company can do whatever it wants with its network — and the FCC can’t do anything about it.
Why the change of heart? What they said in 2000 and 2003 was before innovative new peer-to-peer companies offered viable alternatives to Comcast customers. It’s no stretch to envision a future where these customers are free of the cable cartel and going online where they only pay for what they want. (Note: Comcast just reported a 14 percent increase in revenue plus a 54 percent increase in net income. That equals undervalued and angry Comcast customers).
Lies, Damn Lies, and ‘Reasonable Network Management’
The company’s claim that this is a fair way to manage the network is bogus. Comcast has many other options that do not discriminate. For example:
1. Comcast could put a cap on how much bandwidth each customer can use (This is the cheap, lazy and unpopular option)
2. Comcast could deal with the infamous .01 percent on a case-by-case basis (The company’s stated method in years past).
3. Or Comcast could listen to consumers and perform the badly needed upgrades to their network (That would be smart and quite feasible given its financial health. Did I mention that 54% increase?)
But instead, they’ve decided to censor your Internet traffic and declare war on consumers.
Here’s the bottom line: Comcast is violating Net Neutrality and threatening the future of online video. The FCC needs to stop them and stand up for the 99.9 percent of us who pay the commissioners’ salaries.
And Congress needs to make sure the law prevents discrimination so that the free and open Internet stays that way. So call up your Reps and get them on the new Net Neutrality bill. – Adam Lynn
February 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Comcast makes over $600 million in 4th quarter, declares it will pay its shareholders a 6.25 cent dividend, wants to buy back $7 billion in shares. Yet they choose bandwidth throttling over upgrading their network.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
[…] Comcast’s Closed Internet from Save the Internet Blog […]
February 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
[…] Wired News) summarizes the story. Nate Anderson of Ars Technica details Comcast’s argument. Craig Aaron of Save the Internet argues that Comcast’s practices are much more harmful than the company […]
February 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Speaking of lies, SaveTheInternet sure does like to lie. I quote:
“(The AP couldn’t even download a copy of the Bible.)”
No downloads were ever blocked or throttled or reset. It was only BitTorrent seeding during certain busy times of the day that were blocked. Seeding without downloading is a 24/7 activity that simply isn’t supported by a Cable broadband network and the Comcast Terms of Service has always stated no servers. That means BitTorrent seeds violate the Comcast Terms of Service and you’re lucky you get to seed most of the day. If you want to seed all they time and act as a commercial grade distribution point, buy yourself a commercial-grade account from Comcast or someone else.
Good job guys, keep up the propaganda.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Good point, George. I’ve always said that the small kernel of a case STI may have for a regulated Internet is completely obscured by their lack of credibility.
If you’re on the right side of an issue, you don’t need to lie.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Associated Press, Oct. 19:
How the AP tested Comcast’s file-sharing filter
PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
October 19, 2007 10:27 AM
NEW YORK (AP) - To test claims by users that Comcast Corp. was blocking some forms of file-sharing traffic, The Associated Press went to the Bible.
An AP reporter attempted to download, using file-sharing program BitTorrent, a copy of the King James Bible from two computers in the Philadelphia and San Francisco areas, both of which were connected to the Internet through Comcast cable modems.
We picked the Bible for the test because it’s not protected by copyright and the file is a convenient size.
In two out of three tries, the transfer was blocked. In the third, the transfer started only after a 10-minute delay. When we tried to upload files that were in demand by a wider number of BitTorrent users, those connections were also blocked.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:44 am
What’s your point caaron? The UPLOAD got blocked, not the download. This blog is misleading the public.
The Free Press can only offer bad solutions such as metered internet access and then turn around and contradict themselves by saying metered internet access is bad. The Free Press can only offer bad solutions like random packet dropping which punishes the majority of people who aren’t violating their terms of service with Comcast and who aren’t hogging the scarce upstream resources.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1001
February 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I suggest any Comcast customers out there email Comcast and let them know you’re not happy.
Regardless of what specific protocol they’re “shaping”, the point is, they’re “shaping”, which is really a mask word for “crippling certain types of activity”.
As far as I see it, blocking uploads is blocking downloads. One person’s upload is another person’s download. If you’re trying to download a file and it only exists on Comcast customer’s pcs, and their uploads are blocked, your download is blocked. Pretty simple I think.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
The Bible was being requested by someone who then was not able to download it because of Comcast’s interference, as the AP story clearly states. So who’s lying? I also have not seen any evidence of Comcast only doing this during “certain busy times,” just their statements claiming this to be the case. It is unfortunate that you still believe Comcast is only targeting those who “seed all the time,” when the evidence clearly shows the company is limiting access for everyone in certain areas. Comcast isn’t just blocking the “bandwidth hogs” from using these programs. They’re also cutting off the other 99.99% — regardless of the size of the files being transferred. Thanks for your detailed misreading of our comments over at ZDNet. For those who would like to judge for themselves, you can read the full comments here: http://www.freepress.net/docs/fpcomcastcommentsfeb1308.pdf
February 19th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“As far as I see it, blocking uploads is blocking downloads. One person’s upload is another person’s download.”
That’s some nice double speak silverfox. Let me spell it out for you: Servers are against the terms of service Comcast customers agreed to. If you don’t like it, buy a commercial-grade account from Comcast or someone else that permits servers. I have as much right to hijack your computer, broadband, and phone line on your dime as you or Vuze have to hijack Comcast’s residential broadband network.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“The Bible was being requested by someone who then was not able to download it because of Comcast’s interference, as the AP story clearly states. So who’s lying?”
So who’s lying? Apparently you are. Complaining that you can’t download something from a BitTorrent server that was violating their terms of service is perverted logic.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
[…] There is hope in this fight. Free Press is a fantastic non-profit organization that fights for media access. They run the Save the Internet Campaign, the leading voice for Net Neutrality. We have joined them along with our friends at Public Knowledge, Consumers Union (Consumer Reports), and other groups to file comments (pdf here) with the FCC that ask for public-interest minded rules to govern network management. More on Comcast and neutrality from Free Press. […]
February 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I am one of those Comcast 1 percenters. Comcast suspended my service last night at 8pm without any warning, for a period of no less than 12 months. I live in an area where comcast is the only cable internet supplier, my next option is to use embarq DSL but that will cost me almost $400 to set up (because Comcast cut the lines to install their phone service through my house lines). I have been a comcast customer for about 7 years. I have TV, Phone and internet service with them. I live in an area where the internet is considered “low usage” because most of my neighbors are over 70. I use the internet to watch movies..movielink.com that i pay for, I use the internet to communicate with my 5 girls and my granchildren via webcam and mic (They live in Vermont and I live in Florida), I use the internet for my college work i am taking online BA courses, I am an internet addict and it is part of my daily life. Comcast just advertised free full length tv shows and movies via their website with no mention of bandwidth restrictions to watch them?? I was out of work last month with a blown knee and used the internet more than normally. Now what do I do?
February 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
bodeaga … call Congress and tell your story!
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=act
February 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Just an update on my dilema.. I got a call today at work and my case is being looked at in the Phillie offices. Waiting for another call from Matt Moleski (head of or manager of Comcast security) to see if we can work this out and get reconnected. Lets keep fingers crossed. I feel like this is a David VS Golliath thing