Comcast + BitTorrent: Don’t Believe the Hype
March 27th, 2008 by caaronWhat a surprise to open today’s Wall Street Journal (well, click on it anyway) and see that Comcast and BitTorrent are suddenly BFF.
Apparently, all Comcast’s blocking, lying, blocking, denying, blocking, seat-filling, blocking, snubbing its nose at the FCC, and more blocking was just a big misunderstanding.
According to the companies’ joint press release: “Comcast Corporation and BitTorrent, Inc. announced today that they will undertake a collaborative effort with one another and with the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with rich media content and network capacity management.”
Oh, and did they mention? “Both BitTorrent and Comcast expressed the view that these technical issues can be worked out through private business discussions without the need for government intervention.”
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but there still might be a few loose ends.
Here’s Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, who wrote the complaint that sparked the FCC investigation:
This agreement does nothing to protect the many other peer-to-peer companies from blocking, nor does it protect future innovative applications and services. Finally, it does nothing to prevent other phone and cable companies from blocking. Innovators should not have to negotiate side deals with phone and cable companies to operate without discrimination. The Internet has always been a level playing field, and we need to keep it that way.
And he’s far from alone in questioning the Comcast-BitTorrent love affair. Here’s Nicholas Reville of the Participatory Culture Foundation, whose Miro Internet TV application is one of the fastest-growing BitTorrent clients in the world:
Comcast is taking a page right out of the auto industry playbook: Car companies deny the importance of global warming while using announcements of future technology to block meaningful environmental protections. Comcast can see that public demands for Net Neutrality protections are growing — this announcement is a transparent attempt to distract from that debate. The announcement from Comcast and BitTorrent Inc has absolutely nothing to do with the need for Net Neutrality protections, and BitTorrent Inc certainly does not speak for other torrent technology companies.
And even FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seems skeptical of the new P2Peace agreement:
I hope that the negotiations to which Comcast commits today will result in a solution that preserves consumers’ ability to access any lawful Internet content and applications of their choice. That ability is fundamental to preserving the open marketplace and innovation that characterizes the Internet.
I am concerned, though, that Comcast has not made clear when they will stop this discriminatory practice. It appears this practice will continue throughout the country until the end of the year and in some markets, even longer. 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. Comcast should provide its broadband customers as well as the Commission with a commitment of a date certain by when it will stop this practice.
The FCC is holding a hearing at Stanford on April 17. Be sure to get there early!
March 28th, 2008 at 9:54 am
This initiative proves that the marketplace is working and that net neutrality regulations are unnecessary. The ability to engage in e-commerce is critical for U.S. businesses, and the broadband market must be driven, not by government fiat, but by advances in technology, competition among the many wireline and wireless broadband providers, and consumer choice.
http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/03/marketplace-pro.html
March 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
You can read more about this and discuss this news over at the Free Press Action Network.
http://www2.freepress.net/actionnetwork/node/526
“One has to wonder why a formal announcement of this sort would be necessary if Comcast has, as they have so vehemently claimed, never blocked internet content or applications. This announcement only confirms Comcast’s history of deception and broken promises. It is encouraging to see Comcast beginning to play well with others, but we can’t just take their word that the Internet is now in safe hands. This doesn’t change the urgent need for the Federal Communications Commission to take action.”
March 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
COMCAST CREATED THE PROBLEM WITH OVERSOLD CAPACITY AND AN ARTIFICIAL SHORTAGE, THEN BLAMED IT ON ITS SUBSCRIBERS
In its terms of service, Comcast warns customers that use over 5 Gegabytes per month is excessive, for a bandwith connection that could provide over a 1,000 Gegabytes a month.
That would be oversold bandwith capacity by a factor of 200:1 in terms of Gegabyte volume potential compared to that actually available.
As per customer use increases, Comcast is facing the consequences of a misleading marketing policy, carefully designed to lure subscribers with maximum broadband speeds which are then subject to interruption, delay or cancellation at will by Comcast as spelled out in the fine print.
After causing the problem, then Comcast proceeds to blame it on the customers, particularly those labeled as “bandwidth hogs” who somehow cause a problem by merely using the bandwidth sold to them by Comcast.
There are several obvious solutions. The connection capacity can be cut back and derated to match actual network capacity, in which case peak congestion would disappear by definition.
An on-peak and off-peak bandwith use rate can be assessed neutrally to price congestion as caused by any subscriber of any size by any content, large or small - “hogs” don’t cause congestion in off-peak periods while “non-hogs” like emails do cause congestion in peak periods.
Expand network bandwidth capacity and sell dedicated connection capacity not subject to reassignment, interruption, delay, degradation or arbitrary cancellation at will by Comcast.
Stop insisting that because cable bandwidth is technically shared, it can’t be dedicated - nonsense. When 2 adjacent water faucets are turned on at the same time, just because they “share” the same capacity source doesn’t mean one has to be cut off when the other is turned on, which is effectively what Comcast is doing.
Cease ridiculous marketing claims of broadband capacity so sharply limited by Gegabyte volume constraints, it’s like renting a car that goes 90mph but can be driven only one mile a day. Or worse, in mid-driving, the car is disabled by remote control and the rental agency refuses to reveal the reason.
Anti-competitive treatment of content by Comcast that competes with content sponsored by Comcast is a separate, equally serious problem that should have been pounced on immediately by the Federal Trade Commission, which is apparently too busy fine tuning its policy against net neutrality.
This is the arrogance of market power in action, not subject to effective competition or regulation in the form of enforced network neutrality.
It also reflects classic monopoly conduct, raising price to sell less while recovering profit above competitive cost.
The attitude of the Comcast representative before the FCC, as well as that of Kevin Martin, FCC Chair, in the public hearing was one of opposing condascension and masked hostility as the two squared off with each other in terms of which one had the right to question the other about anything.
The only reason Comcast negotiated with BitTorrent is the threat of enforced net neutrality either in the short run by the FCC or in the long run by legislation, and once that is removed, Comcast will once again take off the gloves and start using the brass knuckles.
Net neutrality is the answer to these problems created by Comcast and should be enacted with forceful legislation and regulation.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The folks at Vuze have also weighed in. Read their blog here:
http://blog.vuze.com/
Here’s a highlight:
“Network operators already have demonstrated their willingness to engage in mischief that harms consumers. For years they said that market forces will solve all ills and that network management restrictions were a ’solution in search of a problem.’ Both turned out to be untrue. We are at a point where non-binding policy statements and assurances of good faith are no longer sufficient. Innovative companies like Vuze rely critically on the pipes controlled by network operators to deliver their service to consumers. It is unreasonable to expect companies like Vuze to compete in a world where there are no clear, enforceable rules to keep bad behavior in check. There is even greater cause for concern when the company that controls the pipes also is your competitor, as is Comcast with its own video offerings.”
March 30th, 2008 at 11:14 am
@barry payne-economist
Just a correction — it’s Verizon Wireless that names the 5GB/mo. number.
Comcast doesn’t list any specific number. Instead they couch it in terms that mean any bandwidth amount that might impact their network, in their sole opinion.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
funchords
see the link below for Comcast terms of service on excessive use; it’s an 80-page pdf document filed at the FCC on 02-13-08 in Docket 07-52, which states in Attachment B at the end,
“Excessive use means data usage that is not characteristic of a typical residential user of the service as determined by Comcast …
… Currently, the median data usage by Comcast High-Speed Internet customers is approximately 2GB each month.”
it goes on to explain that Comcast identifies “excessive” use in the aggregate, then drills down to individual users to warn and disconnect them if not satisfied with the response
correct, no hard cap of maximum, dedicated Gegabyte use appears in the language (but bandwidth in Mbs is implied on an “up to” basis);
if 2GB is the “median”, then 5GB is a reasonable measure of the “average” or “typical” residential customer cited above since the average (mean) will lie above the median due to the skewed use of “heavy users”
if indeed Comcast applied the standard implied above, i.e. use above 2GB is “excessive” and would cause congestion, then oversold capacity would be more like a factor of 400:1 than 200:1 (see original post);
more realistically, Comcast is aribitrarily cherry picking and shedding “heavy users” in order to maximize the total number of all users which generates the most profit from oversold capacity, i.e. knocking off one “heavy user” could get 5 or 10 “small users”
Comcast FCC Filing - Attachment B
if this link does not work, go to fcc.gov, “electronic filings” to “search for filed comments” and type in “07-52″ for the docket number for the date 02-13-08