Comcast Defends Role As Internet Traffic Cop

RCTrucker7 writes "Comcast said yesterday that it purposely slows down some traffic on its network, including some music and movie downloads, an admission that sparked more controversy in the debate over how much control network operators should have over the Internet. In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast said such measures — which can slow the transfer of music or video between subscribers sharing files, for example — are necessary to ensure better flow of traffic over its network. In defending its actions, Comcast stepped into one of the technology industry's most divisive battles. Comcast argues that it should be able to direct traffic so networks don't get clogged; consumer groups and some Internet companies argue that the networks should not be permitted to block or slow users' access to the Web."

Comments

If comcast want'sto do this

[geekoid]

Then they should not be protected from legal action regarding what flows over the network.

Make that stipulation and they will stop in a heart beat.

Re:If comcast want'sto do this

[Aranykai]

Not a bad idea. If they are doing deep packet inspection to filter and slow traffic identified as peer to peer, are they not party responsible for the alleged infringment? I know if I offered a guy a ride in my car, then watched him shoot the person next to me, and continued to take him home, it would make me an accessory to murder

Re:If comcast want'sto do this

[geekoid]

"..., it easily exceeds the available bandwidth"

Then don't sell 'unlimited' sell a tiered system. Do NOT blame the consumer for your(Comcasts) bad business decisions.

And if they were liable they would stop because no ISP wants to be liable for the consumers actions.

Re:If comcast want'sto do this

[Shakrai]

For cable internet service, an entire neighborhood typically shares the same chunk of bandwidth

And they can get around this by splitting their network into smaller nodes, devoting more channels on the HFC network to HSI services and investing in new technologies (DOCSIS 3.0) as they become available.

Also, there is a LOT less bandwidth alloted for upstream transmissions, so cable networks are a lot more sensitive to torrents

That's not as important as you might think. On DOCSIS 1.1 it's 38Mbits down/9Mbits up. On DOCSIS 2.0 it's 38/27. Even with DOCSIS 1.1 though it's not really a limitation because they typically have multiple upstream channels on the same node. In my area Roadrunner always uses the same channel/frequency for downstream (609mhz) but they have multiple upstream channels on each node that the cable modems are randomly assigned to. My neighbor is connected to the exact same cable drop as I am -- yet her modem is on a different upstream channel then mine is.

I can certainly see their complaint.

I can see their complaint too, but they need to be investing in upgrades. They don't have an interest in doing that though because the next killer-app on the internet is going to be video that directly competes with their own video offerings. They'll try to kill it by instituting bandwidth caps (like Time Warner is trying to do) and when that fails they will offer a "video-grade" service that costs a shitload more then a regular internet connection.

Where would the internet be if nobody had invested in upgrading beyond dialup technology?

Re:If comcast want'sto do this

[harrkev]

You are right about selling "unlimited" bandwidth. They do need to be more transparent with what they are offering.

Their pricing is assuming that not all customers want to use their maximum available bandwidth at the same time, which is generally true. If they really DID beef up the system to handle ALL available bandwidth, then the price would likely double or more.

Basicly, if you want cheaper prices, you have to make a sacrifice or two. If you really want dedicated bandwidth, pay for your own T3 to your house. Cable is marketed to typcial home user, where the use is rather bursty.

This is kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet having the local pro football team stopping by for supper after practice five times a week. After a while, the restaraunt starts to loose money. They then have three choices:
1) Raise prices.
2) Put limits on the service.
3) Go out of business.
None of the three are great options, #1 hurts everybody, not just the heavy users. #2 keeps the prices low for most, at the expense of the heavy users, and #3 hurts everybody in general.

Note that I am NOT defending Comcast. I understand to need to do something about heavy usage. However, I am vehemently agains the WAY they have done things. Secret bandwidth caps and cancelling transfers are just plain decpetive and customer hostile. Now, if they had implemented a more reasonable policy, and actually advertised it, that would be good for everybody. I would be agreeable to temporary bandwith reductions (maybe 25% to 50%) for heavy useres during peak usage periods.

To summarize: I understand the need for limits and bandwidth control. But, Comcast has done a crappy job of implementing it, and has done it in such a manner as to stir up customer wrath. They could have handled things MUCH better.

Re:If comcast want'sto do this

[Shakrai]

None of the three are great options, #1 hurts everybody, not just the heavy users. #2 keeps the prices low for most, at the expense of the heavy users, and #3 hurts everybody in general.

Upgrading their network isn't an option?

would be agreeable to temporary bandwith reductions (maybe 25% to 50%) for heavy useres during peak usage periods.

I wouldn't be agreeable to those. The applications that are used by the minority of internet users today are going to become mainstream tomorrow. Everybody is slamming bittorrent but missing the point that internet video is probably going to be the next killer app.

I don't know about you, but the typical "infringing" bittorrent download in my experience doesn't exceed 1 - 2Mbits because they usually have an unfavorable seeder/leecher ratio. Contrast that to Netflix instant view which consumes more then 2Mbits the entire time you are watching it.

If they can't handle either of the above then how the hell are they going to handle HD video streams? Should we just give up on IP-Video because the cable companies say they can't handle it? Why did we even bother upgrading from dialup technology if they aren't going to be able to keep pace with the times?

Re:If comcast want'sto do this

[Qzukk]

But in this case he paid you to drive him to the guy's house (located on Strained Analogy Place) and then home again. No force was applied.

Well really it's more like I'm paying comcast to ship boxes back and forth from me to wherever they need to go, but rather than spending the money I give them for the service on buying more trucks or paying for gas, they just dump the boxes in a field somewhere, then run crying to mommy government when people demand to know why they're dumping boxes instead of buying enough trucks to handle the shipments.

Here we go again

[Trailer Trash]

There's a world of difference between "slowing traffic down" and spoofing rst packets. I don't mind them slowing down huge downloads or whatever to allow faster web browsing. That's not the issue at hand. I can't use bittorrent to download legal torrents. *That* is the issue at hand.

Trying to change the subject isn't going to help them.

Re:Slowdown

[Pojut]

That's just the thing though...it's not coming out in the open. Numerous studies have shown that they are in fact BLOCKING some types of traffic, which is backed up by countless consumer complaints both online and in print.

Comcast seems to be hoping that your average everyday joe says "oh, they are just slowing it" and that be the end of it. Well, when downloading one version of Ubuntu was nearly 500k a second and then a few months later the next version downloaded at 2 KB per second from my house and roughly 400 KB from the same torrent at a friend's house that DIDN'T have comcast...yeah. I've seen it first hand. This isn't delaying or throttling...this is damn near blocking.

Besides, injecting their own packets into the communication between my computer and another computer...shit, if I did that to two random people, I would be brought up on criminal charges.

The devil is in the details

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

The FCC prohibits network operators from blocking applications but opens the door to interpretation with a footnote in a policy statement that provides for an exemption for "reasonable management."

So who determines what measures fall under the vague umbrella of "reasonable management"? Sure, Comcast can't block applications, but if they slow throughput from said applications down to a crawl, it constitutes a de facto block.

This should be interesting to watch unfold, especially since I myself use Charter. ^_^

First post

[Goffee71]

First post man, woot, woot, wo**** *** Post intercepted by Comcast bandwidth preservation system! ACK*Metacheck - Checking for music, video, first post messages... DELAY*Post... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Service now resuming

"Sorry, all bandwidth used up"

[Hoplite3]

Comcast: Sorry, our video-on-demand has used up all of the bandwidth. You can't watch that video-over-ip site now. Have you thought about getting a digital dvr from comcast? And while you're at it, why not a digital phone? We know you've been having problems with Skype...

Not traffic shaping

[Akaihiryuu]

For the trillionth time...what Comcast SAYS they are doing is NOT what they are doing. Traffic shaping is fine, as long as it does not differentiate by source. Even if they were just throttling or "slowing down" bittorrent, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as what they are doing. They are doing man-in-the-middle attacks on bittorrent connections, and actively impersonating one of the parties in the connection. This is actually illegal.

Re:If comcast wants to do this

[Thansal]

The argument here is this:

ISPs are currently not liable for what illegal things their customers do with the service provided.
One of the reasonings behind this is that they should not be mining traffic enough to know wth is going on. (IANAL, this is a bad explanation)
Comcast says that they SHOULD be mining traffic to shape it and see wth is going on.
Comcast should then be held liable for any illegal activities that they 'know' about because of this monitoring.

get it now?

Personally, I don't know if I agree or disagree. Mostly because I don't really understand how much monitoring they are doing, and just what the legal grounds are that protect the ISPs currently.

On the note of them shaping traffic? I have not much of problem with Comcast shaping traffic as they see fit, well, at least now that they admit it. They are a company and can do what ever the hell they want so long as it is with in the law, and does not defraud/mislead customers/potential customers. I will never use their service, but I still think they are allowed to do what they want. Only problem is that many people have no choice, and there it IS a problem.