New Legislation Could Eventually Lead to ISP Throttling Ban

An anonymous reader writes "Comcast's response to the FCC may have triggered a new avenue of discussion on the subject of Net Neutrality. Rep. Ed Markey (D — Mass.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, introduced a bill yesterday whose end result could be the penalization of bandwidth throttling to paying customers. 'The bill, tentatively entitled the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, would not actually declare throttling illegal specifically. Instead, it would call upon the Federal Communications Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether or not throttling is a bad thing, and whether it has the right to take action to stop it.'"

Comments

What about the other end?

[suso]

I wonder if this will have any effect on web/application hosting providers who are using traffic shaping to allocate only a certain amount of bandwidth (such as 3Mbit even though they advertise having larger backbones). Or could it be applied to modules like mod_bandwidth where hosting providers cut off your web hosting if you exceed a certain amount?

Re:What about the other end?

[Qzukk]

Well hopefully, they'll say "if you come out and say that you throttle after X gb transferred or throttle throughput at Y mbps, or throttle protocol Z, then we'll allow it." It'll put an end to "unlimited" bandwidth, secret caps, and so on, and force the companies to actually participate in a market without fraud, which is probably the best we can realistically hope for.

Most likely they'll say "LOL sounds like a FTC issue to us, I don't think we have the right to do anything, take your complaint to..." and then give you directions to the wrong place in true bureaucratic style.

Re:What about the other end?

[GiMP]

You have an interesting question. Although the situations you describe can have a negative impact on customers, some provider throttles make more sense. For instance, SMTP throttling. Some providers are throttling SMTP traffic to limit spam. For some, this is a much better option than the alternatives of blocking it altogether, transparently filtering it, or taking the risk of being unable to remove a spammer before they succeed in sending millions of messages.

Personally, as the operator of a hosting provider, and as a consumer, I see both sides of the argument. As a customer, I enjoy the opportunity to use VoD, VoIP, etc... but as a provider, I understand the occasional need to apply certain limitations in order to protect the customer and the network.

Re:What about the other end?

[Bert64]

Yeah, i have no issues paying for a 1mb connection or whatever, but i do object to paying for an "unlimited" 100mb connection, where the small print declares there is actually a "fair use" limit and doesnt even say what it is.
Any limit imposed should be clearly defined, and i would gladly pay extra for a true unlimited connection. It should also be mandatory to declare any contention up front too, like "you have an 8mb link to a 800mb backbone, which has up to 200 users so you're connection could drop to 4mb during busy periods". Customers should know exactly what service they're paying for.

Re:What about the other end?

[Just Some Guy]

Whatever happened to "quality of service"? I see no ethical problems with detecting torrents and running them at a lower priority, for example, so that they're still perfectly usable but don't overwhelm more interactive activities like web browsing. Everyone seems to be so into imposing quotas when there seem to be more customer-friendly and provider-friendly solutions.

Re:What about the other end?

[budgenator]

you forgot the "if your lucky enough to find an unused port" part.

Re:What about the other end?

[sjames]

Personally, I find it shameful that a new law has to be passed that essentially says "you know those silly old truth in advertising laws? Well just this once, we've decided to actually enforce them once in a while".

Perhaps I'm just old school or something, but at one time, any network connection would have a committed rate, burstable (or not) and an SLA. What "broadband" provides these days is 0 bps committed rate burstable to 1-6 Mbps and practically no uptime guarantee. What they *advertise* is clearly meant to make the customer believe it's 6Mbps committed with 0 downtime.

This business of metering transfer rather than rate is for the most part a scam to make the customer think they're getting a lot more than they actually are. 1 Gigabyte of transfer sounds like a lot to people but actually translates to a rate of 3 Kbps (Yes, not even 9600 baud) and skips over discussing factors such as uplinks oversold by a factor of well more than 100 and the various dirty tricks to keep you from actually using the bandwidth you're paying for.

The ugly part is that because there has been practically no enforcement of truth in advertising, even companies that may WANT to be truthful are forced to either lie or get out of the market. If you advertise LIMITED service, even if the limits are actually higher than the secret limits of the competing "unlimited" service (and no dirty tricks to keep the customer from actually reach the limits) you will go out of business.

When ISPs say that net neutrality will bring the network down, what they really mean is that they will be forced to actually admit that they've oversold their uplink, the poor performance really IS their network, not some anonymous "out on the net" problem and they won't be able to double dip by charging two parties full price for carrying the very same packet.

Meanwhile, all of this sweeping under the rug has prevented market forces from applying downward pressure on the price of real committed bandwidth and forcing a more appropriate balance of price vs. SLA which is why we're supplying 0 SLA home broadband with expensive five nines uplinks rather than several dirt cheap three nines uplinks in spite of TCP/IP being designed to support it.

The big incumbants do NOT want the market to go that way because it would lower barriers to entry and force them to work harder for their revenue.

Re:What about the other end?

[Qzukk]

hogging all the bandwidth

If you bothered to read his post instead of spewing inane invective, you'd see that by advertising the contention rate, you'd have enough information to be able to subscribe to an ISP where you don't have to put up with "bandwidth hogs".

Funny, though, if you're not using the bandwidth, then I don't see where it hurts for someone else to be using the bandwidth, and frankly neither does the ISP, since that's how they justify over-subscription in the first place.

Re:What about the other end?

[GiMP]

The problem I see is that some protocols, such as SMTP, provide little in the way of authentication while consuming very little bandwidth per connection, while having access to increasingly large pipes for decreasingly small amounts of money. My point is, with SMTP messages being so small, I'm not sure it is responsible to give big pipes for SMTP traffic for a low cost. Remember, SMTP comes from a different age than online videos, and there is a big difference between a single user requesting a video online, and a server operator sending emails to thousands of users with the equivalent bandwidth.

Do you really expect to push 700,000 SMTP messages per hour on a $6/mo account? Even on a $20/mo account? While you might not see the difference between 100mbps of outbound SMTP traffic versus inbound HTTP traffic, there is the major difference. The HTTP requests are requested, while the SMTP traffic is well... not. While some HTTP content could be illegal or unwanted in some fashion, it is all requested. If a user types in whitehouse.com instead of .gov, they get what they requested, even if they didn't receive what was expected. I think the difference lies in what is responsible.

Though you might not like to hear it, I should also note it is much more affordable to offer 100mbps of HTTP traffic than it is to offer 100mbp of (outbound) SMTP traffic. I base this on the expenses associated with dealing with SPAM. In comparison to HTTP, which is "mostly harmless", the vile nature of SMTP consumes more technical resources, which drives cost.

I'm not saying that reactive methods don't work at all, but there is a definite lag between the time that the first message is sent and when the first complaint is received. Say you're mailing a message that is 512kb, if the lag until notification is 30 minutes you've sent 360,000 messages. If that lag is 8 hours, as I find is more typical, it could be almost 6 million messages! These are all to recipients that may, or may not, want it! Now, if you're a trusted customer that has a legitimate need for sending such bulk mail, there shouldn't be any problem in reducing or modifying such limits. However, good security usually starts with a default-deny policy.

With VPS accounts being offered at low prices (eg. $6/mo), it is very easy for someone to mis-configure their SMTP server, or authorize a stolen credit card with the intention of spamming. From an unmanaged VPS, emails are not monitored, managed, or otherwise handled the host other than as a carrier. When you're rejecting 75% of orders due to failed payment information, you get concerned that some of those that do succeed in using your order form might just not be who they say they are. Web hosting is a very hostile environment, and it is often difficult to provide a reliable, robust environment without active measures. Are you saying that every web host must configure accounts, and wait 8+ hours before finding out if they've now in the spam business?

Everyone talks about identity theft, but much of it originates from phishing sites and spam. I'm afraid that before long, any web host that doesn't do any sort of active anti-phishing / anti-spam will be blacklisted. It is already approaching that point. Large ISPs are already insisting upon SPF. Unfortunately, when you're not directly managing the DNS and SMTP servers, you can't enforce SPF on all of your netblocks. My question is, when someone on your network does manage to send those 6 million emails in 8 hours, will you get deblacklisted while having hosts on your network that aren't using SPF? For now, the solution is to claim carrier status, and hope that is believable when you're still not big enough to warrant direct IP allocations, or multi-homing.

Realistically, if small hosting providers expect to be allowed a market, they must be carry out responsible and appropriate measures to ensure that their services are not abused. If such measures are entirely reactionary, it might not be enough.

I'l

Re:What about the other end?

[severoon]

Wait...the post you're responding to doesn't really make a point that's relevant to TFA. TFA is about ISPs throttling bandwidth to customers, not servers throttling bandwidth to a particular endpoint. These are totally different things.

If I'm hosting a server and I throttle the number of requests I'll respond to from a particular IP, (IP range, etc), that's just part of how my app is working. If the end user is paying me for a particular service then these kinds of terms are determined by that agreement and have nothing to do with the ISP that customer happens to be using. If there is no contract between me as the app provider and the customer, then I can throttle away. Just like Google could take down its main search page tomorrow and everyone that doesn't have a specific contract with Google for search services would be SOL (like me, and likely you).

On the other hand, as a consumer if I'm hitting the web and paying my ISP to deliver on their promises and they're not meeting the terms of their own contract...that sucks and I shouldn't have to pay for it. I'm tired of these connections being advertised as maximum speeds. I don't care about a potential maximum rate of 6.0Mbps if I'm only ever able to actually get 1.5Mbps burst and 768Kbps sustained. These ISPs should be forced to advertise minimum guaranteed rates. Forcing them to compete on that number would be beneficial to consumers, especially if the law allowed consumers to hold them to their promises and required them to provide consumers an easy way to monitor their speed to hold the ISP accountable.

net neutrality

[yincrash]

looks like some senators might actually be listening to their constituents

Re:net neutrality

[yincrash]

also, isn't this a dangerous game that comcast is playing? if you're saying you're taking responsibility for throttling based on content, are you responsible if you know specifically illegal content is flowing through your pipes?

Re:net neutrality

[conspirator57]

Or "We're doing something. Really we are. There's a blue-ribbon commission to sit on their hands... i mean investigate the situation. We expect results when you've forgotten the issue... i mean soon."

Re:net neutrality

[eln]

I think you are, but I'm sure the telcos will have the laws changed to suit them. In my mind, once you start paying attention to the content going over the line in ANY way, you lose your common carrier status and all of the immunities that go with it. Of course, I'm not a billion dollar corporation with lots of powerful lobbyists in Washington, so my opinion on the matter doesn't mean anything.

Re:net neutrality

[Shakrai]

but I'm sure the telcos will have the laws changed to suit them

I wasn't aware that Comcast was a telco.

Re:net neutrality

[bagboy]

Most telcos run an ISP with a non-regulated sub-division which are not subject to "common-carrier" rules.

Which is worse?

[Archangel Michael]

While I hate Comcast's man in the middle "throttling" of internet packets (Bittorrent), I'm very concerned with the government getting involved. It almost feels like Alien vs Predator, "Who ever wins, we lose" scenario. Because the government will screw it up worse than it is now.

Re:Which is worse?

[plague3106]

Well, totally free markets aren't always good either. Breaking up Bell was one of the best things, as was the other trust busting decades before.

I think the solution here is for each community to own and run the lines, then let companies lease access to them.

Re:Which is worse?

[SanityInAnarchy]

If the government was smart, they'd turn right around and say "OK, you're now a regulated monopoly. This is the maximum you can charge. We know you don't need more to expand your network because we already gave you money to expand your network!"

Re:Which is worse?

[Shakrai]

As a Comcast customer, the first thing I think will happen if the Government passes this is that Comcast will turn around and say that they need to raise my rates to expand their network to the capacity they need to support everyone running peer-to-peer apps

Yeah, cuz they are really hurting right now and clearly have no cash available for network upgrades.

Re:Which is worse?

[plague3106]

As a former customer of Comcast, let me tell you something: THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE YOUR RATES NO MATTER WHAT!!

Re:Which is worse?

[gad_zuki!]

Well, I think the outcome is predictable (not that i think this bill has a chance of passing)

1. Comcast will just move to a tiered plan. Expect chronic users to pay 100-200 dollars and month and people metering their usage to they dont hit the limit. Casual downloaders will pay the current price.

2. Any shaping will lead to potential lawsuits. Suddenly your VOIP wont work as well because bitorrent has the same priority as VoIP. Whoops!

3. Lots of lawsuits. Did your webhost or email provider "shape" your packets in any way?

4. QoS dies because everyone legal department decides its too much of a risk to continue to use.

This is wrong.

[halivar]

I believe ISP's throttling bandwidth is wrong, but the answer is for consumers to punish them in the marketplace, not for government to regulate the internet. It will set a horrible precedent (IMHO).

Re:This is wrong.

[slapyslapslap]

But how much choice do consumers really have? Most can only chose from one or two providers. Hard to punish them in the marketplace with those realities.

Re:This is wrong.

[Billly Gates]

The problem is lack of competition thanks to the deregulation of the last decade or so that was supposed to enable more FIOS and DSL service paid for by our tax dollars.

Instead the telecoms said thank you and blocked competitors. Remember the amount of ISP's you could chose from back in the 90's compared to today? My point exactly.

You have 2 ISP's. DSL or cable and both throttle your traffic.

So what are you supposed to do?

Re:This is wrong.

[Tridus]

I can't wait until my options are cable monopoly throttling, or phone monopoly throttling.

There are some problems the Government actually is capable of solving better then the market. The market in this case dictates that throttling is good for the bottom line, and ending net neutrality is even better for the bottom line.

Re:This is wrong.

[Firehed]

Yeah. I'll show them by switching to... shit, they're the only option.

If there was competition in the marketplace, I'd agree with you. But alas, I don't even have the option between DSL and cable, let alone FTTH. I get a choice between Charter Communications cable and dial-up (most likely long-distance), which isn't exactly a competing service.

Granted I live in a pretty small town, but that doesn't change the fact that my options are cable and no connectivity. I don't even get enough cell signal at home to have EDGE be my only source of web access, as painful as that option would be were it an option.

Depend on how much you pay

[marzipanic]

... and even then depends on the company.

We have had the same ISP for years and never had any trouble, we pay for the fastest broadband available which is £40 per month. It changed hands (I will not repeat the name) and now we are throttled, but it is called an AUP. We do not download that much and many "name not mentioned" ISP customers have had exactly the same problem!

They even got found out!

My point is, they are making a public show when they are (or will) do it anyway... just with a nicer name than "throttling", Acceptable Use Policy is much nicer sounding, it really fools us Brits!

Re:Depend on how much you pay

[badfish99]

Why wouldn't you name the company? Are you afraid they will sue you for telling us that they have an AUP? Or do you think that it would be good for us to have to google to find out which company changed hands recently and charges £40?

FCC ?

[l2718]

First, giving the FCC more discretionary authority is not a good thing to do. They are very receptive to lobbying (broadcast flag, mandatory DRM ...) and industry corruption (employees that leave directly to cushy jobs in the industry they were supposedly regulating just recently). Secondly, I'm not sure where the Federal interest is in regulating businesses -- that the internet as a whole is international?

This is really a contract issue. If their TOS promise "unlimited bandwidth" then they should provide that. If the TOS say "we connect you to the internet" they should not be able to block random ports. And sending fake packets is already a computer crime (at least, if I sent fake packets to Comcast servers I would probably be charged with attempted DOS or something). So I would support a "contact terms mean what they mean" law -- not giving the FCC more discretion to help the industry to screw the customers.

Re:FCC ?

[spiritraveller]

Secondly, I'm not sure where the Federal interest is in regulating businesses -- that the internet as a whole is international? Internet access is a facility of interstate commerce comparable to your telephone line. It is possible to have a single-state communication over the internet, but it's very unlikely. Even if you send an email to your neighbor, it will probably end up going through servers in other states.

This is really a contract issue. If their TOS promise "unlimited bandwidth" then they should provide that. If the TOS say "we connect you to the internet" they should not be able to block random ports. And sending fake packets is already a computer crime (at least, if I sent fake packets to Comcast servers I would probably be charged with attempted DOS or something). So I would support a "contact terms mean what they mean" law -- not giving the FCC more discretion to help the industry to screw the customers. In most places, broadband providers have either a monopoly or a duopoly. The nature of the service is that they use easements over public and private property (telephone and cable lines) to provide a service where there is little if any competition. And don't forget, the internet is an interstate/international system that relies on standards. If the Federal government can't enforce standards, who will? The states? The UN? No. As much as we rightfully fear Congress-critters writing legislation to govern the internet, the fact is that it affects all of us now (even them), to the point that things like sending false connection reset signals is something that Congress (or with its authorization, the FCC) should be allowed to regulate.

If you just say that it has to be in the contract, then Comcast will change the contract in the next billing cycle. Because they have a monopoly/duopoly, the market cannot correct it.

If the FCC does the wrong thing, Congress can overrule them. But if you leave it to Comcast to change its contract, that's exactly what it will do, and we will be screwed.

Re:FCC ?

[c]

> So I would support a "contact terms mean what they mean" law

I think it's pretty well established that when you're dealing with abusive monopolies, contracts mean "bend over, spread cheeks" for the average consumer. I don't think you want that made into a law.

c.

Colleges as ISPs?

[_bug_]

So given the broad definition of ISP that's been used in other areas of law it would seem colleges and universities would fall under this throttling ban as well.

That's going to really suck.

File sharing eats a very large majority of bandwidth for many colleges and without some form of throttling access to resources for other purposes (e.g. college business, student research, and incoming traffic to college resources like websites and distributed computing services) would be seriously hindered.

If Comcast is having similar issues then I can see why they do throttling and would support them. If you don't like it switch providers. That'll hurt Comcast where it really counts for them: their wallets.

You said it.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Unless it is a case of a monopoly that has spun out of control, the free market is a better solution than government intervention.

And yes, it is a monopoly which has spun out of control. Or rather, an oligopoly.

How many ISPs do you have to choose from? Unless I go dialup, I've got exactly three. Fortunately, one of them claims to believe in net neutrality, and they're the one offering fiber, but that's extremely unusual. Unless you're prepared to move to where I live (a small town in Iowa), chances are, your only real option to "let the market decide" or to "vote with your dollars" is to decide that you don't really need this Internet thing anyway.

Video on Demand competition

[QuietLagoon]

Comcast wants to kill off P2P because it is competition for VoD. Follow the money.

hmm

[vtscott]

I was particularly interested in this comcast comment from the article:

Importantly, in managing its network, Comcast does not block any content, application, or service; discriminate among providers; or otherwise violate any aspect of the principles set forth in the [FCC's] Internet Policy Statement.

So, they don't block any content? That doesn't seem consistent with their terms of service (interesting parts bolded by me):

Comcast reserves the right to refuse to transmit or post, and to remove or block, any information or materials, in whole or in part, that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be in violation of the "Content and information restrictions" section above in this Policy, harmful to its network or customers using the Service, negatively affecting its network or customers using the Service, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliates, suppliers, or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or postings (including, but not limited to, e-mail, file transfer, newsgroup, and instant message transmissions as well as materials available on the Personal Web Pages and Online Storage features) made on the Service. However, Comcast and its affiliates, suppliers, and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with this Policy and the Subscriber Agreement.

So what is it comcast? Do you block content or don't you? Either they are lying to the government or they are lying to their customers. And don't get me started on the internet policy statement (pdf warning)... I'm sure comcast is all about this one:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,application and service providers, and content providers.

not sure where the Federal interest is

[wiredog]

Interstate commerce clause. It's in the Constitution of the United States.

Re: Acronyms

[TaoPhoenix]

I am not a billion dollar corporation with lots of powerful lobbyists in Washington
IANABDCWLOPLIW?

We need a new law for this?

[BigRedFish]

When I buy a quart of milk, the jug contains a quart of milk. If I try to pour out this quart of milk all at once, it does not slow to a trickle after the first half-pint and then announce that I've reached my daily pouring limit because the dairy doesn't have the cows, feed, and trucks required to actually produce the whole quart it sold me. Not if everyone who bought milk wants to drink it at the same time.

Whatever law covers that situation with my quart of milk not being a whole quart, can also quite well handle the situation where I buy 1.5Mb/second bandwidth, and then the second doesn't actually contain all 1.5Mbits, because the company doesn't actually have the infrastructure it's selling access to. ISPs already throttle, that's why they have different speed tiers for us to buy, same as milk is offered by the pint, quart, half-gallon, or gallon.

What we're really talking about here, is that the ISPs are lying about how much milk is in the jug. If our 1.5Mb pipes have to drop to 384K when everyone downloads at the same time, then we have 384K pipes, and they should be labeled and priced as such. Throttling based on content is just a way to legitimize weights-and-measures fraud.

Freedom of the Press == Freedom of the Router

[LongestPrefix]

One by one, standard router configuration commands are getting attacked as undemocratic. The "consumer advocates" wanted to argue that if you're somehow connected to my router, I should be prevented from configuring my router as I see fit!

First, the net-neutrality folks attacked the policy-map command and the whole idea if Differentiated Services (i.e., IETF DiffServe). policy-map lets you configure prioritization or other special treatment of packets.

Now they're attacking the rate-limit and traffic-shape commands that let me control how many packets I forward of a particular type.

Don't I own my own router? Why should I be forced to forward packets that I don't want to forward? Why should I be forced to prioritize or not prioritize if I don't want to?

Donating money to to political campaigns is considered "free speech". By the same logic, shouldn't it be "freedom of the press" for me to decide which packets I want to forward through a router that I own?

Re:The end reult will be...

[budgenator]

With the huge increase in bandwidth usage, bandwidth cost is now the largest factor in providing ISP service
It doesn't really work that way, the cost of provide a given amount of bandwidth is fixed for the most part. Comcast is an exception, I think they purchase bandwidth from a backbone provider so the may occasionally be some peaking charges for them for going over, but for the most part if they buy 1TBs of backbone bandwidth they pay whether we use it or not. Frequently these guy engage in peering agreements amongst themselves which can be thought of as a shortcut around the backbone, where they argree to carry the others packets in return for the same. This was how things were done in the old pre-internet days with UUPC, my company might have a "leased line" between my organizations in Detroit and Memphis, yours might have a line between Memphis and St. Louis; so for me to send an Email to somebody in St. Louis I'd send it from the computer in Detroit to Memphis which would dial-up yours in Memphis and local rates rather than long-distance and then forward it to St. Louis, and the Email needed to have the complete route in the address! Tier 1 providers don't pay at all, they can route to the whole world through their own network or through peering.

Throttle at advertised max bandwidth, OK

[gr8scot]

But throttling any lower than the advertised max should be ruled illegal; the only valid reason for a Comcast customer's download speed to be less than 4Mb [or 3, or 8, depending on locale -- advertised bandwidth] is that the remote server is not able to upload that fast. Comcast has made that representation, repeatedly and should be held to it, legally. But that is a trifling offense compared to the following.

Last month, the Commission tasked its Wireline Competition Bureau to seek comments on allegations by P2P provider Vuze that Comcast's throttling practice -- intended to curb high-bandwidth file sharing that Comcast believes to typically be unlicensed -- is actually cutting into its legitimate business. What Comcast does or does not believe about traffic based on generalizations is completely irrelevant. They simply have no business monitoring content, whatsoever. They are not police, and are not qualified to behave as "deputized investigators" or any other type of law enforcement assistant. Owners of copyrights are responsible for their own investigations of alleged infractions. "Everybody's doing it" is not accepted as an excuse for the crimes of copyright or patent infringement, and should also not be accepted as an excuse for violation of privacy rights by third parties. The police need a warrant to inspect any customer's communications for unlawful content, not a survey that says some percentage of P2P traffic is illegitimate. "Reasonable suspicion" must be established individually, not collectively, and not by association. And Internet Service Providers have no place making inferences about what their customers are uploading or downloading, other than "data."

Comcast, let me explain to you the exact nature of the service you are contracted to provide: get the data where I tell you to send them, do so at the rate advertised, and get the hell out of my way. That is all.