Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

AT&T to FCC: We Ban P2P Traffic

By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld | July 31, 2008, 1:37pm PDT

If blocking P2P traffic is bad, isn’t banning it worse?

It’s now been reported not just once, but twice, that AT&T is banning P2P traffic by its wireless customers. That will not make iPhone 3G customers happy.

So if the first item on the agenda tomorrow for Kevin Martin’s Commission is to penalize Comcast for “secretly degrading” Internet traffic by throttling back BitTorrent packets last year, shouldn’t the second item be AT&T’s open and complete degradation of all P2P traffic, on its airwaves?

And wouldn’t you want to look at how AT&T might be managing P2P traffic on the ground as well?

Or, is there only selective outrage — inside or outside the FCC — when it comes to stated violations of the Commission’s own Internet poiicy?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Between the Lines”

EDS shareholders approve HP deal; EDS shoots down layoff rumors

McAfee acquires Reconnex, inks distribution pacts

Topics

FCC, P2P, Traffic, AT&T Corp., Peer To Peer (P2P), Federal Government, Internet, Government, Tom Steinert-Threlkeld

Tom Steinert-Threlkeld is editor-in-chief of Securities Industry News, as well as a long-time media, technology and business journalist.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

Here to help you with your Document Management Needs

Read the DocuMentor blog now

Learn More »

Talkback Most Recent of 22 Talkback(s)

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

The biggest carrier in Alaska

is GCI, and their system boots customers who use peer-to-peer packets that their system recognizes..
Dave in Alaska
31st Jul 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
I'll go selective...

Isn't AT&T is doing this primarily because they're the only
ones with phones capable of running P2P? I'd give them a
break on two counts: (1) consumers can know this before
they buy the service and (2) I'd give newer but slower services
(versus fiber optic) a break before hitting them with full
service requirements. Your mileage may vary.
palmwarrior
31st Jul 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
RE: AT

The carriers though should find a way of incorporating P2P in their networks which according to one expert can be really helpful tothe web: How P2P Could Save the Web ??? and Your Data Center(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=625&doc_id=159310&F_src=flftwo)
jamalystic
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
P2P

The argument is ridiculous. Different types of data can and should be given different priorities if reasonable response is going to be maintained over the internet. File transfer is certainly one that should be lower priority than, for example, voice traffic. Email should be lower than IM. "Net Neutrality" is just another word for privileging certain business models at the expense of the average user.
rick1947
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
P2P blocked

While trying to use P2P on a mobile phone would be somewhat counter-intuitive, I can see where the technology is going, making large video files stream easier and quicker.

It just bothers me to no end that the ISPs will sell you 'unlimited' packages, but then decide where and how you can use it. The technology is there to prevent the bottleneck issues that P2P can cause, so why the delay? My guess is the illegal filesharing that can block up the 'series of tubes' AT&T and others lay claim to.
Norcross
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
Apples and oranges

I don't think we're to the point with Cellphones where P2P should be expected - though it's a good conversation to start. Also - AT&T seems to identify that wireless customers can't use P2P - much different than Comcast's practice of officially saying they were managing their network and possibly delaying traffic, and in reality were outright blocking P2P.
tBuggR
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
RE: AT

"Selective outrage" would be my guess. Comcast probably didn't pay their "bills."
rttedrow@...
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
Not really

The current FCC chairman has a huge bone to pick with cable companies. He's upset because unlike telephone that received public funds to expand their networks, cable companies paid for the whole thing out of their own pockets. And then had the audacity to expect that they should be able to use said network as they saw fit. Shame on them. And hey if the FCC can tell them what they can and can't do with their network, which is privately owned. What's to stop them from enforcing it on other private networks, say even your home network.
kweebia
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
Red Herring

The focus on P2p is a red herring. The largest draw on the Internet are the Netflixs and Hulus -- legal consumption of streaming media. That's what Comcast fears -- people who can get on demand media direct from the web w/o a "cable company". With wimax we don't need "cell phones" any more as any IP device allows audio communication.

I just hope we roll out Wimax as fast as possible.
jabailo1
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
Network Neutrality is network neutrality...:-/

Frankly, I think AT&T, Comcast and any other ISP should have the right to clearly state their network policies and then offer whatever they want to offer. But there is a HUGE double-standard in play here if Comcast is going to be slammed for violating Net Neutrality merely by throttling (note, not BLOCKING... just throttling) P2P traffic yet AT&T is allowed to block it entirely. That kind winds up in courts and brings on foolish legislation.

Kevin Martin is a single-minded hack with his blatant axe-grinding. I'm not defending Comcast... their customer service and technical competence (or lack thereof) lost me as a subscriber many moons ago. But it's pretty clear that *any* ISP is going to have to make decisions as to how to control bandwidth utilization on their IP network. And someone is going to be upset that they can't get a 'free ride'.
acwhite86@...
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
In defence of throttling

Having run an Internet company, I can sympathise with AT&T???s situation. Contrary to popular belief P2P customers are in the minority but their activities affect everyone on a network. This is because P2P streams data 24/7 rather than being ???bursty??? like normal Internet traffic, and this creates congestion problems during busy periods. There is no easy solution; residential business models are barely sustainable and bandwidth expensive, so increasing the size of backhaul isn???t normally an option.

Believe me ISPs don???t want to throttle, it is expensive in terms of both equipment and administration. Technical solutions involve packet sniffing (because many P2P apps incorporate port-hopping, in a deliberate attempt to evade detection) and traffic shaping; ie. throttling back P2P traffic during busy periods but allowing free-reign when the network is quiet. This powerful kit isn???t cheap.

In our company, we didn???t have the funds to purchase a full-blown shaper and P2P management became such a headache that we eventually closed the business.

Note also that customers may have paid for unlimited download packages but their contracts will also have ???fair-use??? clauses. If their activities seriously affect other customers then it is quite legal and fair to throttle those activities back.
crazyfrogger
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
I'm sympathetic but the word unlimited implies unlimited

I think there are two main rubbing points.

One: The word "unlimted" is used as a part of an advertising scheme when the ISP doesn't really mean, nor can they fully offer, "unlimited" downloads.

Two: Who determines "fair use"? If I'm a movie buff who ponies up for an "Unlimited" download plan so that I can watch a movie a night with my paid subscription to my Internet Movie Provider (IMP) of choice and pay MLB to watch their premium baseball games on my computer (perhaps at the same time if it's a slow game or a stupid movie choice), I shouldn't be hindered by my ISP because in today's world watching movies online and sporting events online are now considered fair use.

In short, if you do not really mean "Unlimited" do not say "Unlimited".
dysart
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
Quite so

My comments:-

One: Not true, downloads are still unlimited. Throttling doesn't cap data downloads, it simply shapes the traffic to prevent a small number of customers affecting everyone elses' service - ie. certain data streams are slowed during busy periods.

Two: Occasional P2P traffic isn't the problem. It's when people start streaming (rather than bursting) 24/7 that congestion arises. The ISP owns the business and it is they that will decide what consitutes fair use. Believe me, when a lot of P2P streamers are active the phone lines are red hot with irate customers complaining about slow speeds. Is this fair? The affected customers certainly don't think so and the ISP has to act for the majority.

So how would you tackle the problem? The solution needs to keep the majority of customers happy as well as maintain a viable business model. As I said, no ISP wants to throttle so if you have an answer we'd all love to hear about it.
crazyfrogger
2nd Aug 2008
- Flag
Ok.. Lemme see if I have all of this straight...

AT&T is blocking P2P sharing on their WIRELESS - aka cell phones? And this is a problem - WHY?

Is there even a Bittorrent client available for the iPhone (or for that matter, any OTHER smartphone)?

Does anyone really seriously think people are going to be sharing things back and forth on the almighty Jesus phone for any length of time - given the battery life on them sucks big wind?

Is this really an issue?
Wolfie2K3
1st Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag
Yes, it's an issue

Sure, current impact may be limited or non-existent as you point out... but times and technologies change. Remember the old BBS's and how difficult downloading a pic was? Downloading something the size of a music file seemed a daydreamer's fantasy and to suggest downloading a full length, good quality feature film would have been simply crazy. That was less than 20 years ago. Tomorrow when the Father and Holy Ghost phones are out who knows?

It will be impossible to get back neutrality once it is gone. Whether you would be streaming Sunday's Sermon or Friday Night's Fraternity Favorites, ideally (IMHO) your network provider should not be deciding (which it would be doing if selectively blocking is allowed). And if the issue is piracy, than the piracy needs to be addressed, not the technology... why prevent legitimate uses of torrent technologies from evolving? (again, IMHO ... and a bit of a stray for the wireless issue... so in conclusion.

The FCC should be consistent, and not caring today likely leads to not having tomorrow.
sflostboy
8th Aug 2008
- Reply to
- Flag