Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

FCC slaps Comcast's wrist over network neutrality; Sets precedent

By | August 1, 2008, 8:48am PDT

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday ruled 3-2 that Comcast overstepped its network management authority by blocking BitTorrent peer to peer traffic, but stopped short of fining the cable company. The move clarifies the boundaries a bit for other carriers and sends the message that the FCC enforces network neutrality principles.

The order against Comcast is notable because it’s the first official one making network throttling blocking officially illegal. The order, which was expected, also sets the template for future actions, which may turn up against other providers. In a nutshell, the FCC issued a cease and desist order to Comcast that forces the cable giant to disclose to customers how it manages its network. One thing is certain: This network neutrality issue will continue to reappear. Indeed the Electronic Frontier Foundation created a software tool to gauge your ISP’s neutrality.

fcc2.png

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin likened Comcast’s behavior–and the Net neutrality issue in general–to the post office. Would it be ok if the post office decided what parcel it moved faster? “Comcast was blocking downloads and doing it 24/7,” said Martin. “Today the commission tells Comcast to stop and allow everyone to have unfettered access to the Internet.”

The commission affirmed that it can and will enforce an open Internet and network neutrality principles. Martin said that Comcast wasn’t merely managing its network. It was blocking specific applications without disclosing it. “Our action today is not about regulating the Internet. Network neutrality rules are unnecessary because the commission already has the tools to enforce (open standards),” said Martin.

Martin said if it didn’t take action against Comcast it would set a bad precedent and tell other carriers that blocking is ok. His message: If the FCC didn’t take action against Comcast it would indicate that network neutrality laws were needed.

The FCC didn’t issue a fine, but Martin said the order is key to create a framework for future actions. “We need to protect consumer access,” he said. Martin also said that Comcast’s deal with BitTorrent doesn’t solve consumer complaints. The only real consensus was that the net neutrality debate will continue.

Vuze, which filed the petition with the FCC along with formal complaints against Comcast, cheered the deal. Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa said in a statement:

Today’s FCC Order does two important things.  First, it makes clear that, while reasonable network management of Internet traffic is permissible, there is a line that cannot be crossed.  Comcast crossed that line, and has been sanctioned accordingly.  Secondly, the FCC endorsed the idea that the rule of law must be accompanied by transparency into what ISPs are actually doing to our Internet traffic.

FCC commissioners were split on what the meaning of the ruling was in the grand scheme of things and all complained that a ruling crafted in the wee hours of the night didn’t provide enough time for analysis. And commissioners noted the order will go through editing. Until Martin’s vote, commissioner vote for the Comcast order was split 2-2.

Commissioner Michael Copps hoped that the ruling would set up a fifth FCC principle declaring that all network traffic should be equal.  FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said the order illustrates that the FCC can tackle net neutrality issues on a case by case basis without hampering innovation. Both favored an order against Comcast.

But Deborah Taylor Tate, another commissioner, said the Comcast ruling needs to be narrowly focused so that the FCC doesn’t hamper innovation. Tate said that network providers are making strides on network neutrality without government interference. Tate’s favored approach was to allow the private sector to sort out network neutrality. “My approach was that (Comcast issue) was a review of one complaint and not a monumental decision.”

She noted that Comcast has partnered with BitTorrent as the FCC examined the issue. “This mediation is the best way to solve the problem,” she said. Commissioner Robert McDowell agreed with Tate. McDowell said the network neutrality issue needs to avoid extremes on both sides.

“The FCC doesn’t know what Comcast did or did not do,” said McDowell noting that the evidence is conflicting on what Comcast did exactly to BitTorrent. “Not one of us has a networking degree.” McDowell’s take is that bureaucrats will hamper engineers to effectively manage traffic and potentially slow broadband speeds in the future.

Odds and ends:  Sometimes you just can’t beat a TV. CSpan carried the FCC meeting live, which was clutch considering that the FCC’s live stream croaked.

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

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

67
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: FCC slaps Comcast's wrist over network neutrality; Sets precedent
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Most certainly... nflshop i also certainly opt for to take a look at this new set, your principle is wonderful.
0 Votes
+ -
if comcast is truly guilty
Quebec-french 1st Aug 2008
they should be fine and severely monitor and audit for a period of time . so they walk straight.

FCC should make a example out of them so other should fear FCC for real
0 Votes
+ -
The problem is there was never really
GuidingLight 1st Aug 2008
any precedent set before. How do you fairly punish someone for something no one ever said was wrong before?
0 Votes
+ -
Staff
The FCC referenced
Larry Dignan 1st Aug 2008
a supreme court ruling saying the FCC had authority to enforce neutrality principles. I'm not sure how much of a punishment this is really. Comcast largely anticipated the order and there's no fine. On the disclosure issue, shouldn't comcast reveal to customers what it does on the network side in the first place?
0 Votes
+ -
Correct, but who
GuidingLight 1st Aug 2008
has defined exactlly what those bounderies are?

a supreme court ruling saying the FCC had authority to enforce neutrality principles

Principles. Based on that word alone, what do your principles say about the scenerio where while paying 39.00 a month for Internet access, your usage is degraded because the neighbors on the next block up are all paying 39.00 a month each to run server farms from their homes?

I can understand blocking Vonage in favor of their own VoIP, that is pretty much defined as not acceptable, but how far is a network allowed to go to maintain a consistent network for the majority of customers?
0 Votes
+ -
A little over stated.
cornpie 1st Aug 2008
I see your point that some people could theoretically use up lots of capacity, to the detriment of others. But running a "server farm" or even one server violates the terms of service.
0 Votes
+ -
I know
GuidingLight 1st Aug 2008
it was just a "point of reference" scenerio, overstated to make the point
0 Votes
+ -
The Crux as I see it
psomerset@... 4th Aug 2008
I don't understand why everyone is piling on Comcast when their actions are in response to excessive use by BitTorrent users. Am I wrong, or aren't these people predominantly illegally downloading copyrighted materials (i.e., motion pictures, many of them not even released to DVD yet!)? How come the FCC is running interference for these scofflaws?
0 Votes
+ -
You assume too much.
Logics 11th Aug 2008
I am a BitTorrent user who uses it for legal Linux Distro downloads. I am fed up with my BT running slower than FTP downloads and running slower than HTTP downloads.

Comcast cannot assume that because illegal downloaders use BitTorrent that all BT users are participating in illegal activity.

We might as well ban the use of Ford motor vehicles on the road because bank robbers use them to make getaways. Now don't say to me, "But they also use Mazdas." Illegal downloaders use FTP and HTTP also. To single out BT use as an illegal application is paramount to getting Fords off the roads so bank robbers do not use them.

(Okay, maybe the analogy does not really hold up. Maybe more like banning sedans but allowing coupes, SUVs, minivans and motorcycles to remain. Nevertheless, still an unfair judgement.)
0 Votes
+ -
Tiers
jmorgus@... 1st Aug 2008
Comcast (and other ISP's) offer a consumer and a business package. The terms of service vary, but your neighbor running a server farm would (probably - IANAL) violate the usage under a consumer account, requiring them to get a business account.
0 Votes
+ -
TRUE !!
GrooveyB 1st Aug 2008
It DOES violate the little fine print...now Comcast may have gone about it the wrong way-but they have the right idea. Users who are signed up for a home/entertainment account should only have access to a certain amount of bandwidth. If it shows that there is very high traffic (up/downloading, large amounts of emails etc) coming from a particular user, then heck yeah..they should be required to pay for a higher tier so they are not slowing it down for the rest of us..
0 Votes
+ -
not fair
Jimster480 1st Aug 2008
You should be able to use what you paid for. If you pay for 4mbps access you should have your 4mbps to do w/e you wanted. Users shouldn't be throttled or blocked for using the data amount that THEY PAID FOR. I've seen this done on some big hosts too, where they promise 2 TB a month transfer and as soon as your site starts using its data it gets disabled for "excessive usage". I believe that if a company is going to advertise something they need to live up to it and stop overselling and hiding behind this "abuse" bs.
The question is does the company have to provide full bandwidth twenty four seven or even at peak usage times?

They were claiming they did but they lied. They were breaking downloads as well as throttling.

They got slapped for breaking downloads and telling lies.

This judgment didn't address throttling. I think we can expect that to continue.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Correct, but who
none none 1st Aug 2008
what do your principles say about the scenerio where while paying 39.00 a month for Internet access, your usage is degraded because the neighbors on the next block up are all paying 39.00 a month each to run server farms from their homes?

I think server farms is a bit of an exaggeration, but I see your point.

However, Comcast had to resort to doing what it did because it's failed to keep its network up to date and it's oversold capacity. It's still using DOCSIS 1. The standard today is 3 and would afford much more capacity.






happy
0 Votes
+ -
DOCSIS
Rubix_z 3rd Aug 2008
No, the current standard is 2.0. Version 3.0 is still under development.
0 Votes
+ -
Well that really simple
Quebec-french 1st Aug 2008
Because you the choosing and legislative organization and you have the right and mandate to apply and impose legal setting and set-up over company that try to bend the right of user or trespass there contract or anything that you see fit as a legislative organization must be allow to .

Since Company must be bent into shape so they follow proper ways ..... FCC should be allow too impose its will as it see fit
0 Votes
+ -
You miss the point
GuidingLight 1st Aug 2008
how severe do you punish a child for writing on the wall if no one ever told the child he cannot write on walls?

Has anyone told these ISP's exactlly what they can and can not do to maintain their netwoks?
0 Votes
+ -
The children will still write on the walls
0 Votes
+ -
My parents got me to stop doing that at a very early age if I ever did.

Of course they used the same methods on me their parents had used on them. Those methods work.
0 Votes
+ -
re: You miss the point
none none 1st Aug 2008
Has anyone told these ISP's exactlly what they can and can not do to maintain their netwoks?

If Comcast had maintained its network in the first place it wouldn't have a capacity problem.

But, no, no one is telloing them how to maintain their network. However they have for a few years been aware of the FCC's policy statement regarding open networks.

It's not that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong - Comcast is not a child. It's that the policy statements had never been tested.





happy
0 Votes
+ -
No True
Stuka 1st Aug 2008
With the way torrents work, you could have a 10Gbps internet connection, and you could still saturate it. As torrents are not regulated by the speed of a single server that you are downloading from, but rather thousands of servers.
0 Votes
+ -
re: No True
none none 1st Aug 2008
But on a DOCSIS network the uploads are the problem, not the downloads.






happy
0 Votes
+ -
You ever put the kids into a situation that you dont what

so if you dont wanna have to wash wall the first time you give a pen /pencil/wax crayon /anything you give rule . pen are for playing at the table dear not on the wall. if my son leave the table i take the pen away period. he was warn . so i have no scream no nothing .


But that the children part .
Compagny part HAVE NO EXCUSES what so ever they just wanna play stupid (we didn't know that was wrong)
They have legal team paid huge money .....
So dont come around saying well we didnt know it would turn bad .......

Im sorry but no Comcast knew what they where doing and just minimize the impact ....

So they are guilty , comcast choose to act on p2p files . they should have check with there legal team about it and how FCC would react .

So with full knowledge they act on P2P ( i dont defend P2P user here ) im just saying that Comcast or any ISP have responsibility towards there user ( they pay) .

If comcast would have send a email (OK user you have a 24 hour grace period after that we start stopping p2p file , and you have the right to cease deal with us on for that reason)

No like bully like most company are they choose to act and not share with there user there concern. for that there are too guilty and should be fine big time ....

Company are no children not car not anything the have responsibility towars user ( they pay) from there comcast is guilty
0 Votes
+ -
What Guiding Light was trying to say
DigitalFrog 1st Aug 2008
is that the government didn't 'give' them a 'pen', Comcast bought their own pen while the parents were not paying enough attention. So do you punish the child for writing on the wall, the parents for not setting down rules for everything they could think of and things they couldn't have thought of (they admitted they had little networking knowledge)and watching the child to make sure they obeyed, or does everyone just learn from this situation and move forward with a better understanding of what the rules are and how they should be enforced - which is what appears to be happening.
0 Votes
+ -
Who's the bully--and what's fair?
Owen Glendower 2nd Aug 2008
Because of the p2p crowd, there are times when 5% of Comcast customers are using 90% of the bandwidth, if my information is correct. But Comcast is being a "bully" for trying to regulate this disparity?

They executed poorly, I agree. But is this 5%/90% ratio fair?

Other commenters in this thread have essentially said, "Hey, if you've paid for the connection, you should be able to use it however you want." Really? So it would be okay for 10 people out of 200 in the restaurant to occupy the buffet line 90% of the time?

If that 5% of your customer base which is taking up 90% of your capacity is also providing 90% of your revenue, everything's fine. But if everyone's paying the same $39.99/month, allowing this 5%/90% disparity to continue could easily turn into business suicide.
into business suicide.

No duh. The right answer isn't to go around trashing your users. The right answer is to be honest and say that if you do this we will throttle the crap out of you unless you pay for more.

Selling it when you don't intend to provide it is stealing.
0 Votes
+ -
Usage and Capacity
dbucciar 4th Aug 2008
Comcast scales its network based on usage profiles for the average user. I'm certain that this average user profile is nowhere near close to using 100% of upload bandwidth 24x7, which as I understand it is what some of the P2P networks can approach.

Does this mean that Comcast oversells its capacity? Technically the answer is yes -- but networks are always sized using expected average user demand.

You never size your network capacity assuming ALL (or even a significant percentage) of your users will be using FULL bandwidth , 100% of the time.

The fact that the P2P networks bust the 'standard' user profile for upload usage is what forced Comcast to take measures to limit bandwidth used by this application.

Now that FCC says that Comcast can't do this, it means that Comcast will either have to change their standard usage profile to take P2P into account, thereby causing them to do a major upgrade to their network, or they'll change the terms of service to put P2P applications into a different category where they can charge P2P users more for the 'better' service.

Which do you think Comcast will choose to do?
0 Votes
+ -
Simple....
Mectron 1st Aug 2008
it was obviously wrong to start with. Changing the term of a contract and not delivering the speed consumer PAID for.
0 Votes
+ -
No, not simple
Owen Glendower 2nd Aug 2008
The issue is bandwidth. Because p2p users consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, it's the non-p2p customers who aren't getting the speed they paid for!
0 Votes
+ -
Precedent and Fairness
Hempman 2nd Aug 2008
True that. The FCC just got spanked by having their fining of CBS over Jackson and Timerlake's "costume malfunction" reversed because they had not sent a clear message that they were changing the measure of unacceptable. And how much more of a change is it that there is no precedent at all?

However, this decision does clarify that slectivly blocking certain applications because an ISP (Comcast) has sold something that they can't actually provide (claimed bandwidth but actually managed by blocking certain applications) is not acceptable.

Expect that, in the future, there WILL be some pretty big fines.
What is really the precedent in this ruling. I think we are making life unbearable for the ISPs and putting the internet into jeopardy with a false sense of net neutrality gimmicks:Net Neutrality Violations: Worth a Closer Look(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=539&doc_id=160123&F_src=flftwo)
0 Votes
+ -
Staff
The precedent is
Larry Dignan 1st Aug 2008
that the FCC will act on something. While you can worry about the implications it's far better than Congress doing something IMO
0 Votes
+ -
So, the answer is...
MGP2 1st Aug 2008
I think we are making life unbearable for the ISPs and putting the internet into jeopardy with a false sense of net neutrality gimmicks

So, the answer is to leave the ISPs on their own and maybe sometime during this millenium, they'll get around to achieving the saturation and service levels seen in other countries, many of which already have speeds 10 times what we have in the US?

If that's the point you're making, all I can say is "Take a deep breath. Hold it. Hold it. Keep holding. You're doing fine. That's a lovely shade of blue. Keep holding. A little longer now...."
Dude I think you are clueless.

They got slapped for lieing and completely blocking some sites while claiming they weren't.

They can do what they want as long as they tell you what they intend to do and limit it to throttling. They can take you down to 56 baud if they want to.
0 Votes
+ -
You state: "the first official one making network throttling officially illegal"

Blocking the traffic, which is what I thought Comcast was doing, means the traffic can't get through.

Throttling, to me means that its maximum transfer rate is limited somehow.

These are not the same thing.
0 Votes
+ -
As far as ISPs are concern
Mectron 1st Aug 2008
it is illegal (and agains consumer interest) to:
1. Block Traffic of any kind
2. Throttling traffic because
2.a You oversold your network
2.b You accept bribe from criminal orgasnisation such as the MPAA/RIAA to throttle p2p traffic

The illegal practice of Comcast as render the company totally illegitimate and guilty of obvious criminal activities.

Now it the FCC (and the US legal system at large) want to gain little of their lost credibility, Comcast need to be fined for the total profit made during the time the illegal thrilling/blocking was in place. (and the MPAA/RIAA must br fined for bribing a national ISP)
0 Votes
+ -
Illegal, eh?
cornpie 1st Aug 2008
Could you site a statute that says so?
0 Votes
+ -
You are soooo old fashioned
frgough 2nd Aug 2008
Everyone knows that today it is bureaucracies that decide what is
illegal, not congress.
0 Votes
+ -
And I think that is a good thing. Internet connections are no longer a 'nice' thing to have. They are just as much a requirement as electricity, gas and water these days.

They SHOULD be classified as a Utility and subject to the same rules as Utilities.

IMHO.
0 Votes
+ -
As much as I dislike Comcast, I do not see the poll as being scientific or even truely representative of the general public.
0 Votes
+ -
Nor would I.
butler360 4th Aug 2008
I didn't say it was scientific. The people who voted were from the public.

But a ZDNet blog isn't a scholarly publication, either, so take it easy.
One thing was left out of this article: Comcast issued a statement saying they didn't have to pay any attention to this. It's unenforceable.
0 Votes
+ -
Comcast's Arrogance Grows
Hempman 2nd Aug 2008
Comcsat says that they don't have to pay attention to an unenforceable regulatory body's decision that they have violated the law. This is typical of a company who thinks that it is good policy to lie and oversell bandwidth, and take bribes from an outside influence in order to selectively block certain applications in order to manage their oversold bandwidth.
It's about time too!
0 Votes
+ -
They can never change.This looks like an interrupted court trial.
It's a STOP virus that stops the memory dump.I have to press F1 to boot up.My computer tells me that I have a bad memory card.The Blue Screen prompts are different every time.
0 Votes
+ -
WOW
Jimster480 1st Aug 2008
what does this have to do with anything.
0 Votes
+ -
It's about time the FCC made a good decision, and this one is a dandy! By punishing Comcast (albeit too lightly for my and Comcast's customers, I'm sure) the commission has put telecoms eager to nickel and dime customers on notice. Comcast has notoriously bad customer service anyway, so this is welcome chastening for them.

Now, if we could just get the FCC to extend a California judge's ruling that early cancellation fees are unethical, consumers would finally have some decent protection!
0 Votes
+ -
One cheer and two, "Wha???"
Hempman 2nd Aug 2008
From me, the FCC gets one cheer for doing _something_ right, for a change. But, they only get one "Wha??" each for failing to give the ruling any teeth, and for failing to fine Comcast _anything_.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: FCC slaps Comcast...
fatman65535 1st Aug 2008
I think the FCC took a measured step regarding Comcast's network practices.

Comcast, like most other ISP's have signed up more subscribers than they have the capacity to service. It is no different from the telcos in the "old" days of using 10 line finders to service 100 residential telephone lines. The phone companies banked on the majority of subscribers lines not being in use. It is also one of the reasons why business service usually cost more (due to higher utilization).

You had a similar situation in the "dial up" days. Many ISPs had more subscribers than access lines for a given area. When all of the lines were in use, guess what, you got a busy signal. Too many busy signals led to customer complaints, and the ISP had to deal with it.

Now, here is where the entire situation gets muddied; often due to the actions of the "marketing weasels".

An ISP offers "unlimited"* service, with speeds of (up to) X Mb for $39 (or whatever) a month. What is not explained, is the meaning of that dammed asterisk next to the word "unlimited"; and the (up to) hidden next to the oversize type containing the "speed" number. These ISPs have to put in those "weasel words" because they know that if they did not; some shyster would sue their asses off.

Their utilization rates are based on average use, not peak use. Their upload/download speed ratio is based on simple web surfing, and not uploading large amounts of data. They never anticipated high upload traffic; and when torrents became popular; their traffic management models went to hell. Someone starts a torrent, and then they get hammered by the sudden increase of traffic; and everybody's speed slows down. So, how, do you fix this?

It is going to take some capital INVESTMENT in infrastructure by these ISPs. These companies would rather return the money to their stockholders, than invest in upgrading their networks. Secondly, they have a vested interest in "locking" you out of other companies services that they can provide.

Two examples of this "conflict of interest" are:

1) VoIP phone service. These companies would rather sell you THEIR VoIP services, than allow you to deal with, for example Vonage.

2) Video on Demand. These companies would rather sell their VoD service, rather than let you use "their" pipes (what is that b------s name over at AT&T who said that) to use the services of Netflix or similar companies for streaming video.

IMHO, the FCC is going to have to change the regulatory model for ISPs. I think that the Telcom Act of 1996 needs to be revised to include ISPs. That act required local exchange carriers to allow competitors to have access to the local telco copper. As a result, in many areas, you have choices for who provides you with POTS.

ISPs need to be separated into (network) distribution subsidiaries, and service providers. This will allow consumers some opportunity at choice of who provides their services. In so many areas, your broadband choices are BIG CABLECO or BIG TELCO; and that is IT. To me that is not much more than a MONOPOLY.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: FCC slaps Comcast's wrist over network neutrality; Sets precedent
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Most certainly... nflshop i also certainly opt for to take a look at this new set, your principle is wonderful.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix