FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
Summary: The FCC is set to vote to fine Comcast for its blocking of BitTorrent traffic, with the two Democrats voting with chairman Kevin Martin. The two Republicans have come out swinging against the action.
The FCC is set to vote to fine Comcast for its blocking of BitTorrent traffic, with the two Democrats voting with chairman Kevin Martin. The two Republicans have come out swinging against the action.
But Comcast -- and News.com's Declan McCullagh -- say the FCC lacks the authority.
"In order to enforce something, an agency must be enforcing a rule that has force of law," Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice told Portfolio.com.
Says Declan:
It's true that the FCC adopted a set of principles in August 2005 saying "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice." But the principles also permit providers' "reasonable network management" and, confusingly, the FCC admitted on the day of their adoption that the guidelines "are not enforceable."
Free Press, meanwhile hailed the upcoming vote:
Should Comcast finally be held accountable for its illegal practices, it will be the direct result of historic public involvement in this precedent-setting debate," said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press. "We look forward to seeing the order, and commend the FCC for conducting such a thorough investigation on behalf of Internet users everywhere."
Martin issued a joyful statement as well, according to Wired.
"I am pleased that a majority has agreed that the Commission both has the authority to, and in fact will, stop broadband service providers when they block or interfere with subscribers' access," Martin said in a statement Saturday.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Net Neutrality
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
Yes I'm a network idiot that doesn't understand the importance of bit-torrent tranffic and its bandwidth utilization when compared to all of the other traffic including streaming. Joe user streams video/audio for a couple hours a day versus someone else that has the pipe open 24/7 pushing the maximum upstream bandwidth...hmm.
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
But in this case, the FCC published only a vague and explicitly unenforceable policy statement (a list of "principles") on which the public had no chance to comment at all. And it's now trying to say, "Fooled ya! You believed us when we said that it was nonbinding, but we're retroactively turning it into a set of hard and fast rules so that we can take a swipe at Comcast. Why? Because we want to, that's why." That's arbitrary.
Worse still, the FCC's policy statement had several serious problems. For example, it required that Internet users be allowed to run the "application of their choice." While politicians may not grasp the full implications of this, tech-savvy folk understand how dangerous this could be. An "application" (a computer program which is not an operating system) encodes and embodies behavior -- any behavior at all that the author wants! And anyone can write one. So, insisting that an ISP allow a user to run any application means that anyone can program his or her computer to behave any way at all -- no matter how destructively -- on the network, and the ISP is not allowed to intervene. In short, such a requirement means that no network provider can have an enforceable Acceptable Use Policy or Terms of Service. Port scanning? The ISP has to allow it, even if it's a prelude to an attack, because it's not illegal. Better turn off all of the intrusion detection systems which detect and block port scans!
Exploits? If they haven't been declared to be outright illegal, they are "applications" and so you must not block them. Anyone who engages in destructive behavior, hogs bandwidth, or even takes down the network with an intentionally or unintentionally destructive program could just say, "I was running an application, and I have the right to run any application I want, so you can'' stop me. Phbbbbt."
Great work, FCC.
Now, imagine yourself as the administrator of a university network, a public hotspot, an ISP, or any other network which provides service to the public. Someone is doing something disruptive. Your users are complaining; quality of service has deteriorated. But if you act, and especially if you focus on the destructive behavior by detecting the rogue application and attempting to block it and not others (so that legitimate traffic can still get through), you would be subject to FCC fines and penalties.
Sensible rules don't lead to conundrums like this. Proposed rules or regulations pertaining to the Internet should be presented to the public for comment as part of a formal rulemaking process, so they have the chance to point out scenarios in which they would be unworkable or do harm.
What's more, in this ruling the FCC is not only regulating what Congress, in its OWN policy statement, said must not be regulated. If the FCC makes a policy statement, and Congress makes one, the one made by Congress obviously trumps the FCC's. The Congressional policy statement is laid out at 47 USC 230(b), and it says:
It is the policy of the United States:
...
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
A policy statement by Congress trumps any contrary policy statement made by the FCC.
But not only is the FCC ignoring the law, it's acting it arbitrarily and capriciously -- violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The courts will surely recognize this. But in the meantime, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt created by the FCC's decision will deter investors from putting money into broadband deployment. And it could shut down small, independent, rural, and wireless ISPs, who cannot afford NOT to filter P2P. (Failing to filter P2P would decimate their quality of service, or force them to meter by the bit.) Maybe that is the real agenda: to kill all remaining competition for the cable and telephone companies, thus ensuring that none of the expensive, recently auctioned spectrum can create another alternative?
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
In my view, it's Comcast which wants to change the rules after the game has begun. If it's OK for Comcast in particular to examine its customers packets and change services based on these examinations, then it's OK in particular for ISPs to do the same.
I do agree that the FCC's involvement is troublesome. Its present chairman seems to want to demonstrate that he's in the telcos' pocket, after making several moves to penalize cable operators.
This reminds me of the US v. Microsoft decision. I still believe that splitting that corporation up would benefit everyone--most of all, Microsoft--but I think that legislating it is a big mistake. It's too bad that Comcast can't grow up on its own and realize for itself that its customers are not its competition. Surely there's a way to make this work without all of the dissent and attacking and wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth.
Not taking more then they are paying for
How about not taking what your neighbor is paying for?
Should someone paying 39 dollars a month be running web servers and downloading file 24/7, to the point that it impacts every other user paying 39 dollars a month?
This is a business, and if they lose two customers for every one person "over utilizing" their system, where is the sense in that?
Better to lose one to keep the two
Should someone paying 39 dollars a month be running web servers
To some degree this is the issue; Comcast made lies a business policy.
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
The truth of this matter is Comcast and companies like it are simply overselling a product.
This is best equivalenced in an analogy of renting a house. In a general agreement all the room/ yard are to be dwelled with as you please.
However with Comcast being the landlord you're not allowed to live the house 24/7; in contrast Comcast only wants you to live in the house for 1 hour, 1 day a week.
This wrong and basically why the FCC aims to punish Comcast. The truth of this matter (to those of us who really understand networking) is Comcast desperately needs to upgrade their network or stop overselling the product.
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
It must be illegal to block traffic for any reasons other than those stated in the ISP's literature. Further certain kinds of blocking would be specifically illegal (e.g. blocking traffic to an ISP's competitor) even if stated in their literature.
Honesty?
I wish there were more actual choice.
Pick a different provider???
These are mini monopolies that have a lock on broadband with both Cox & Comcast being the biggest two out there.
Until now, they've had NO INCENTIVE to upgrade their networks because there's been little competition out there against them. They've carved up territories like little fiefdoms, each setting it's own rules just deep enough not to tangle with most local governments.
At least FIOS is making some inroads but it will be years before they will become truly competitive.
So please, get real...
Let ISP's set limits, but...
If you were willing to pay for more capacity, then we had money to buy larger access to Internet backbones. So each user received for what they paid for, it did not negatively affect the community and we still had a profit.
But we advertised this up front. Those who would overuse the system simply went to other ISPs who would allow that. A la Comcast, and others.
Comcast made secret changes, and for that, the FCC should indeed punish them. Comcast was guilty of bait-and-switch. Promise the world, but when people took them up on it, Comcast became Bush-like, and started doing their own thing, illegal and immoral.
It's weird the FCC would actually rule against a company. I don't see that too often. Usually, the FCC has been anti-people and pro-monopoly.
Selling things they don't actually have
In this case, even that turns out to be an obfuscation of the facts. In this case, Comcast is even saying that, in spite of allowing customers the bandwidth to say, download a paid movie from a subscription service, downloading data from another type of service might not get service at all, be difficult to establish, and even then they are reserving hte right to squash the bandwidth.
All that dance and mumbo-jumbo is there because, guess what, they can't actually deliver what they make the customer think they are going to provide. That tarrentella is all about hiding the truth, and then collecting high premiums for something that they are cutting corners on, based on language hidden in the contracts that most customers would not understand even if they could read through the convoluted language.
Thieves and liars, or both. That's what this comes down to. Comcast knows that most people do not get that they are paying a high price for something that Comcast admits that they actually can't provide.
The FCC can't fix the problem unless truth in advertising laws are enacted to control this nonsense.
Truth in Advertising
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
If the ISP wants to sell access by gigabytes, then they should be required to publish that cap up front and let the market decide if it is willing to do business with them.
These ISP's are over selling their bandwidth just like the airlines are over booking their seats.
They trick people by selling unlimited access but what they don't say is that unlimited access doesn't include unlimited usage.
From what I have read, folks in Europe and Japan don't have these issues. They get a lot more bandwidth for a lot less money. Evidently their executives don't exhibit the greed of American CEO's.
Torrents and Comcast - Unfair Business Practices
Comcast's main business is the delivery of televised content over their coax infrastructure. Cable price increases, poor service and tech support has driven a paradigm shift of Comcasts own making. Comcast abused the public trust and took advantage of their customers.
It is only a matter of time before the illegal file sharing goes the way of Napster. Yes, they shut down Napster. But content was soon made available legally at a fair price. Prior to Napster, one purchased a CD for the one or two tracks that made the album valuable. Now, thanks to Napster, it is possible to purchase the tracks one desires for $.88 instead of shelling out $9.99 or more.
Comcast is still relevant for live content, for now. If you want to view real time sporting events, news, etc., Comcast still has value.
Recently, I have read of how numerous newspapers are in financial trouble due to the availability of free news content on the internet. Why pay for a newspaper when AP/Reuters content is available directly from AP/Reuters online?
Similarly, why pay Comcast for programming if you can visit ABC.com, NBC.com, CBS.com, etc., to view the same content? Hulu.com anyone?
It is no surprise to me that Comcast takes offense to torrent traffic on their infrastructure. Content that was once their bread and butter is now available a la "Napster." I look forward to the day when cable programming can be purchased via FIOS broadband.
It is unfair business practice for Comcast to interfere with a natural transition of content and deployment of technology.
Comcast utilized Sandvine to illegally impersonate a file sharers identity. This is actionable by the FCC. Will the FCC practice due diligence? I doubt it.
The sad thing is, Comcast can still redeem itself. Replace their aging coax infrastructure with fiber and port the cable programming over to broadband as well. How cool would it be if an expanded, streaming Comcast "On Demand" was available over a new fiber broadband infrastructure?
Comcast is light years ahead of Verizon with regards to content. It is still their bread and butter, for now.
FCC to "crucify" Comcast
Personally I hope the FCC crucifies Comcast, but it should also crucify all of the other broadband providers who mis-represent their services. Boast about "unlimited" service in the ads, and hide the reality in the "fine print".
What is the reality, broadband providers use an asymmetrical division of the available bandwidth to provide service. [b]Upstream[/b] and [b]downstream[/b] traffic travel over the same medium be it coax or fiber. While most of the bandwidth is allocated to [b]downstream[/b] which provides fast download speeds, the smaller, [b]shared upstream[/b] chokes when someone uploads large amounts of data.
Broadband business models were based on simple web surfing. small amounts of data upstream, and larger amounts down. Windoze users can easily see the difference by right clicking on their network icon. As I write this, I have sent 943 Kbytes and have received 4,676Kbytes. Notice the lopsidedness.
Now, all I have to do to change that relationship is to send a relative a boatload of image photos. That goes [b]upstream[/b] which for so many broadband users, is much slower than downstream.
What Comcast, and other broadband providers need to do is to offer users some better options than 2Mb up/10Mb down to something approaching 6Mb up/10 Mb down. These companies need to look hard at the up/down ratio, and make it more realistic for those consumers that send a lot of data.
"unlimited" and other ad gimmicks
You see, I have no sympathy, remorse or any other regard for Comcast, AT&T and all the others until they start being truthful, and THAT they have NOT been for a long time.
You can bet your bottom dollar the ONLY way the NET will stay neutral is if they ARE FORCED to do so, otherwise, your ISP blocking your outbound SMTP port (AT&T does this!!) unless you fork over DOUBLE the money (so they can call it a"business" account) is just the beginning of them controlling your access to resources.
RE: FCC to vote against Comcast, which questions its authority
ever take over my favorite journalists and people at NBC
doing the best job ever. NO. NO. NO. I won't go to Comcast
ever if it messes with NBC. And while everyone explores this
problem, perhaps Wyatt Earp should look into this business
of selling porno -if that is true, then Comcast should be
sanctioned...
Dr. Dorothy Gale Gage, Grasslands Institute