FCC to Probe Comcast Data Discrimination
The Federal Communications Commission will investigate complaints that Comcast Corp. actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday.
A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency in November to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data. Two groups also asked the FCC to fine the nation’s No. 2 Internet provider $195,000 for every affected subscriber.
“Sure, we’re going to investigate and make sure that no consumer is going to be blocked,” Martin told an audience at the International Consumer Electronics Show.
In an investigation last year, The Associated Press found that Comcast in some cases hindered file sharing by subscribers who used BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing program. The findings, first reported Oct. 19, confirmed claims by users who also noticed interference with other file-sharing applications.
“We look forward to responding to any FCC inquiries regarding our broadband network management,” said David L. Cohen, executive vice president at Philadelphia-based Comcast.
Comcast denies that it blocks file sharing, but acknowledged after the AP story that it was “delaying” some of the traffic between computers that share files. The company said the intervention was necessary to improve the surfing experience for the majority of its subscribers.
Peer-to-peer file sharing is a common way to illegally exchange copyright files, but companies are also rushing to utilize it for legal distribution of video and game content. If ISPs hinder or control that traffic, it makes them important gatekeepers of Internet content.
The FCC’s response will be an important test of its willingness to enforce “Net Neutrality,” the principle that Internet traffic be treated equally by carriers. The agency has a broadly stated policy supporting the concept, but its position hasn’t been tested in a real-world case.
The FCC’s policy statement makes an exception for “reasonable traffic management.” Comcast has said its practices fall under that exception.
“The question is going to arise: Are they reasonable network practices?” Martin said Tuesday. “When they have reasonable network practices, they should disclose those and make those public.”
Comcast subscribers who asked the company about the interference before the AP story ran were met with flat denials.
“Comcast plans to work with the Commission in its desire to bring more transparency for consumers regarding broadband network management,” Cohen said. “We do disclose in our terms of use our right to manage our network for the benefit of all customers.”
Martin’s announcement pleased Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, one of the consumer groups that had sought FCC intervention.
“We hope the chairman’s statements, made two months after we filed our complaint, will lead to immediate and accelerated action,” Ammori said in a prepared release.
Martin also said the commission was looking at complaints that wireless carriers denied text-messaging “short codes” to some applicants. The five-digit numbers are a popular way to sign up for updates on everything from sports to politics to entertainment news.
Verizon Wireless in late September denied a request by Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to use its mobile network for a sign-up text messaging program.
The company reversed course just a day later, calling it a mistake and an “isolated incident.”
Verizon Wireless has also denied a short code to a Swedish company, Rebtel Networks AB, that operates a service similar to a virtual calling card, allowing users to avoid paying the carrier’s international rates on their cell-phone calls. Verizon Wireless has stuck to that denial, saying it does want to provide an advertising venue to a competitor.
“I tell the staff that they should act on all of those complaints and investigate all of them,” Martin said.
© 2008 Associated Press
- Comcast denies that it blocks file sharing, but acknowledged after the AP story that it was “delaying” some of the traffic between computers that share files. The company said the intervention was necessary to improve the surfing experience for the majority of its subscribers. -
Ho-Hummmm…. Another investigation going nowhere….
Just shut up and pay your bill, and comcast will continue to decide what news is fit for its consumers… according to its CEO and board of directors…
So, who really owns the news….????
KCT
THE EGGPLANT THAT ATE CHICAGO
The internet invasion has begun, as predicted some time ago by the “Hands Off the Internet” crowd led by PR Shill Mike McCurry.
Those “internet hogs”, like piggy-back tractor-trailer rigs on the highway, like 40-pound sacks of potatoes in the grocery aisle, like fatties in line at McDonalds … and now, Bit Torrent for godsake … all invading hogs, like The Giant Digital Movie That Ate Chicago … all feeding off the “myth” of net neutrality to barge in and destroy the net for everyone else.
What evil. Net neutrality must be abandoned lest these monsters upend the internet as we know it. Control their “unneutral” content, not their “neutral” cost imposed on the network.
Charge discriminatory prices based on content, not use of capacity in kilo-bytes and total use of kilo-byte seconds. Especially control content use based on different sources as in, “Who provides the digital movie in the first place?”.
Translation. We are not monopolies. We’re are not a landline duopoly for 95% of broadband users. We are “competitors” who have the “right” to control our traffic flows as desired, including the exercise of content discrimination over generic cost burdens on the network.
The strategy of facility-based providers is to double or triple the price of current broadband for many users for the same service received now … to take care of those “internet hogs” … never mind pricing them separately for the high use and leaving other rates as is.
Instead, the plan is the reverse - raise prices for everyone, then reduce prices for useless “basic service” like Cable TV.
(Note from brain to keyboard - true competitors, like (some) retail gas stations, cannot assess prices by content; if gas prices increase, gas use declines - gas stations don’t price gas by content,i.e. SUVs versus Prius - drivers decide, not gas stations; so if Bit Torrent is a problem, let it pay for more “gallons of gas” like an SUV over a Prius - so the “internet hog problem” of say, 5 Priuses (or 10,000 emails) is no different than 1 SUV (or one digital movie).
Conclusion. The construct of “internet hog” is a myth, developed specifically to justify the control of content on the internet. In reality, there’s no difference in identical costs, whether imposed by large numbers of small uses or small numbers of large uses.
And for those who continue to flaunt falsely, the “threat” of continued net neutrality under regulation, we are expected to believe that the Eggplant That Ate Chicago will also eat our Web Pages, E-Mail, Bloggers and All Other Traffic as Selected by Content.
… of course rethuglicans who serve the greater good of “humanity” will be drastically discounted for patriotic patronage, while
… the demo-lishicans and reprehensive-progressians will be forced to take a ’slow boat to china’, and some content and packages may be lost in transit (with re-transmission services now being an extra charge, as contrasted with intrinsic robustness of vanilla TCP/IP).
The antidote for censorship is direct democracy.
Comcast already blocks YouTube e-mails (including account registration) in my area. I’ve confirmed it myself. http://paulbramscher.blogspot.com/2007/11/comcast-censoring-youtube.html.
I’ve got 3 e-mail accounts, and switched my YouTube preferences from one to the other. Account information was sent to my .edu and gmail.com accounts within minutes. It’s been a month now, and nothing when I switched to Comcast.
Some like to call it traffic “throttling”. I call it censorship, plain and simple.