FCC Slaps Comcast, But Lays Foundation For Future Bandwidth Restrictions
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: FCC, Comcast, Internet
Opinion - Some companies are more equal than others. That is an impression some may take away from an order issued by the FCC against Comcast, requiring the cable Internet service provider to disclose details of its network management practices, submit a plan of compliance with current rules and regulations, stop unreasonable and, perhaps most importantly, disclose future plans of bandwidth restrictions. Comcast lied and deceived. It violated federal policies and ends up with an opportunity to discuss bandwidth restrictions. You may call that unfair. Others may call it business brilliance.
It took the FCC nearly one year to respond to complaints filed against Comcast’s widely publicized bandwidth throttling practices, but the order the FCC issued yesterday proves that the Commission has done its homework of research. On 67 pages, the FCC describes the history and nature of the complaints, why it has authority to rule in this matter and whether the complaints are justified or not. The structure of the document resembles a drama-filled climatic increase of allegations and evidence against Comcast, concluding that the company violated the very core of federal policies for providing Internet services - that "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice" and must be enabled "to access the lawful Internet content of their choice" in a framework of "reasonable network management".
Here are a few examples:
The FCC states that Comcast "misleadingly disclaimed any responsibility for the customers’ [bandwidth] problems" and even quoted a Comcast spokesperson who flatly denied that the company throttles any traffic. As soon as evidence of the contrary had surfaced, Comcast changed its story and said that it "targets peer-to-peer traffic for interference", only to change its story again and sate that its "current P2P management is triggered . . . regardless of the level of overall network congestion at th[e] time, and regardless of the time of day."
The Commission notes that "the record leaves no doubt that Comcast’s network management practices discriminate among applications and protocols rather than treating all equal" and compared the traffic management practice to opening "its customers’ mail because it wants to deliver mail not based on the address or type of stamp on the envelope but on the type of letter contained therein." Comcast initially stated that only 10% of the traffic on its network is affected, but indicated that the number may be closer to 20%, while independent testing suggested that the rate is much more likely somewhere between 40 and 75%.
In its conclusion, the FCC says that "this practice is not ’minimally intrusive’ but invasive and outright discriminatory" and may even "discourage the ’development of technologies’ - such as peer-to-peer technologies - that ’maximize user control over what information is received by individuals . . . who use the Internet’ because that interference (again) impedes consumers from ’run[ning] applications . . . of their choice,’ rather than those favored by Comcast."
In its own policy, the FCC sates that "should [the FCC] see evidence that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or IP-enabled services are violating [the] principles [of the federal policy], we will not hesitate to take action to address that conduct."
There was no doubt that Comcast has violated these basic principles mentioned above. So what action does the FCC take?
Within 30 days, Comcast has to
1. disclose to the Commission the precise contours of the network management practices at issue here, including what equipment has been utilized, when it began to be employed, when and under what circumstances it has been used, how it has been configured, what protocols have been affected, and where it has been deployed
2. submit a compliance plan to the Commission with interim benchmarks that describes how it intends to transition from discriminatory to nondiscriminatory network management practices by the end of the year
3. disclose to the Commission and the public the details of the network management practices that it intends to deploy following the termination of its current practices, including the thresholds that will trigger any limits on customers’ access to bandwidth.
If Comcast fails to comply with this order,
1. interim injunctive relief automatically will take effect requiring Comcast to suspend the network management practices described above within 35 days of the release of this Order
2. the Enforcement Bureau will immediately issue an order directing Comcast to show cause why a permanent cease-and-desist order should not be issued against it
3. a hearing will be set for thirty days after Comcast’s receipt of that order.
Similarly, if Comcast files the information required above within 30 days of the release of the order, but does not follow through on its commitment to end its discriminatory network management practices by the end of the year, the interim injunctive relief automatically will take effect requiring Comcast to suspend immediately the network management practices, the Enforcement Bureau will immediately issue an order directing Comcast to show cause why a permanent cease-and-desist order should not be issued against it and a hearing will be set for 30 days after Comcast’s receipt of such show-cause order.
Is it just me or does this ruling a type of "if you don’t comply with our order, we will seriously consider thinking about a more convincing order"? In a way, Comcast received a get-out-of-jail-free card and its public deception did not result in any fines. Was Comcast simply lucky? Perhaps. But there is a much more interesting outcome in this process - an outcome that lays the groundwork for the creation of generally accepted bandwidth throttling.
Within the document, the Commission indicates that it generally agrees with bandwidth limitations, as long as they are reasonable. The term "reasonable" of course is a matter of further discussion and the FCC even goes as far as suggesting what measures Comcast (and other ISPs, for that matter) could employ:
"Comcast could cap the average users’ capacity and then charge the most aggressive users overage fees. Or Comcast could throttle back the connection speeds of high-capacity users (rather than any user who relies on peer-to-peer technology, no matter how infrequently). Or Comcast can work with the application vendors themselves. As Comcast has touted in this very dispute, negotiations with Pando and BitTorrent, Inc. and other peer-to-peer application companies have advanced the creation of the P4P protocol, which promises ’backbone bandwidth optimization’ and ’improve[d] P2P download performance.’ Although we do not endorse any of these particular solutions today, they all appear far better tailored to Comcast’s basic complaint that a ’disproportionately large amount of the traffic currently on broadband networks originates from a relatively small number of users.’"
What throttling is reasonable for Internet access that will cost at least $60 per month (for customers who do not subscribe to other Comcast services) and offers half the speed of DSL for the same price? What services should be throttled and should Comcast limit the number of movies you be able to stream from services such as Netflix at full speed?
In our opinion, it is clear that many users will subscribe to a cable Internet service for a reason: Even Comcast’s commercials suggest that these connections are much faster than DSL services and we do not think Comcast should be able to penalize users who do want to take advantage of their higher-speed connection. But this latest order creates the necessary negotiation space for Comcast to put exactly such procedures into place - permanently.
What better outcome could Comcast have hoped for?
-
Previous News Article
Comcast Says No New Traffic... -
Next News Article
Judge: Labels Must Consider...
My cable provider (Charter Communications) still blocks all out going traffic on port 80 and 23. This blocks my ability to host a web site for something as simple as a home photo gallery for family and friends. Well I can always move to a different port but that adds some confusion. The companies claim is that they don't want user to be making money by using their bandwidth. I disagree its my bandwidth. I'm paying for it. They also reply that they supply web space for their customers, not that you can run PHP, PEARL, JAVA, or ASP.NET from those pages.
I haven't looked into how much they (Charter) throttle the connection of certain protocols, but I would be interested to find out. I personally don't use P2P apps very often. I think the last torrent I downloaded was the Diablo III video.
Course the bad part of this situation is that they may never have to stop blocking or limiting as long as they disclose what they are doing on some long form that you sign.
I'd like the FCC to make a recommendation for "Net Neutrality" to Congress on the heels of this. The ISPs have argued that it isn't needed, they can be trusted to regulate themselves. This is obviously not the case.
Sometimes I wish for the olden days where this kind of practice could result in a mob with torches and pitch forks to burn down the companies headquarters and CEO's home
It would be more effective than FCC negotiations.
Though back then there were no computers and this would be some lord or robber baron getting his home sacked burned by angry villagers.
I would be fine with them doing this but they should have to list these limits in bold print at the beginning of the contract and on all commercials further they should not be able to do this with preexisting customers. By bold print on commercials I mean where you could read it from 10 feet away on a 13inch TV screen. Further it should be clear enough and displayed long enough for a person with a 2nd grade education to read and understand.
If you buy Comcast's 6mbps service then you should get 6mbps service. This throttling has to go. Their excuse of more users sharing the bandwidth on your block causing you to only get 600kbps is b.s. and has to go. If they advertise and sell 6mpbs then you should get just that. No more of that fine print trash "up to 6mbps" Thats like buying your groceries without knowing how much is in a package, buying a car and being told that you can get up to 80mpg and not being told that you're more likely to get 20mpg or any realistic quote. Internet guidelines and infrastructure needs to be laid out like any other service. I don't want to buy a cell phone service package and be told that I can get up to 600 minutes a month but they only let me have 150. I think we need to start a petition or something. Give me a thumbs up if you agree.
Let's hold up a minute. Two separate issues are getting confused here. The FCC hearings and ruling are about DISCRIMINATORY traffic management practices. i.e. Comcast is not allowed to treat some traffic with one set of policies and other traffic with a different set of policies.
The related, but separate practice, is traffic management in general. There are no rules against Comcast applying bandwidth throttling to traffic. But the FCC is making it clear that such a practice has to be applied without regard to the TYPE of traffic.
The case for/against traffic management as a whole will be fought out in the marketplace, where customers will choose a different internet provider if they don't like Comcast's bandwidth management policies.
Do not attempt to extend the FCC's ruling and decision to bandwidth management as a whole. That's not what it's about. And mixing that into this article shows a lack of understanding of the case.
i do a lot of online (pc) gaming would that affect my gaming experience if i am paying for premium bandwidth why they throttle mines. what happens to these consumers
The bastards have lied to congress about their practices for over a year and not a single corporate agent has been charge with purgury.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the hand slap because it's NOT coming.
The FCC is as crooked as Comcast and will sit idle while another mega corporation rapes the the American peoples wallets.
If Comcast cannot provide the bandwidth they advertise to their customers, thats their own god damn problem. They posted RECORD profits this quarter while essentially breaching contract with hundreds of thousands of their customers.
If they are not made an example of, every mega-isp in the world is going to follow suit and next thing you know our bandwidth will be actively monitor by some a-hole in Pakistan with the MPAA and RIAA on speed-dial.
This is both a breach of contract and an invasion of privacy.
We need solidarity and a voice - If every comcast customer who supports net neutrality was to open up their wifi or max out the downstreams for a day or two, I'm sure we could make a big enough stink to get the rest of the county to pay attention to whats going on.
rich0325 - Not at all. The amount of bandwidth used for gaming is relatively small. They chose to block torrent traffic because they assumed people would be reluctant to speak up due to the content of their traffic.
I agree that this is confusing two issues... Comcast is as sleazy company for hiding their activities and misleading folks... not for acting to limit the ability of users to abuse their connections. I'm not a fan of bandwidth limits (like if you download more than 50GB in a month you pay some stupid penalty)... but throttling bandwidth hogs I see as TOTALLY APPROPRIATE if properly implemented.
If you're downloading 100gig of pron a month you're hogging bandwidth. Folks have this erroneous assumption that just because you've got a 10mbps link you're somehow ENTITLED to download at 10mbps for 24 hours a day 7 days a week... well you aren't! Go price out a network connection with a guaranteed 10mbps connection and you're going to get a surprise... it'll cost a TON of money... you want guaranteed bandwidth YOU pay the thousands of dollars a month it'll cost, otherwise just live with the fact that you're sharing and will be penalized if you don't share nicely.
Consumers paying 50 beans a month are buying a SHARED link... which means when the neighbor is hogging that link downloading warez they're abusing their share of the connection. I tend to be a bandwidth abuser myself (I probably average 50gb per month) so it's not like this is making me happy but it IS making the system more equitable.
I totally second sublifer's comment. The ISPs should have to supply a minimum level of service and that should be their advertised rate. So if they say 10Mbps then that should be the slowest speed you will get.
Also, @SomeJoe7777, your idea that the customers will choose whether or not they want bandwidth throttling is great in theory, but with the virtual monopolies that these companies have this doesn't work. Not to mention that EVERY major ISP is going to throttle traffic so there is no choice.
i'm against the idea of bandwidth throttling but at the same time, if i'm stuck with timewarner / comcast being my only isp option...
i really don't want to get home and find my internet crawling because there are thousands of 16 year olds dl'ing mass amounts of god knows what and using up most of the available bandwidth.
@itadakimasu
The problem I have with that complaint is that it should be your ISP's issue, not the consumer's. If their network is being saturated and they can't supply the advertised rates, then upgrade the network, don't screw the users.
gm0n3y Those are my feelings summed up pretty well. If you can't supply the service you are selling all the time, then you should not be allowed to advertise that as a service of yours.
It's like going to a restaurant who has prime rib on the menu but, when you order it they are all out.Instead of telling you and giving you a choice they just bring out what ever hunk of steak they have left, and stick you with the bill for the prime rib. Now if ISPs were more like restaurants you would simply leave them and never return. Unfortunately the ISP is likely your only steak house in the area and you are stuck with them.
This issue would be nonexistent if Comcast would actually TRY to improve the infrastructure, instead of improving it and have it ready for years to come they decide to take the easy route and throttle us, unfortunately its like putting a band-aid on a large cut, it does little and will end up costing more in the long run.
How bout you buy some iPhones while you're at it, they're cheaper up front, only you'll be paying more in the end.
FCC, you fail.......epically.
I think the key thing is that Comcast and all the other ISP's should be telling people EXACTLY what they're delivering. If they throttle they should tell you when and why. They tell folks that they're getting blazing fast internet, they quote the bandwidth of the connection without telling people that that connection is really a shared one and they may sometimes get all of it but they sometimes will be sharing it with a lot of neighbors.
It seems like they go out of their way to AVOID transparency, trying to keep us in the dark regarding their management policies... and the result is that they're seriously pissing off a lot of people. They really need to get their act together.
I live in Stockton,Calif and I'm a Comcast customer. The thing that PISS ME OFF is that Comcast BLOCK other IP company from serving my area like SureWest in Sacramento,Calif. SureWest has a 10mbps Up/Down for $39.99. I have a friend that lives in Sacramento and has SureWest 10mbps plan. He say that he gets at least 9.5mbps every day. Comcast what to monopolize the market...talk about anti-trust law being broke. The problem is Comcast has to much influence with the Public Utilities Commission(PUC) in California. That why they get away with what they do.
I agree with nvalhalla,sublifer,gnice,@itadakimasu,jaycop,Dave K. Corp America has lied,steal,inflate the cost and down grade there service. Thats good (New) Corp America SCREW the public. Make CEO's FAT with $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Where I live AT&T and Charter Communications have monopolies on land-based communications. Otherwise we'd be using Comcast for cable HD TV service, and Verizon FiOS for internet, but we're stuck with satellite (Which is no good during frequent thunderstorms) and Charter broadband (which, while Charter as a company and its customer support branch both totally suck, the broadband is more than we're used to- we used to live in a Comcast area).
As it stands, the FCC should lay out a plan for network performance requirements, and should bar area monopolies for different types of service.
Why can't we just get cheap broadband like Luxemburg, Japan, or South Korea?
Because the ISP's have too many customers they can screw over for more money. I can't tell you how many times I couldn't download a software patch on Comcast because the download started at a blazing 786kb/s (WTF 6Mb/s my @$$) and then THROTTLED DOWN TO 152kb/s. What should have been a 3 minute download turns into something like 3 HOURS.
IF nothing else, this action by the FCC will get Comcast to make it plain and clear what to expect for bandwidth, not the whole under-handed "performance varies as per network conditions". I would allow a little variance, but this was lying to customer's faces.
Next up, attack Yahoo for their mail handling policies, denying and delaying mail from smaller ISP and corporate servers unrecognized by them.
Let's hold up a minute. Two separate issues are getting confused here. The FCC hearings and ruling are about DISCRIMINATORY traffic management practices. i.e. Comcast is not allowed to treat some traffic with one set of policies and other traffic with a different set of policies.The related, but separate practice, is traffic management in general. There are no rules against Comcast applying bandwidth throttling to traffic. But the FCC is making it clear that such a practice has to be applied without regard to the TYPE of traffic.The case for/against traffic management as a whole will be fought out in the marketplace, where customers will choose a different internet provider if they don't like Comcast's bandwidth management policies.Do not attempt to extend the FCC's ruling and decision to bandwidth management as a whole. That's not what it's about. And mixing that into this article shows a lack of understanding of the case.
I think that it would help if all ISP's used a fair, published, bandwidth cap, over which the user got billed a bit extra. By my calculations, 10mb/s calculates out to 270GB / month. I couldn't imagine a (legal) reason to burn up that much bandwidth.
Monthly caps are the norm here in AUS, mine is so high (for me) that I have never bumped the cap limit. Of course, the caps are published for your rate plan, in all adverts, etc.
The case for/against traffic management as a whole will be fought out in the marketplace, where customers will choose a different internet provider if they don't like Comcast's bandwidth management policies.Do not attempt to extend the FCC's ruling and decision to bandwidth management as a whole. That's not what it's about. And mixing that into this article shows a lack of understanding of the case.
Actually, it does partially cover that subject as well, though not 100% directly, when the ruling commented on Comcast "misleadingly disclaimed any responsibility for the customers’ [bandwidth] problems." Technically, a throttle very, VERY much qualifies as a bandwidth problem, even if it is contractually agreed upon; it's just that in that case, it's agreed upon and fair.
However, it's pretty clear that in these cases, it's not something that is made clear to the subscriber until AFTER they have paid and signed a contract for the service, where they learn that the service that they are getting has a general-traffic throttle applied to everyone, that is NOT mentioned at all in their advertisements; in other words, that the 6mpbs "better than DSL" speeds advertised are impossible to achieve.
What you have there, is called "Deceptive Advertising," and is thoroughly illegal. Of course, that tends to be handled by the FTC, rather than the FCC... But in any case, when corporations partake in illegal actions such as marketplace deception, the capitalist marketplace CANNOT actually sort out the companies on its own, because one or more of those companies are cheating.
I couldn't imagine a (legal) reason to burn up that much bandwidth.Monthly caps are the norm here in AUS, mine is so high (for me) that I have never bumped the cap limit. Of course, the caps are published for your rate plan, in all adverts, etc.
270GB a month? There are 2,592,000 seconds in a 30-day month, so that would be nearly 3 terabytes of data at 1.125 MB/sec. (10mbps)
No legal use for that much bandwidth, even 270 GB? Well, perhaps you're not as serious an Internet user as a number of people are. I can think of loads of ways to burn through a few terabytes every month, for months on end, without ever stepping toes on any law; the "all high bandwidth-users must be pirates" argument falls very flat when you consider that while there are loads of illegal (pirated) downloads and transfers of multi-gigabyte files for video, audio, and game content, there are ways to also legally acquire the same content across the Internet as well.
Remember that there are not just free downloads for some content, but also PAID content as well; and in this day and age, if you want people to pay for your video content, it better be in high-definition, which means that even after compression, you're talking something that's going to be in the tens of gigabytes. Similar file sizes go through if you're buying and downloading a game from Direct2Drive or Steam.