Complaints Filed to FCC Allege Comcast P2P Blocking
The Federal Communications Commission has been formally asked to look into whether Comcast blocks or slows access by its customers to peer-to-peer filesharing services. Comcast has come under fire in recent weeks when a report by the Associated Press claims the Internet access provider blocks its customer from accessing the popular and controversial BitTorrent service.
Yesterday SaveTheInternet.com along with Internet scholars from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford filed a complaint to the FCC asking Comcast to clarify its bandwidth policy. The groups are also asking the FCC to prevent Internet service providers from degrading file-sharing applications in the future.
In a separate petition (PDF), both groups Free Press and Public Knowledge are asking Comcast to pay $195,000 to each of the ISP's estimated 12.4 million per Comcast customer.
Meanwhile Comcast continues to deny any wrongdoing issuing this statement:
"Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy."
Last month Comcast also publicly denied blocking of BitTorrent and other popular file-sharing services, however its executives admitted that it occasionally "delays" P2P file transfers in an effort to conserve bandwidth.
Many see the Comcast matter as the first true test of Internet neutrality, the oft-debated principle meant to maintain bar ISPs from blocking or slowing Internet traffic on their networks.
In 2005, the FCC issued a policy statement which granted itself jurisdiction over regulating ISPs to ensure they operate neutrally as well as outlining consumer privileges PDF. Both the filed petition and complaint ask the FCC to stay true to its words, in vowing if "we see evidence that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or IP-enabled services are violating these principles, we will not hesitate to take action to address that conduct." - quote from Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, 20 F.C.C.R. 14853, 14904.
While the near $200,000 per user sought by Free Press and Public Knowledge seems unlikely to be upheld in full this is prime time for the FCC to make good on its words. And unless Comcast can dance around its semantics of how reasonably it maintains P2P traffic, it could be in for some serious trouble.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
It's not just filesharing and bit-torrent. It's any P2P applications, as well as any streaming media. I get effected in Youtube, Google Video, Sirius Radio, battle.net, all mmorpgs, etc etc.
When I demanded an answer from Comcast customer service rep, they first dodge the issue and then state their policy that comcast connections is for browsing the web only. When asked to produce documentation to support that statement, none were offered. This has started recently (a few month ago) since I have been a comcast customer for over 3 years and it has gotten worse as time went by.
Another rep I spoke to admit to using network traffic management software to regulate bandwidth for bit-torrent as well as p2p. When I asked if the software is intelligent enough to only regulate when bandwith usage exceeds what they set as a cap, rather then specifically targeting certain customers based on IPs. He claim it was the former. However evidence points to the contrary.
While I applaud the fact that someone is finally taking out an action against Comcast for its deceptive practice of crippling bittorrent uploads, I do see a real, possible downside if an injunction is issued against them.
Comcast could choose to implement a tiered access policy (mentioned in the petition itself) wherein people who only use Comcast's services for email, Web browsing and other so-called "normal" Internet protocols would pay the base subscription amount (around $45) and anyone else who used more than some arbitrary bandwidth limits imposed by Comcast would be required to pay a substantial increase for that particular tier of service.
If Comcast chooses to go that route then I will certainly terminate my account with them and seek another ISP (DSL is the only alternative in my area) in spite of the lower speeds.