how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
419 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
4 edits | COMCAST is Regulating the Net Hey, you "the only good regulation is no regulation" folks are missing the point. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE COMCAST IS REGULATING THE NET.
This argument is about whether or not the FCC should stop this behavior by enforcing a principle of non-discrimination that led to and throughout the growth of the Internet.
Comcast agreed to abide by this principle in 2005 and 2006.
This isn't just about Comcast managing its network -- we pay them to manage the network, to ensure that we get the subscription that we pay for.
This IS about managing by making value judgments about which data will get to the Internet, and which will get null-routed ... 24/7 ... based on protocol signatures alone ... in secret ... and in a network-abusive way. That's VERY different.
I don't want any kind of regulation, but for that to work, we have to have sufficient competition. Look at "dial up" -- no "network neutrality" rules, and hundreds or thousands of choices. In fact, non-neutral ISPs advertise their filtering as a FEATURE! Now that's awesome, and it's the way Broadband should be -- but isn't.
We have to deal with that reality, and deal with network discrimination with narrow - but necessary - regulation.
The Internet survived before Sandvine -- a technology so undeniably reasonable and necessary, Comcast had to keep it a secret. The Internet will survive long after it's ruled to be the scourge that it is!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| | |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| It's interesting that in Martin's statement he calls out the Madison River complaint where the FCC intervened in a LEC's blocking of RTP traffic. In that case there was absolute clear-cut anti-competitive behavior: the LEC used control of its network to prevent a competitor from selling dialtone.
I don't really see anti-competitive behavior is in this case that would warrant FCC enforcement or further regulation. How does Comcast benefit from managing P2P traffic on their network? I've only seen a few arguments made, and I'm not sure how valid they really are:
Argument #1: They are trying to stop competition to their video services by interfering with BitTorrent
If that were the case the interference should be more widespread. For me personally, in the last week I watched a few clips from the Daily Show and South Park online without any interference, and even watched a movie via Netflix' download service without any issues. In talking with friends and coworkers there are a wide array of other video options that are not being interfered with in any way, including: DirecTV VoD over the Internet, Hulu content, Vongo movie downloads, or Tivo video downloads. If the goal was to maintain a complete monopoly over video entertainment certainly some content not delivered via P2P should be impact.
Argument #2: Comcast wants to interfere with subscriber's rights to free speech
Personally I think this argument is "crying wolf" just because of the sheer absurdity of it. I really think George Ou should have made a bigger deal about the King James Bible example at the hearing.
Distributing content via P2P is only good for users with clients capable of accessing that P2P network. This already limits the scope of your distribution because the number of platforms with a client for a P2P network like BitTorrent is smaller than the number of platforms with http access.
If you were to put the King James Bible up on your web space that Comcast provides, it would be indexed by all of the major search engines for easy access, and would be available to read by every cell phone, PDA, computer, modern game console, and smart kitchen appliance with a built-in web browser. The net result is a distribution of the *IDENTICAL* content, in the same format that it would be transmitted via P2P, being made available to a much larger population of potential end users.
The restriction isn't on the content; it's on the method of distribution. Whether you publish a file via a P2P network or on a web server, the content is 100% identical when the end user retrieves it.
Argument #3: They are doing this to avoid upgrading their network
For a company that's not upgrading their network, there's sure been a lot of money spent and a lot of noticeable changes made. In the last couple years they rolled out their own private fiber backbone, and over the last several months they've been converting all of their markets onto the ibone infrastructure which provides much more diverse route selection. For example, last summer the Minneapolis area went from only having ATT backbone connectivity to having Level(3) and Global Crossing added to the mix of possible carriers along with cross-country ibone route selection for some other carriers. (ie, Tiscali) The markets where Blast is being deployed continues to expand, and my own market here is one of the first DOCSIS 3.0 test markets with a 50/5 tier being tested.
Where I think the FCC did hit the nail right on the head is the statement that broadband providers like Comcast need to disclose their policies and methods around traffic management. The satellite broadband companies are already really good about publishing their Fair Access Policies today, and while more than a few users can argue they don't like the policies at least you can't say the company wasn't up front about how traffic was going managed on the network. | |
 rolandeCertifiablePremium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Columbus, OH
Linksys
AT&T Midwest
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:I don't want any kind of regulation, but for that to work, we have to have sufficient competition. Look at "dial up" -- no "network neutrality" rules, and hundreds or thousands of choices. In fact, non-neutral ISPs advertise their filtering as a FEATURE! Now that's awesome, and it's the way Broadband should be -- but isn't. We have to deal with that reality, and deal with network discrimination with narrow - but necessary - regulation. Amen brother. I couldn't have said it better myself. I am the last person that wants the Internet to be "regulated". It is a slippery slope. But in the current competitive or lack of true competitive marketplace for actual consumer broadband service, we can not afford to allow the providers to create their own little walled gardens like AOL did. I guess the extremely microscopic silver lining on that dark gray cloud is the fact that AOL realized this a little too late themselves and we have witnessed the decline of their dominance. The downside in this case is that there is not anywhere near the level of competition for consumer broadband service like there was for dial-up.
It will not be an easy decision for consumers to vote with their feet or wallets. Do I choose incumbent DSL provider limited to Yahoo services and content or do I choose the Cable provider limited to Google services? If I like Google services but loathe the congestion and latency on the Cable Provider's network, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place.
...and No not having broadband service is not an option in this day and age, especially for a large portion of the population that may work remotely on occasion or even full-time.
--
Ignorance is temporary...stupidity lasts forever!
»www.thewaystation.com/
»blog.thewaystation.com/ | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
2 edits | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:It's interesting that in Martin's statement he calls out the Madison River complaint where the FCC intervened in a LEC's blocking of RTP traffic. In that case there was absolute clear-cut anti-competitive behavior: the LEC used control of its network to prevent a competitor from selling dialtone. Yep.
said by espaeth:Argument #1: They are trying to stop competition to their video services by interfering with BitTorrentIf that were the case the interference should be more widespread. For me personally, in the last week I watched a few clips from the Daily Show and South Park online without any interference, and even watched a movie via Netflix' download service without any issues. Comcast is under incredible scrutiny now that they've been caught, so it's not clear what they would or wouldn't do.
said by espaeth:If the goal was to maintain a complete monopoly over video entertainment certainly some content not delivered via P2P should be impact. Argument #2: Comcast wants to interfere with subscriber's rights to free speechPersonally I think this argument is "crying wolf" just because of the sheer absurdity of it. Until Comcast decided to become all chummy with Pando, who basically is developing a scheme to play gatekeeper (and toll gate) with what content users can and cannot share -- and to win via technology rights that copyrightholders could not win via the law -- then I might have been pursuaded.
But P4P really is trying hard to keep users out of the loop, and the other DCIA working groups make it pretty clear that P4P is about control. If you don't have a preregistered bitprint, you'll have to get one.
Copyright protection is no excuse to prevent free speech. Now here is where Martin mystifies me. He's apparently hanging on to some hope for "ala carte" programming -- why, I don't know.
The Internet is the perfect ala carte carrier. Comcast hates for that to be true, so it (and many other ISPs that also deliver their own subscription content) creates a scarcity that force Internet users to keep their Cable TV subscriptions -- even though they're really not needed much, anymore.
Now I'm an old guy -- I'll keep Cable TV until I die. But kids today are perfectly happy to buy their TV by the episode. And if it's not made available to them cheaply and conveniently, then they've shown that they're not averse to figuring it out for themselves.
I really think George Ou should have made a bigger deal about the King James Bible example at the hearing.
If you were to put the King James Bible up on your web space that Comcast provides, it would be indexed by all of the major search engines for easy access, and would be available to read by every cell phone, PDA, computer, modern game console, and smart kitchen appliance with a built-in web browser. The net result is a distribution of the *IDENTICAL* content, in the same format that it would be transmitted via P2P, being made available to a much larger population of potential end users. That's fine, if I want it on my webspace (which Comcast also controls through odd restrictions on content, last time that I looked).
I have a friend who did a 2-hour documentary on the Church of Christ. It was extremely critical of church leaders and, although unrated, it clearly would be "X-Rated." If the church complained, I have no doubt that Comcast would pull the content off of PWP.
Distributing thousands of copies of that from his Personal Web Pages would present several problems, not limited to a high use of bandwidth by persistent connections and violations of several aspects of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy (where they are the sole arbiter of acceptable).
Distributing content via P2P is only good for users with clients capable of accessing that P2P network. This already limits the scope of your distribution because the number of platforms with a client for a P2P network like BitTorrent is smaller than the number of platforms with http access. With thinking like that, we wouldn't have HTTP clients.
The restriction isn't on the content; it's on the method of distribution. Which Comcast is not allowed to restrict based on the FCC policy statement.
Whether you publish a file via a P2P network or on a web server, the content is 100% identical when the end user retrieves it. This is incorrect for the top several P2P protocols, all of which do a hash check to ensure the integrity of received data before marking that data as received. HTTP has no such protection, a failing that companies like "Fair Eagle" are now using.
Argument #3: They are doing this to avoid upgrading their network
For a company that's not upgrading their network, there's sure been a lot of money spent and a lot of noticeable changes made. In the last couple years they rolled out their own private fiber backbone, and over the last several months they've been converting all of their markets onto the ibone infrastructure which provides much more diverse route selection. Meanwhile, my 384 KB/s upload pipe got encroached by the addition of Comcast Digital Voice.
This reminds me of the music industry hanging on to their old CD model. Comcast might keep trying to wish that users won't want to upload anything, but they'll keep being wrong. Web 2.0 is here and it's about user participation. It's time to throw away the old assumptions and provide subscribers with choices that include more symmetric connections.
Where I think the FCC did hit the nail right on the head is the statement that broadband providers like Comcast need to disclose their policies and methods around traffic management. The satellite broadband companies are already really good about publishing their Fair Access Policies today, and while more than a few users can argue they don't like the policies at least you can't say the company wasn't up front about how traffic was going managed on the network. I agree. However, without sufficient competition (the lack of which is not Comcast's fault), disclosure isn't enough. I -AM- glad to see Comcast join the IETF (and, as a member of the cable industry, it wrote a record-setting sized check in doing so). Disclosure + visible commitment to Internet Standards and open development is a huge step in the right direction.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| reply to espaeth
"Argument #1: They are trying to stop competition... If that were the case the interference should be more widespread. For me personally, in the last week I watched a few clips from the Daily Show and South Park online without any interference"
The reason it isn't more widespread is because companies are testing to see how far they can go without having the government slap them down. The concern has never really been about something as obvious as overtly shutting down all connections. This would force even the most reluctant government to have no alternative but to respond. Instead the concern has always been about the subtle ways a company can play with network management to undermine competitors while maintaining plausible deniability.
You don't have to cut them off, you only have to slow them enough that their customers decide to give up on them.
This is a much more effective way to kill competition because there is no smoking gun and one can play innocent. | |
|
