dslreports logo
Comcast Scraps P2P 'Bill Of Rights' Idea
Will instead work with the Distributed Computing Industry of America

Last month Comcast announced that they'd like to develop a P2P "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" in cooperation with ISPs and P2P companies like Pando networks, who is developing a "P4P" system that will accelerate the delivery of legal P2P content. The proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford and was painfully vague, seemingly aimed at placating regulators who are investigating the carrier for its throttling of all upstream P2P traffic. Comcast CTO Tony Werner had this to say about the plan at the time:

Click for full size
quote:
"By having this framework in place, we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content."
However, NewTeeVee says those plans have already been scrapped, with Comcast instead participating in a working group developed by the Distributed Computing Industry Association. The DCIA consists of P2P companies like Joost, but also has the support of heavy hitters such as AT&T and Verizon.
quote:
DCIA CEO Marty Lafferty told me that the best practices working group is in the process of signing up members right now. The group is supposed to include ISPs and P2P companies, many of which are also cooperating on the development of the P4P protocol, as well as rights holders and the respective trade bodies of the industry. Lafferty said he eventually wants to extend the invitation to consumer advocacy groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press, but added that he believes the industry should form some sort of consensus first.
Why not involve consumer advocates in the process from the ground up? The companies involved are eager to develop policy standards that provide more efficient delivery of legal P2P (Vuze, etc.) traffic. The new system they've cooked up can supposedly speed up P2P by 235% across incumbent networks and up to 898% across international broadband networks. This is done by only serving file parts from local peers to reduce hops.

But the other primary goal of the group is to obtain the clear authority to degrade illegal P2P traffic (the largest bandwidth problem, a competitor to legit P2P, and of obvious interest to content outfits). My guess is that once they've polished up a proposal that stratifies P2P treatment by legality, they can bring the plan to consumer advocates, who'll look unethical if they suggest that illegal P2P traffic should be treated equally.

This of course all relies on filtering and throttling systems that can identify pirated material. Since such systems don't reliably exist yet (or can be bested by encryption), this will be a long walk toward the group's desired end goal of throttling back piracy. As a side note, I should have some additional exclusive information on Comcast's new bandwidth management plans later on today.
view:
topics flat nest 

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Sigh....

Surprise surprise....
Anyone who thought they actually wanted this to work in the interest of the consumer was sorely mistaken.

jt45
@comcast.net

jt45

Anon

Re: Sigh....

this does work in your favorite. by stopping illegal downloads your speed on the internet service will increase. you dont like it because you download illegal content. how about you pay for the product and service you want. stop downloading illegal content

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Sigh....

It works in my favorite? Never heard that phrase before.

I don't download illegal content. It affects Vuze, a perectly legal use of P2P. There are also plenty of perfectly legit uses for P2P.

But I guess you just forgot about those.

swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

swhx7 to ptrowski

Premium Member

to ptrowski
The big ISPs are trying to set up a situation where they offer a sterilized, commercialized p2p service, and ban all other p2p. The trick is implying that all other p2p (other than their approved service) would exist only for copyright infringement. This would make the customers of each ISP a captive market with the ISP having a monopoly on its subscribers' p2p needs; and it would contrive a phony excuse for traffic discrimination (opposite of network neutrality).

Of course the proposition that all p2p other than the ISP-approved services is illegal, is a big, deliberate lie. In reality, internet subscribers may prefer to use something other than the ISP-managed p2p for many good reasons:

  • The people at the other end of the connection choose to share on something other than the ISP's service.

  • Preferring not to pay an extra fee to the ISP.

  • Well-justified distrust of closed-source applications.

  • Avoiding monitoring and filtering.


Stopping copyright infringement is only the excuse the ISPs give in public for monitoring and filtering. But if they get the power, they'll use it for political censorship, political spying, price-gouging, unwanted marketing, "fishing" for blackmail material on behalf of government, and other abuses.

GNShell
join:2001-02-12

GNShell

Member

Re: Sigh....

Excellent post. Good to see some people aren't so easily hoodwink-able!
Expand your moderator at work

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive

Why not involve consumer advocates in the process from the ground up? ... My guess is that once they've polished up a proposal, they can bring the plan to consumer advocates, who'll look unethical if they suggest that illegal P2P traffic should be treated equally.
I think your guess is pretty good. Because if involved from the beginning, these consumer advocates would push for hands off all traffic - even illegal traffic. And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive

Not to mention that nothing productive comes from those types of discussions and the "consumer advocates" will leave the table pouting because they can't have their way on a network that doesn't belong to them.

The alleged illegality of some of the content that's distributed through P2P is really irrelevant unless you're a member of some of the trade groups that may be realizing losses. IMO, this is a bigger push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks. What this most likely means is the demise of P2P. The question is, what will replace it and how will ISPs deal with the new threat?

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium Member
join:2002-01-25
Lithia, FL

TechieZero

Premium Member

Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive

In other words...money talks, BS walks.

Kylemaul
Lovin' My Firefox
Premium Member
join:2001-03-30
Puyallup, WA

Kylemaul to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

...push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks...
I read this as "My (P2P) way, or the highway" AKA Stifling competiton, development, innovation, privacy, neutrality, et. al...
If I had more than two thumbs, they'd all be down at Concast over this.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

1 recommendation

TScheisskopf to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind.

You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive

said by TScheisskopf:

I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind.

You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes.
Second that.

factchecker
@cox.net

factchecker to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies.
Which is some how worse that your usual anti-consumer, corporations do no wrong stance ?

To say that consumer advocates _advocate_ file sharing of copyrighted materials because the oppose ISPs playing content censors and copyright police is like saying that people who support the first amendment rights of organizations like the KKK advocate racism and hate. All that does is serve to cloud the debate and stear the dicussion away from the facts and into BS political and social commentary.

Not TK
@cwa-union.org

Not TK to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
Sir, you are a liar unless you can provide one single piece of evidence that Free Press has advocated for stealing music and movies, or that they have ever said illegal content should be protected from network management.

Shame on you.

asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdfdfdf to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
Saying consumer advocates will be disruptive is just a biased way of saying that consumer advocates will seek to enhance the interests of their own constituency and that those interests are different from the interests of most of the industries participating.

Of course its true that negotiations are always more difficult if you truly try to bring together all the different interests involved, rather than only bringing together a subset of interests that start with agreement on basic philosophy.

I applaud them for bringing some companies that develop p2p apps into the fold.
They admit, however, that they only want to bring in other competing interests after they have reached a consensus, as to tactical approach, with those who largely share their interests.
Obviously one only goes on the offensive at the point at which one has built an army of alliances that can overwhelm those with competing interests.

One should remain suspicious given the vastly disproportionate power of the isp and content provider interests involved and the clear intent to exclude the influence of broad public sentiment.

"their usual anti-corporate bias"

Call it whatever you like. The interests of corporations are generally well looked after in this society. There are other interests that are generally less well tended to.
The internet did not begin with corporations and the internet is not simply the sum total of corporate interests. There are many non-corporate and non-commercial interests that are part of the network of networks. There are key corporations who would like to dominate by using their control over choke points on the network. There are others, like myself, who are content to let corporations utilize these networks for their agendas but are not content to let particular corporate interests dominate the development of the internet. We are in the middle of a process where socially disruptive technological developments are being tamed and absorbed by status quo interests to minimize their disruptive nature.
Non-corporate interests are not nearly as easily coordinated or well organized as corporate interests. Corporations, being top-down hierarchical structures have an advantage here. This doesn't mean those non-corporate interests are illegitimate. I don't think it is evil to want a counterbalance to offset that advantage.

FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium Member
join:2007-06-26
Deltona, FL

FLengineer

Premium Member

Another nice move by Comcast

The proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford

Yea ok, sounds like they couldn't find enough seat warmers this time. What better way to put off getting in trouble by claiming you are working on the problem two days before the hearing. Last time Comcast hired uninterested by-standards to fill the seats.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Another nice move by Comcast

said by FLengineer:

The proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford
I think it's funny that people reference the "net neutrality" meeting at Stanford without noticing Stanford's own policy towards P2P:
From a networking perspective, Stanford suffers under current file-sharing because of the resources it eats up. The people at Networking Systems want to help limit Stanford's liability under the DMCA, but aside from this concern, they also want to provide a reliable network for all users. Therefore, Networking Systems has limited the amount of network resources that may be used for file-sharing. The purpose of the cap is to make the network usable for schoolwork and other important activities. It is not to punish the students-- faculty and staff share the same restrictions--but rather to improve the network for everyone.
Source: »rescomp.stanford.edu/inf ··· #network

FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium Member
join:2007-06-26
Deltona, FL

FLengineer

Premium Member

Re: Another nice move by Comcast

Not an ISP.

Most companies prohibit the use of P2P period. Stanford's network is nothing more than a huge private network. Now I wonder what Stanford's view would be if their ISP just decided to thottle P2P traffic for them without an option.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Another nice move by Comcast

They buy capacity from carriers who have completely different (ie, realistic) bandwidth pricing structures.

Similarly when you sign up for Comcast you are buying attachment to their private network that has upstream connections to carriers.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to SpaethCo

MVM

to SpaethCo
nice find!

Throughout the history of the net, Stanford feels left out unless it's on both sides of everything...

»www.netfunny.com/rhf/rhfban.html
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
You realize that the fact the meeting is held at Stanford Uni has no relevance to the meeting, they can hold it in a hotel, high school gym, banquet hall, night club, sports stadium, theater, etc.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Another nice move by Comcast

Clearly you didn't watch any of the coverage of the event, where Lawrence Lessig (Stanford law prof) had an entire PowerPoint presentation dedicated to highlighting Standford as a cradle for Internet innovation, citing the birth of Google and Yahoo!, among other things.

Barbara van Schewick (also from Stanford) gave a presentation mid-way through the hearing stating that investor fears that P2P-like apps would be throttled have resulted in at least one project that she was aware of being denied funding.

It was more than just a random venue, Stanford faculty presented at the event.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Another nice move by Comcast

In agreement with you -- I'm pretty sure that FCC Chairman Martin is on the record saying that he held the second hearing because Lessig requested it.

Titus
Mr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26

Titus

Member

Flip-floppers

I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs
--

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

N3OGH

Premium Member

Re: Flip-floppers

said by Titus:

I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs
--
B.B.BBut, I thought they were the BMW????


TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium Member
join:2002-01-25
Lithia, FL

TechieZero to Titus

Premium Member

to Titus
Good products at cheap prices?

FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium Member
join:2007-06-26
Deltona, FL

2 edits

FLengineer

Premium Member

I am with the Consumer Advocates

I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there.

If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed. OH WAIT, it has nothing to do with upstream speeds does it? They are slowing upstream speed because they know 99% of their customers won't complain about it as apposed to downstream speed throttling and by throttling upstream speed it reduces the same about of backbone traffic.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 edit

wifi4milez

Member

Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates

said by FLengineer:

I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there.
I dont know how it is in Florida, but coming into and out of NYC (specifically the MTA managed facilities) the toll booth operators are police officers with guns and handcuffs. They WILL arrest you if the see drugs on your seat!

FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium Member
join:2007-06-26
Deltona, FL

FLengineer

Premium Member

Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates

HAHA, gotta love NYC. The point is still valid, that toll booth operator is a law enforcement officer and should arrest you. Comcast is not a law enforcement agency.

jt45
@comcast.net

jt45

Anon

Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates

you are right they are not a law enforcement agency but they do have the right to stop people from using their network for illegal content. it would be like me renting your home to sell drugs out of it. i am sure if you found out you would want to kick me out. should i throw a fit because you are not a law enforcement agency and you dont have the right? i think not. you own the home so you have the right.

FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium Member
join:2007-06-26
Deltona, FL

1 edit

FLengineer

Premium Member

Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates

You would win a lawsuit against me if my reason was "I THINK he is dealing drugs". If I went in your rental and snooped around to prove it, that would be illegal as well unless I had a legal reason to go looking in your home.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates

Legal reason to look in your home, are you subletting and violating occupancy rules since there is too much foot traffic to the apt?

Even if the initial look was illegal, the person who saw it illegally can tell the cops they saw it, then cops get a warrant and search the place legally (and launch an investigation into you and wiretap you), and then you goto jail. Only if you get rid of the drugs between the 1st (illegal) look and legal investigation/search warrants will you get away with it.

Even without a search warrant, cops can still search anything with probable cause since its an emergency and the opportunity will be lost if they have to get a warrant, even over your protests (you can't stop a cop from searching you, only protest it, only useful in a civil rights lawsuit later).

ipickedaname
@teksavvy.com

ipickedaname

Anon

Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates

Yes, but where is your probable cause to snoop on my connection to determine whether my P2P is legal or not?

Try: FISHING EXPEDITION!

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to FLengineer

MVM

to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:

If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed.
Shared bandwidth is an actuarial science like insurance. When claims are higher than predicted the insurance companies raise rates. If the insurance companies feels you are filing excessive claims they can cancel your policy. Broadband providers are just following a very similar strategy.

Everybody should be able to hit their max provisioned speeds at some point, but there's no way for everyone to max out their connection at the same time.

••••••••••
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to FLengineer

Premium Member

to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:

If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files
You assume ISPs are blocking P2P because of illegal content. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the content owning trade groups, my guess is that ISPs are minimizing the impact to their networks.

••••••

Drex
Beer...The other white meat.
Premium Member
join:2000-02-24
Not There

1 recommendation

Drex

Premium Member

Oh I'm just a bill

Gotta love the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm a Bill" graphic.

Charlie Douglas
@comcast.net

Charlie Douglas

Anon

Comcast

Comments & Trackbacks
Karl I just posted this comment on the article you are sourcing from. Janko - Comcast has not abandoned the idea of a “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.” We fully support the DCIA’s effort to build a coalition of ISPs, P2P companies, experts and others to develop a set of P2P Best Practices and encourage you and others to read the press release they put out last week at »www.prweb.com/releases/2 ··· 0024.htm. The fact is, Comcast and Pando took the first step in calling for a “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” and the DCIA is an ideal forum for the entire industry to collaborate and develop some best practices. We look forward to working with the DCIA and others on this important initiative.

•••
searcher61
join:2000-09-03

searcher61

Member

Well time for a change.

Interesting.... I just upgraded to 16/2 so I will be able to hit the limit faster. I have 3 kids, wife and myself using computers at my house all on the web a lot. I think I will just downgrade my comcast service...shut down my comcast tv, comcast phone, comcast dvr and comcast internet and use the money to by a dedicated non-comcast line. I have not ever been contacted, so I don't know if we are over the limit...but 250G seems low.

a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY

a333

Member

How's this...

Why don't ISP's just pass the damn packets and let the gov't take care of the goddammed legality of those said packets? Since when did the **AA's and the ISP's turn into the new police? Last time I checked, my tax dollars already pay for the gov't to take care of the DMCA. I don't need the **AA's/ISP's to play uncle sam/Big Brother. That's what the NSA is for, ya know..

Do we have a deal?

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to searcher61

MVM

to searcher61

Re: Well time for a change.

said by searcher61:

Interesting.... I just upgraded to 16/2 so I will be able to hit the limit faster. I have 3 kids, wife and myself using computers at my house all on the web a lot. I think I will just downgrade my comcast service...shut down my comcast tv, comcast phone, comcast dvr and comcast internet and use the money to by a dedicated non-comcast line. I have not ever been contacted, so I don't know if we are over the limit...but 250G seems low.
I think you replied to the wrong thread.

Kim in Seattle
@comcast.net

Kim in Seattle

Anon

email troubles

I have just been told by Comcast that they have a nation wide glitch and my emails won't be delivered to yahoo, hotmail, and msn. The supervisor suggested I call all those servers and ask them to unblock me. As if it me, kim, who has been blocked not Comcast, the server.
Has anyone here heard this before?
Desperate in Seattle.