Clearwire Supports Net Neutrality? Does No One Remember Its History?

from the that's-funny... dept

How quickly people forget. With the FCC's announcement about support for net neutrality legislation the PR and lobbying machines of the major telco and cable providers have cranked up, putting out all sorts of fear mongering letters and reports about the damage such a law will do. There was one interesting exception. Some noticed that wireless broadband provider Clearwire appeared to support the FCC's position (though, I'd argue that the statement's wording is a bit vague). While the article at Moconews suggests this "isn't surprising," I'm wondering how everyone seems to have forgotten that Clearwire, in the past, was one of the most aggressive broadband providers to support a non neutral network. A few years back, it was blocking VoIP and streaming media and proudly promised to block any type of traffic or application it didn't like. It also tried to get VoIP providers to get "certified" before promising they could work on Clearwire's network. Of course, plenty can change in a few years, but it's quite noteworthy that Clearwire may have changed its tune on net neutrality entirely.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ISP Slows Access To High Bandwidth Services 12 Hours Every Day

from the time-to-find-a-new-ISP dept

Over and over again we've seen folks on the tech side of ISPs admit that basic network upgrades can handle whatever traffic growth is happening on the network, without resorting to draconian efforts to slow down traffic. Apparently, there's an ISP in the Netherlands that didn't get the message. Broadband Reports is noting that Dutch ISP, UPC is slowing down all traffic to "high bandwidth services" from noon to midnight every single day. They're cutting bandwidth to these services by 2/3. So, apparently, if you have to do high bandwidth stuff, get it done in the morning.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Comcast's Own Words Kill Its Lawsuit Against The FCC?

from the seems-pretty-damning dept

Last year, when the FCC was busy slapping Comcast's wrist for its traffic shaping policies, Comcast pointed out that it wasn't clear the FCC had the authority to do so. I tend to agree, actually. It's not at all clear that the FCC really has a mandate to tell private network operators what they can do with their network -- though, if that argument gets anywhere, it seems likely that a net neutrality-friendly Congress will quickly adjust and add it to the FCC's mandate. However, what was odd was that Comcast waited over a year before finally going to court over this issue. To be honest, I can't see what Comcast "wins" here, even if it wins the case. Congress would likely change the FCC's mandate. Separately, the FTC actually might have a stronger case here, as the real problem wasn't necessarily the traffic shaping, but Comcast's refusal to tell users about it, effectively providing false advertising to customers. That's an FTC issue.

But a much bigger problem for Comcast may be the fact that the company has had no problem actively promoting the FCC's supposed "mandate" over them when it suits them. In a separate lawsuit over the very same traffic shaping, Comcast tried to get out of the lawsuit by claiming it was an issue covered by the FCC:

This issue "i.e., the reasonableness of a broadband provider's network management practices" has, however, been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), an administrative agency whose authority to regulate internet broadband access companies' services is well-established.

You have to imagine that this quote from Comcast will be prominently displayed by the FCC in response to Comcast's latest action.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No Truth In Advertising When It Comes To ISP Traffic Shaping In Canada

from the that-seems-like-a-problem... dept

Via Rob Hyndman, we learn that in the Canadian gov't hearings investigating broadband provider traffic shaping, the providers revealed a lot about their traffic shaping practices that seem to contradict what those same providers claim on their websites well selling connectivity. Even if traffic shaping is to be considered legal, shouldn't broadband providers be required to be honest about what they're offering customers?

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

BT Throttling Online Video For Competitive, Not Congestion, Reasons

from the not-nice dept

While the broadband providers often talk up the need to break network neutrality in order to avoid "congestion" problems, most people have recognized that's just a smokescreen. The congestion issues are not an issue at all. Broadband costs have been going down, consistently, and most network engineers admit that with basic upgrades (nothing out of the ordinary), there's no bandwidth crunch to worry about. The real reason why broadband providers are interested in breaking network neutrality is because many of them want to get into the content business -- and they don't want to compete on even ground.

Case in point? BT. The British telco is starting to heavily throttle all video -- especially the BBC's online video player. This is the same BT, by the way, that just two years ago was saying there was no need to traffic shape or break net neutrality, and that it could handle all traffic issues with basic upgrades. So what happened? Well, it appears BT didn't like the competition from online video providers, so it decided to pretend it needed to do this for congestion purposes.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google Wants To Help People Check Their Broadband Connection For Traffic Shaping

from the name-and-shame-is-the-game dept

Well, well, well... With Cox getting aggressive with traffic shaping, it looks like Google is trying to give users the tools to find out what their ISP is actually doing to their broadband connection. The company has teamed up with the New America Foundation and Planet Lab to offer a platform for tools to measure what's happening on internet connections. The obvious thinking: the easier it is for anyone to recognize that their broadband connection is being tinkered with, the more likely an outcry is raised, and the provider is pushed to back down (at least on the more egregious practices -- such as what eventually happened with Comcast's traffic shaping).

It will be interesting to see where this goes, or how useful it really becomes. Without meaningful competition in the broadband space, it seems like ISPs are willing to risk some consumer anger -- knowing they really don't have many other options. Still, it does suggest one more reason why specific net neutrality regulations may be premature. Let's see if providing more info along with open tools can help keep ISPs more reasonable in their network management practices.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cox Gets Aggressive With Traffic Shaping

from the taunting-the-fcc dept

In a move that's basically baiting the FCC and Congress to see if they will act, Cox has announced that it's going to experiment with rather aggressive traffic shaping, granting priority to bits that it feels have a great priority. Why Cox gets to describe what gets a priority and what doesn't seems pretty questionable. Cox is also the company that implemented a three strikes policy on file sharing without telling anyone.

To be honest, this seems like a really tone deaf move by Cox -- and I'd imagine that plenty of telcos and cable companies are pissed off about Cox calling extra attention to the topic right now. There's been plenty of talk of new net neutrality regulations in Congress, and with Cox putting the issue so squarely on the table, it's as if they're begging for such regulations (or at least to be slapped down by the FCC). You would think they would at least wait until it wasn't an issue getting so much attention before drawing extra scrutiny and daring regulators to act.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pretty Much All Canadian ISPs Are Slowing Down P2P

from the often-without-congestion dept

A new study up in Canada suggests that pretty much all of the major ISPs are now throttling P2P activity -- with some admitting they do so even if there's no sign of actual congestion on the network. Of course, if there were enough competition (don't laugh) this would be an opportunity for a smart ISP to highlight and promote the fact that they don't throttle any kind of traffic, and aren't lying when they tell their customers what kind of bandwidth they sell.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Again Wants Details From Comcast On Its Traffic-Shaping Efforts

from the fool-me-once... dept

Comcast has already been slapped down -- well, slapped on the wrist, anyway -- by the FCC for violating Commission rules with its traffic-shaping efforts, and it could be on its way for a second rebuke. The FCC has asked Comcast for some more details on its newest "congestion management" system, which throttles heavy users' speeds for periods of time. As part of the penalty for its previous infraction, Comcast had to file details of the new system with the FCC, and the commission know wants to know if Comcast treats traffic from its own VoIP system differently than traffic from competing providers' VoIP services. The company apparently advertises the fact that its VoIP service doesn't get affected by heavy network traffic and slowdowns, giving the impression that it degrades other VoIP traffic in this new system, while leaving traffic from its service alone. This will be an interesting test of the new FCC administration, to see how it handles these sorts of complaints compared to its predecessor. It could also set an important precedent, because it sounds like Comcast handles its own VoIP traffic in a way similar to other cable companies, by setting aside a portion of bandwidth that's managed separately from a subscriber's internet traffic.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Says No One Has Complained About Its New Traffic Slowing Efforts

from the no-one-has-complained...-yet dept

Last month, Comcast, in addition to finally revealing the broadband caps it had always had, admitted that it was going to test a system where it slowed down traffic for heavy users in congested areas -- effectively, sending their internet traffic to the back of the line. The company is now claiming that this plan is a success because in five trials there were no complaints about slower traffic. Of course, what the company means is that there were no direct complaints to the company. They don't know if people were pissed off and off shopping for competitive services (if any actually exist), or were complaining to friends or in online forums. Having dealt with Comcast customer service, and after seeing how Comcast (falsely) denied its traffic shaping efforts for months, perhaps customers impacted by this new system simply realized that it wasn't worth the hassle of complaining directly to Comcast.

58 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast's New Plan: Send Heavy Users To The Back Of The Line

from the slow-down-there,-speedy dept

Comcast agreed last year to change the way it was dealing with supposedly "heavy" users, after it came out (following many denials from Comcast) that the company was using a rather heavy-handed manner to block certain services from working, without bothering to tell anyone. Now the company has said that it will be implementing a plan whereby heavy bandwidth users will be sent to a sort of "time out" room where all of their traffic will be slowed down for a period of 10 to 20 minutes. Consider it the flipside to Comcast's Powerboost offering, which was supposedly designed for the exact opposite purpose: to help heavy downloaders get more bandwidth when they needed it. Now, apparently that gets you punished.

Meanwhile, over at the PFF conference, execs from Comcast (and Verizon) were apparently complaining that lobbyists were shaping the net neutrality debate, leaving out the part where it was their own lobbyists who really kicked that process off. Update: Oh, and as was widely expected, despite the FCC voting against Comcast, the company will not be fined or anything.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Has Quite A Week: Gets In Trouble For Blocking Content And For NOT Blocking Content

from the can't-win dept

It's been quite a week for Comcast, hasn't it? First, under a baseless legal threat from Andrew Cuomo that it was not blocking certain objectionable content, Comcast caved and agreed to start blocking that content. Then, just a few days later, the FCC (as was widely expected) concludes that Comcast violated its "open internet" guidelines by blocking certain content. So, apparently, the mixed message lessons of the day for Comcast: it's okay to block content when the government says so (with no legal basis), but it's not okay when you block stuff yourself (or so says the government, perhaps with no legal basis). Whatever you may think of the results of all of this, you'd have to forgive Comcast for not particularly liking politicians meddling in its services.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin Tries To Thread The Needle In Sanctioning Comcast

from the a-little-of-this-and-a-little-of-that dept

As was widely expected, FCC boss Kevin Martin has come out saying he believes Comcast violated FCC rules in its traffic shaping program, and he's recommending that the FCC sanction, but not fine, Comcast and order it to stop its traffic shaping (something it's already planning to do). Kevin Martin's favoritism towards the telcos is well known -- so it comes as no surprise that he'd come out against Comcast. He's given every indication that such a move was in the cards. However, the lack of a fine -- combined with telling Comcast to do what it was already doing -- is an interesting move. If anything, it may be an attempt by Martin to quietly assert control over cable and hope that the cable industry doesn't fight back.

Whether or not the FCC's mandate really does include cable is an open question -- and the cable companies have at least a decent claim to the fact that their systems are not covered by the FCC. So, here's a situation where the FCC is slapping Comcast's wrist in such a way that Comcast is unlikely to mind -- but if it "agrees" to the response, then it may be effectively admitting that the FCC does have a say in how cable companies operate, which could open quite a Pandora's box in terms of the FCC's overall mandate.

There is, of course, a simpler way out of this that no one appears to be taking. The real problem most people had with Comcast's actions was that it wasn't at all transparent about them -- continually insisting that they weren't doing anything. Effectively, Comcast may have been guilty of false advertising in terms of how its network worked. So why not have the FTC, rather than the FCC, slap them down for their lack of transparency, rather than having the FCC step in where it might not belong?

As for those who are claiming that Martin's statements are somehow a "victory" for network neutrality, you might want to think again. Martin has made it clear in the past that he's not a supporter of network neutrality -- especially when it comes to the telcos, telling AT&T that if it felt it needed to start discriminating traffic for a valid business reason, it should feel free to do so.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Believes In FCC Authority When It Suits Comcast; Otherwise? Not So Much

from the well,-you-see,-it-all-depends-on-who's-asking dept

Does Comcast believe the FCC has authority over its traffic shaping efforts? Well, it may just depend on who's asking. When the FCC asserted that it did have a say in regulating Comcast's traffic shaping efforts, Comcast emphatically stated that the FCC's authority does not extend that far. And, technically, Comcast is probably correct that it would be an overreach of the FCC's mandate -- though the FCC clearly disagrees.

Still, when defending itself against a lawsuit in California over the very same traffic shaping, Comcast has convinced a judge to suspend the lawsuit by noting that the FCC has clear authority over these matters:

This issue "i.e., the reasonableness of a broadband provider's network management practices" has, however, been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), an administrative agency whose authority to regulate internet broadband access companies' services is well-established.

That seems like a quote that could come back to haunt Comcast. Either way, it looks like the FCC is about to show Comcast who's boss. Reports are coming out that Kevin Martin is about to slap down Comcast for its traffic shaping. This should come as little surprise to anyone. If you're playing the home game, recognize that if the question concerns cable companies, Martin will rule against them. If it involves a telco, Martin will rule in favor of them.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bell Canada Launches Crappy Download Video Store Just As It Gets Scrutiny Over Traffic Shaping

from the odd-timing dept

Bell Canada is having something of an odd week. It's finally coming under regulatory scrutiny for its traffic shaping efforts -- and also ran into unexpected problems in its attempt to go private. So why would it choose this time to launch a dreadful new video download store that is pretty much guaranteed not to get any use in the first place? The system seems to have all the worst features of the various movie download sites that have failed so miserably in years past: extremely limited selection, annoying and buggy Microsoft DRM and high prices. Fantastic deal, right? But, even more bizarre is the very concept of launching a movie download site at the very same time you're claiming that the old internet tubes are getting way too clogged, requiring those traffic shaping efforts. If it's such a problem, why would Bell Canada then contribute to the clogging in that way? Maybe they think they need the additional traffic to "prove" why traffic shaping is necessary. Of course, since the service won't get much use, that plan probably won't get very far.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Latest Study Confirms Cox Traffic Shaping; Comcast Misleading Again

from the sounds-familiar dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting various news reports claiming the "news" that Cox is traffic shaping just like Comcast is -- but that's hardly news. We had a story about that last November. What is a bit more interesting out of the same study (though, not very surprising) is the news that Comcast has been less than forthright in explaining what it's doing. While Comcast denied any traffic shaping for the longest time, when it finally 'fessed up (just a bit) it said that it only used traffic shaping during peak hours. However, the research suggests otherwise. After testing a bunch of users at various times, this new study found no noticeable difference in blockages based on time.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Regulators Won't Stop Bell Canada's Traffic Shaping

from the shape-away dept

Back in March, Bell Canada started traffic shaping the internet traffic that passed over its network without telling its reseller partners. This was a pretty big deal, as many of the ISPs who resell Bell Canada DSL promise to their customers that they don't do any kind of traffic shaping. Those resellers complained to Bell Canada, who responded by saying too bad, recognizing that those resellers had nowhere else to go. Some of the reseller ISPs complained to Canadian regulators who have now sided with Bell Canada, allowing the company to keep on traffic shaping. The regulators basically said that the ISPs have been unable to show how they're being harmed by this move, which is required for them to step in. One would think that a boatload of customer complaints and threats to move to any other internet connectivity (not that there are many choices) would be enough to show harm to the ISPs. Once again, it's nice to have near total control over your market, isn't it? Update Some good details provided in the comments. The matter is still being investigated by regulators. This ruling was just about interim relief.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Bell Canada Violating Privacy With Its Traffic Shaping Efforts?

from the another-way-to-look-at-it dept

We've seen all sorts of arguments against ISPs who engage in traffic shaping, but now some are trying to make a privacy argument against traffic shaping as well. A few months ago, the news came out that Bell Canada was engaging in traffic shaping, even for its wholesale ISP partners who promised customers open internet access. As a couple folks have submitted today, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa is claiming that in addition to other questions raised about this, traffic shaping may be a privacy violation, in that it uses deep packet inspection to determine what type of packets are being sent to figure out what to traffic shape. Bell Canada responds that it is only determining what type of packet it is, rather than what's in it -- but even that information could potentially be a privacy violation. While it seems unlikely that this argument will stick, if traffic shaping starts being seen as a privacy issue, it could put even more pressure on ISPs to stop doing it (and may encourage more users to encrypt their traffic).

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Can't Fill Seats With Comcast Supporters; Skips FCC Hearing Entirely

from the we'll-just-take-our-cable-and-go-home dept

Back in February, when the FCC held a hearing about Comcast's secretive traffic shaping efforts, Comcast stacked the deck to some extent by hiring people off the street to fill seats and cheer for Comcast's position. Partly in response to outrage over such practices, the FCC scheduled a new hearing, to be held today at Stanford. Perhaps Comcast realized that without paying people to fill the seats, the crowd might be a bit more hostile. So, with that in mind, it felt the best strategy was to not show up at all. Yes, despite it being a hearing about Comcast's practices, Comcast has (at the last moment) sent notice to the FCC that it won't be participating, claiming that it said everything that needed to be said back when it had a "friendly" audience at the last hearing.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

But Why Do We Need A P2P Bill Of Rights In The First Place?

from the funny-how-that-works dept

I came close to totally ignoring the news that Comcast has teamed with Pando and announced that it wants to create a P2P "Bill of Rights that would create "a set of rules that would clarify how a user can use P2P applications and how an ISP can manage file-sharing programs running on their networks." This, of course, is all a part of Comcast's suddenly very public efforts to deal with the fallout from the company's rather secretive traffic shaping efforts (and, it hopes, to avoid the wrath of Kevin Martin and the FCC. Of course, this process started with the relationship with BitTorrent -- which was woefully short on details.

This "Bill of Rights" plan is, in some ways, even worse. It's funny how whenever we see companies suddenly declaring a plan for a "Bill of Rights" (which should be about addressing consumer rights), it's really always about figuring out a way for a company to do the same stuff it had been doing all along without getting in trouble for it. It's basically a way for a company to tell the government "hey look, we're self-regulating!" even if that self-regulating is letting them do whatever they want. While it's nice that Comcast tied this to a relationship with Pando (the same company that's trying to help telcos deal with file sharing network issues), it doesn't change that the fact that this is a lot of talk with little action.

While the usual suspects have decried this plan for the press release vaporware that it is (while pointing to Comcasts' questionable activities when its traffic shaping was first discovered), a much bigger question is why we should even want a "P2P Bill of Rights" in the first place. One of the very reasons why internet access is so valuable (and why Comcast got into the business) is the open nature of the internet that allowed all sorts of new, interesting, unexpected and useful services to spring forth. When you start putting rules on it, concerning how an application can run and what a user can do, you're effectively shutting down that ability. You're saying that we have enough innovation, and any new innovation needs to be incremental on top of what we already have and within these well-defined limits. That's not a recipe for innovation. It's a recipe for keeping the status quo, while other places, that don't have unnecessary restrictions, continue to innovate and grow.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..