FCC's Tongue-Lashing Forces ISPs to Break Out Broadband Hammers
The FCC’s wholly symbolic lecturing of Comcast on the company’s peer-to-peer clampdown, a "divisive" 3-2 vote by the commissioners, will have exactly one practical effect.
Which is this: The ruling, pushed through by the comcastically anti-cable Kevin Martin, will force Internet service providers to use a broader bandwidth-throttling method instead of more surgically precise ones.
In other words, MSOs like Comcast will have to trade their specialized P2P pliers for blunt broadband hammers.
That’s all.
And Comcast is already moving this way, as market forces (i.e., bad publicity and lawsuits) were blowing it in that direction.
The FCC’s almost meaningless pronouncement Friday doesn’t do much of anything except reinforce Martin’s legacy as a chairman relentlessly antagonistic to a particular industry sector.
Network neutrality activists, naturally, lauded the decision as a win because it appeared to reinforce their agenda. "The FCC’s bipartisan decision to punish Comcast is a major victory," Free Press executive director Josh Silver said in a statement. "Defying every ounce of conventional wisdom in Washington, everyday people have taken on a major corporation and won an historic precedent for an open Internet."
But if the squeaky P2P file-sharers who got their wheels greased by the FCC believe their Internet connections will suddenly become unfettered, they are mistaken.
All that will change is how the P2P pigs are penned in.
Instead of merely having their upstream BitTorrent connections curtailed — which limits the bandwidth Comcast uses to deliver gobs of (probably pirated) content to anonymous users from Boise to Belarus — the P2P bandwidth hogs will now see their entire Internet connection degraded to DSL speeds.
Is that more fair than surgically throttling back anonymous P2P uploads? To me, it’s six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Some may argue that, from a policy perspective, Kevin Martin’s P2P penalty flag establishes the precedent that Comcast and other ISPs aren’t allowed to discriminate against individual applications.
Except that this isn’t true. There’s no reasonable expectation that ISPs must now indiscriminately allow any use of their networks. For example, they’ll surely still be allowed to block denial-of-service attacks (one of the reasons a net-neutrality law with absolutist language would be a bad idea.)
Even Kevin Martin acknowledged in an interview with The New York Times that it is acceptable for an Internet service provider to, say, give priority to Net-based phone calls over e-mail messages. "You have to have a very good reason for what you’re trying to do," he said. "Your solution has to be narrowly tailored."
If keeping a lid on the all-consuming nature of peer-to-peer traffic isn’t a good reason for implementing specific network management practices, it’s not clear what is. Again, the only result of the FCC’s P2P ruling is that bandwidth hogs will see their entire Internet connection cut back temporarily, rather than just their BitTorrent uploads.
Some analysts have suggested that the agency’s sanction of Comcast will result in the industry moving toward usage-based pricing, thereby inhibiting the growth of online video.
“A usage-based-pricing model would utterly transform the way we think about, and use, video over the Internet,” Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a research note Friday. “Suddenly, users would stop to think about whether they did or didn’t want to click on a link to a video of their grandchildren. And whether they want to use BitTorrent at all. After all, the reason people use BitTorrent today is because it’s free (read: illegal).”
I think the forces driving operators toward usage-based pricing are the overall swelling of Internet traffic in general and file-sharing in particular.
But by removing a key tool from the ISPs’ toolbox, the FCC surely has not discouraged the prospect of usage caps and overage fees. After all, what’s more fair than paying your fair share for the resources you consume?
tom mccarthy commented:
oops does NOT support an individual maxing a single stream 24/7. Also, what happens when our filtering negatively effects a customers valid application by slowing it down as it tries to open multiple session to make it perform. Do we tell our customer it OK for us to negatively effect his application? Do we do so pro-actively or only after they complain? Do we communicate that to the internet at large that is an invalid way to write applications? It seems like a slippery slope.
tom mccarthy commented:
Todd Metered billing would be fair and has been tested and used at several MSO's. Sunflower has been doing it for years. Why don't we impliment it? Scared of customer backlash? We need to do a better job of servicing and communicating to our customer. Bledsoeo My fear with your suggestions is someone on the other side will figure out how to maximise the bandwidth. In fact, our current models do support a individual maxing a single stream 24/7.
Bledsoeo commented:
The core problem that Comcast and others are facing is essentially an "ecological" one...The current Internet allows very large numbers of TCP/UDP sessions to be opened by a single address, under the assumption that each user will consume bandwidth fairly. P2P applications like BitTorrent take advantage of this weakness and keep opening connections until available bandwidth is fully consumed. You don't need metered billing to control this. What you really need is routing protocols that fix a bandwidth allocation per address. Then just let people use the Net. If you want to open up thousands of BitTorrent sessions, then go ahead. Your overall bandwidth consumption will just level out; each session you open will be slower and other users will not be much affected. The metered billing approach is really not needed if we attack the problem at its roots, rather than from the top.
Todd Spangler commented:
Thanks for writing, Tom. You pose some thoughtful questions. The fact is, an ISP must balance the use of the network so that it's fair for the most number of subscribers - not just the small number who consume the vast amount of resources. To do that, the amount of bandwidth ISPs allocate to excessive users must be scaled back. Maybe usage-based pricing is a way to most fairly address this. What do you think?
tom mccarthy commented:
From above I understand all three sides have their grievances: • We engineers must build and manage the network to deliver the performance that is advertised, while a small percentage break the oversubscription and revenue model by using their full connection 24/7. • The government believes it must manage communication to maintain freedom. • The customers believe they should receive what was advertised and what they purchased. I am just a simple engineer from Missouri, who believes that if you do the right thing and tell the truth it will win the customer. I am very uncomfortable restricting anyone else’s communication especially if we do not tell them what we do. But maybe I do not understand all the factors here, as you seem to believe differently. What did I miss? Best Tom McCarthy
tom mccarthy commented:
Todd As an SCTE Network engineer I understand that to have a government dictate a technical solution is fraught with peril. As an American citizen having anyone restrict my ability to send or receive information makes me nervous. So two questions: 1.) What restrictions are unreasonable for Comcast or any ISP to impose that limit our ability to communicate data? 2.) What responsibilities do we have to customers to communicate the restrictions that we have imposed? I.E. If I effect your connection do I need to tell you what I have done? I understand all three sides have their grievances: •


















