Category: Networks

Valleywag explains why BitTorrent, Inc., had to lay off all its sales and marketing staff in this fine piece, Unintended Consequences: How the FCC killed BitTorrent’s promising business

When Comcast was caught blocking file sharing on its network, the Federal Communications Commission seemed to strike a blow in favor of peer-to-peer startups everywhere by fining the cable company. Observers assumed that the FCC decision would open the field for file sharing to turn into a legitimate business. But for BitTorrent Inc., a San Francisco startup seeking to commercialize the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol, the move against Comcast led to layoffs instead. The ruling may ultimately prove fatal to the company.

The problem for Comcast and other Internet service providers is that they can no longer block file-sharing traffic from their networks. And yet file-sharing usage is consuming more and more bandwidth, which they must pay for. Broadband providers are businesses, not charities. So they are increasingly considering charging their users by the bit for bandwidth over a certain level. Most users won’t be affected, but file-sharing downloaders will be.

The prospect of pay-by-the-bit bandwidth had immediate consequences for BitTorrent’s two main businesses: an online-media store delivered via file sharing, and a content-delivery network which competed with the likes of Akamai and Limelight Networks.

For users who would have to pay bandwidth fees to their ISPs on top of paying the usual charges, BitTorrent’s Torrent Entertainment Network store would soon look uncompetitive with the likes of Apple’s iTunes Store and Microsoft’s Xbox Marketplace which prompted Best Buy to back out of talks to acquire TEN for $15 million.

As for BitTorrent’s content-delivery network, it was premised on the notion that BitTorrent would negotiate with ISPs to get privileged delivery for their file-sharing packets, while Comcast blocked others. With the FCC forcing Comcast to treat all file-sharing traffic equally, the promise of that business evaporated.

Be careful what you wish for, boys and girls of the pro-regulatory, net neutrality movement, because it’s going to cost more than what you’ve got.

UPDATE: BitTorrent, Inc. PR flack Lilly Lin didn’t want this story to get out, and demands Owen’s sources. Not a smooth move, Lilly, and please don’t sue me for saying so (we’ve talked before, so I can adopt this personal tone.)

UPDATE HERE.

Technorati Tags: net+neutrality, FCC, BitTorrent, broadband

CNET blogger Charlie Cooper is among the large and growing number not impressed by the FCC’s pretzel-logic ruling against Comcast

Critics correctly note that Congress still has not given the FCC explicit authority to decide Internet policy. Even as the FCC issued its decision, Chairman Kevin Martin went on record writing that while Comcast had no right to prioritize Internet traffic, it’s fine to prioritize voice over IP:

We do not tell providers how to manage their networks. They might choose, for instance, to prioritize voice-over-IP calls. In analyzing whether Comcast violated federal policy when it blocked access to certain applications, we conduct a fact-specific inquiry into whether the management practice they used was reasonable. Based on many reasons, including the arbitrary nature of the blocking, the lack of relation to times of congestion or size of files, and the manner in which they hid their conduct from their subscribers, we conclude it was not.

We do not limit providers’ efforts to stop congestion. We do say providers should disclose what they are doing to consumers

So it’s OK to put individual data packets under a magnifying glass? But in its group statement–which Martin presumably signed off on–the FCC approvingly cited MIT professor David Reed, a respected Internet notable [sic], who believes “that “(n)either Deep Packet Inspection nor RST Injection”–Comcast uses both to manage its network–“are acceptable behavior.”

This takes Emerson’s apercu that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds to an extreme. Maybe the private sector can figure things out without confusing itself over regulation from bureaucrats. But they first need clear rules of the road to follow. Otherwise, expect more of the same.

The FCC is delaying publication of the actual order because it’s impossible to reconcile the conflicting statements made by the majority in support of it. Specifically, they need to answer how an ISP is going to boost the priority of VoIP without violating this new rule that all applications have to be treated as equals.

They also need to explain where this new equality requirement comes from, because even the murky Policy Statement doesn’t say that all packets from all applications have the same value.

If it looks like Kevin Martin is making up the rules as he goes along, it’s because that’s exactly what he’s doing.

Technorati Tags: net neutrality, FCC, Broadband, Comcast

Declan McCullagh is wondering about that secret framework the FCC has discovered:

Details of the FCC’s ruling, which may not be available for a few weeks, remain unclear. While Comcast will face no fine, Martin said the FCC has adopted a new legal “framework” that will let federal bureaucrats deem whether future network management practices are permissible. The dissenting Republicans said they did not receive the final text of the order until late last night–it apparently includes a variant of a “strict scrutiny” test usually reserved to judge whether government policies are legal or not–and it is not yet public.

I think this secret framework is the most interesting part of today’s news, and the delay in the publication of the FCC’s order reflects the difficulty they’re having in making it up.

Technorati Tags: net neutrality, FCC, broadband, pandering

According to Drew Clark, these are the FCC’s findings in the Comcast dispute:

1. Comcast’s network management practices discriminate among applications and protocols. It uses deep packet inspection.

There is no law against deep packet inspection for the purpose of reasonable network management, and Kevin Martin’s press release says it’s OK to discriminate for and against applications: “We do not tell providers how to manage their networks. They might choose, for instance, to prioritize voice-over-IP calls.” So no problem here, but nice attempt at scaring people with “deep packet inspection.”

2. Comcast’s practices are not minimally intrusive, but are invasive, and have significant effect.

Comcast’s actions only affect BitTorrent in unattended seeding mode, which actually helps BitTorrent in peering mode and download mode, so it is minimally intrusive.

3. Comcast has blocked content and significantly interfered with person’s ability to access applications and content of their choice.

Comcast’s actions have no effect on the ability of its customers to access content. In fact, they help. Seeding cannot be construed as “accessing content” under any reasonable definition. In fact, it’s “offering content” and the Four Freedoms don’t enumerate that as a right.

4. Comcast’s practices do not constitute reasonable network management practices.

In the opinion of actual working engineers, these practices are reasonable, if less than ideal. In engineering as in politics the perfect is the enemy of the good.

5. The economic harms have been compounded by Comcast’s failure to disclose its practices.

There has been no demonstrated economic harm. In fact, the system discourages piracy, and therefore prevents economic harm.

6. Comcast’s practice contravenes federal internet policy, and limits consumers’ ability to access the lawful internet content of their choice.

Once again, this practice doesn’t affect consumer ability to download content.

So the Commission is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and generally pounding on the table.

Technorati Tags: net neutrality, FCC, broadband, Comcast

At least one FCC commissioner has his head on straight today, Robert McDowell. His dissent on Martin’s arbitrary smackdown is great:

For the first time, today our government is choosing regulation over collaboration when it comes to Internet governance. The majority has thrust politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions. It will be interesting to see how the FCC will handle its newly created power because, as an institution, we are incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds of Internet time. Furthermore, asking our government to make these decisions will mean that every two to four years the ground rules could change depending on election results. Internet engineers will find it difficult, if not impossible, to operate in a climate like that. Today’s action is raising many questions across the globe. Is the next step for the FCC to mandate that network owners must ask the government for permission before serving their customers by managing surges of information flow? As a result of today’s actions, Internet lawyers around the country are likely advising their clients to do just that. Will the FCC be able to handle that case load? Will other countries like China follow suit and be able to regulate American companies’ network management practices, with effects that could be felt here? How do we know where to draw the line given that the Internet is an interconnected global network of networks?

Given the Internet’s interconnectivity, are we now starting a global race to the lowest common denominator of maximum government regulation all in the name, ironically, of Internet freedom? Keep in mind that societies that regulate the Internet less tend to be more democratic, while regimes that regulate it more tend to be less democratic.

I am being asked these and many other questions, and I don’t have answers to them. No one does. But two things are for sure, this debate will continue, and the FCC has generated more questions than it has answered.

Read the whole thing, it’s great.

After voting on the Comcast order today, Kevin Martin and his Democratic Party colleagues issued press releases telling us how they saved the Internet from Comcast’s discriminatory practices, but they’ve failed to release the actual order they adopted in secret. Rumor has it they re-wrote the order after voting on it, and are presently working with high-level spin doctors to remove all the rough edges, inconsistencies, and factual errors. So once again, critics of the Commission’s apparent over-reach are left sparring with a shadow puppet.

The press releases are inconsistent and incoherent.

They display a significant lack of understanding of the technical and factual issues in this case. The Commission’s press release refers to a hitherto unknown right of network applications to be treated “equally”, without sourcing it or explaining it:

The Commission concluded that Comcast’s network management practices discriminate among applications rather than treating all equally and are inconsistent with the concept of an open and accessible Internet…

While Comcast claimed that it was motivated by a desire to combat network congestion, the Commission concluded that the company’s practices are ill-tailored to serve that goal for many reasons: they affect customers who are using little bandwidth simply because they are using a disfavored application; they are not employed only during times of the day when congestion is prevalent; the company’s equipment does not target only those neighborhoods suffering from congestion; and a customer may use an extraordinary amount of bandwidth during periods of network congestion and will be totally unaffected so long as he does not utilize an application disfavored by Comcast.

And at the same time Martin endorses the practice of raising the priority of delay-sensitive applications like VoIP:

We do not tell providers how to manage their networks. They might choose, for instance, to prioritize voice-over-IP calls. In analyzing whether Comcast violated federal policy when it blocked access to certain applications, we conduct a fact-specific inquiry into whether the management practice they used was reasonable. Based on many reasons, including the arbitrary nature of the blocking, the lack of relation to times of congestion or size of files, and the manner in which they hid their conduct from their subscribers, we conclude it was not.

We do not limit providers’ efforts to stop congestion. We do say providers should disclose what they are doing to consumers.

So it’s OK to prioritize VoIP. That means it’s OK to de-prioritize everything that’s not VoIP, and the only way you can determine which is which is by inspecting packets to see what protocol carries them. But the Commission says you can’t do that:

For example, Professor David Reed of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, widely respected as one of the architects of the Internet, said that “[n]either Deep Packet Inspection nor RST Injection” — Comcast uses both to manage its network — “are acceptable behavior.”

Leaving aside the fact that Reed hasn’t been active in network engineering for over twenty years, one man’s personal opinion is not the law. Reed’s religious notions about right and wrong are inconsistent with Martin’s assertions about what’s permissible and what’s not. Deep Packet Inspection is how you see whether a given packet is carrying VoIP traffic or not. Internet packets aren’t hidden in envelopes, they’re a one-dimensional series of bytes that are all out in the open, like postcards, so there’s nothing nefarious about this. If we can’t tell what the application or protocols it is, we can’t prioritize it.

Martin says the FCC does not tell providers how they may manage their networks, but that’s the whole point of the exercise.

And the Commission remains lost about the impact of Comcast’s management on the ability of its customers to access content on the Internet. They don’t interfere with customers’ ability to download content of any kind using BitTorrent or any other protocol, but the Commission’s press release says otherwise:

The Commission concluded that the end result of Comcast’s conduct was the blocking of Internet traffic, which had the effect of substantially impeding consumers’ ability to access the content and to use the applications of their choice. The Commission noted that the record contained substantial evidence that customers, among other things, were unable to share music, watch video, or download software due to Comcast’s misconduct.

In fact, no such thing is happening on the Comcast network and it never has. Comcast does not interfere with BitTorrent downloads on its network; in fact, they prevent BitTorrent seeding from interfering with BitTorrent downloading and actually improve the performance of the application the Commission says it’s “disfavoring.”

Nobody has complained that you can’t download, and downloading is how you access the content of your choice. The actual complaint is that the amount of bandwidth Comcast allocates to BitTorrent acting as a file server is not enough. This can have an effect, typically a small one, on the ability of other people, especially those outside the Comcast network, to download the Comcast customer’s content, but there’s no “freedom to run a file server from your home.”

Throughout this whole debacle, I’ve repeatedly tested whether I could download movies and software using BitTorrent on the Comcast network, and at no time has it been blocked. There have been periods during which BitTorrent was slowed for seeding, when I wasn’t trying to download a file, just serving files to others, and that’s it.

So what we have is this:

1. A secret framework of permissible and impermissible practices;
2. A failure to interpret the facts;
3. The opinion of one former network engineer trumping years of practice on the Internet;
4. An order to stop an unknown practice;
5. A tragic lack of consistency.

Under no rational interpretation can this be considered a good day for the Internet.

I’ll have further comment when I can see the actual order.