Richard Bennett

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.

The Wall St. Journal joins the chorus of Bronx cheers aimed at Kevin Martin, the one-eyed federal umpire who blew a call that wasn’t even close:

Those who would use Comcast’s actions to argue for more Internet regulation have misidentified the Big Brother problem. It’s not the private sector they should be worried about. There’s no evidence that Comcast was trying to suppress a political view or favor one of its own services. By all appearances, the company’s policies were motivated by nothing more than making sure a tiny percentage of bandwidth hogs didn’t slow down Internet traffic for everyone else on the network.

Giving the government more say in network management, by contrast, introduces all kinds of potential for political mischief. Net neutrality is a slippery slope toward interventions of all kinds — not merely over access but ultimately over content. Naturally, the most powerful lobbies will have the largest sway. Mr. Martin’s decision in this case may well be driven by his own political hostility to Comcast and the cable industry for resisting some of his other policy priorities.

Mr. Martin’s bad instincts notwithstanding, the FCC’s job is not to determine business models in the private sector. The community of Internet service and content providers has proven itself more than able to work out problems on its own as Web use has exploded. If there are bottlenecks in the future, some providers might choose to block file-sharing services at certain hours of the day. Others might opt for some kind of metered or tiered pricing. Banning these options will only reduce incentives to upgrade networks and launch new services.

Regulators would do better to focus on keeping the overall telecom marketplace competitive. If Comcast customers don’t like the company’s network management policies, they’re free to take their business to Verizon, or AT&T, or some other Internet service provider. A World Wide Web run by Kevin Martin and his political friends will leave us with poorer quality and fewer options all around.

Internet users are several times more likely to suffer from slowed or degraded service on account of their neighbors than their ISPs, so Comcast’s actions have been reasonable. And as many others have noted, the regulatory role is to resolve impasses in the technical collaboration process, not to substitute political insight for engineering knowledge.

Martin blew this one, there’s no doubt about it. We need instant replay in politics.

Technorati Tags: net neutrality, FCC, Comcast

Andrew Orlowski has outdone himself in this admirable summary of the FCC’s expected ruling on Comcast:

The landmark decision draws together two strands of policy – one old and specific to the US, and one new and widespread.

I’ve noted before how American politics are largely fought through symbolic gestures. Think of the bitter fights over the wording on the US currency, or inscriptions on public statues. The Neutrality campaign was similarly engaged in a symbolic battle.

But the other aspect is more disturbing. Britain’s equivalent of the FCC, Ofcom, prides itself on what it calls “evidence-based policy making”. It may not always succeed, but it’s a tradition based on empiricism. With “Net Neutrality”, what we’re seeing is the opposite, where the direction is set on a hunch or intuition, or the angst of a mob, and the facts cherry-picked to support the conclusion. The definition of harm and “busting” are great illustrations. Call it “policy-based evidence-making”, if you like.

Indeed.

Technorati Tags: net neutrality, FCC, Comcast

Declan McCullagh takes a good look at the legal and political issues around the FCC’s pending wrist-slap of broadband carrier Comcast in FCC probably can’t police Comcast’s BitTorrent throttling:

If FCC enforcement against Comcast is illegal, why would Chairman Martin call Friday’s meeting? Only he knows for certain, but one explanation is that if the FCC is embarrassed when slapped down by a federal appeals court two years hence, Martin will have long since departed to a lucrative partnership at a law firm or private equity firm. (This is a customary exit path for FCC chairmen: Newton Minow went to Sidley Austin; William Kennard went to the Carlyle Group; James Quello went to Wiley Rein, named for ex-chairman Richard Wiley, where equity partners made an average of $4.4 million in 2006.)

Friday’s ruling may also end up as a cautionary tale for AT&T and Verizon, which as recently as last month seemed to be egging on the FCC to take action against their cable industry rival. But the same activists that have targeted Comcast before the FCC no doubt realize that AT&T’s terms of service limit “peer-to-peer applications”; Verizon Wireless flatly prohibits them; Verizon’s Fios service blocks incoming port 80. Another term for those network management practices is “Net neutrality violations.”

Motivation is interesting, and Declan’s probably right that Martin has a trick up his sleeve. My concern about this action is the precedent it would set. If the FCC is allowed to impose any madeup-on-the-spot rule that it fancies on companies with multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments, I can’t see the financial markets being too willing to part with the cash to engage in the continual upgrade that broadband networks require. The financial markets can tolerate many kinds of risk, but the political or career ambitions of Young Turk commissioners with the power to impose arbitrary sanctions isn’t one of them. Martin should sober up and look at the big picture instead of pulling the trigger on Comcast.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has written one of the most sober and sensible essays on the Internet’s present technical crisis in today’s Washington Post. With so many members of the Commission willing to jump into the breach with ex post facto rules and regulations, it’s good to see that there are some on the inside of the regulatory machine who have a sense of the Internet’s history. See Who Should Solve This Internet Crisis?

The Internet was in crisis. Its electronic “pipes” were clogged with new bandwidth-hogging software. Engineers faced a choice: Allow the Net to succumb to fatal gridlock or find a solution.

The year was 1987. About 35,000 people, mainly academics and some government employees, used the Internet.

This story, of course, had a happy ending. The loosely knit Internet engineering community rallied to improve an automated data “traffic cop” that prioritized applications and content needing “real time” delivery over those that would not suffer from delay. Their efforts unclogged the Internet and laid the foundation for what has become the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

The Internet has since weathered several such crises. Each time, engineers, academics, software developers, Web infrastructure builders and others have worked together to fix the problems. Over the years, some groups have become more formalized — such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board. They have remained largely self-governing, self-funded and nonprofit, with volunteers acting on their own and not on behalf of their employers. No government owns or regulates them.

The Internet has flourished because it has operated under the principle that engineers, not politicians or bureaucrats, should solve engineering problems.

Today, a new challenge is upon us. Pipes are filling rapidly with “peer-to-peer” (“P2P”) file-sharing applications that crowd out other content and slow speeds for millions. Just as Napster produced an explosion of shared (largely pirated) music files in 1999, today’s P2P applications allow consumers to share movies. P2P providers store movies on users’ home and office computers to avoid building huge “server farms” of giant computers for this bandwidth-intensive data. When consumers download these videos, they call on thousands of computers across the Web to upload each of their small pieces. As a result, some consumers’ “last-mile” connections, especially connections over cable and wireless networks, get clogged. These electronic traffic jams slow the Internet for most consumers, a majority of whom do not use P2P software to watch videos or surf the Web.

At peak times, 5 percent of Internet consumers are using 90 percent of the available bandwidth because of the P2P explosion. This flood of data has created a tyranny by a minority. Slower speeds degrade the quality of the service that consumers have paid for and ultimately diminish America’s competitiveness globally.

The Commissioner makes many of the points that those of us who’ve been involved in the development and refinement of Internet protocols for the period since Internet Meltdown have made: new applications have broken the Internet before. After the FTP crisis was averted by Van Jacobson’s patch, the Internet very nearly ground to a state of gridlock on the early 90s when HTTP 1.0 came along and opened too many TCP virtual circuits. That problem was averted by HTTP 1.1, which used fewer VCs more efficiently. We didn’t need government mandates to solve the problem, as everyone was motivated already.

The P2P crisis is already the focus of intense industry collaboration in the P4P Working Group sponsored by the DCIA and in the IETF. Whatever orders the FCC issues on the complaints against Comcast are going to be less helpful than these collaborative efforts, and will in all likelihood retard the course of the Internet’s technical evolution.

Don’t regulate, collaborate.

Technorati Tags: net+neutrality FCC broadband Comcast