Reactions to story from SFGate

• 

  Comcast shaping up

  http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15435
  248 days ago in p2pnet news · Authority: 757

  p2pnet news | Freedom:- Yesterday, Comcast Corp. promised Thursday that it would not discriminate against specific Internet traffic on its network, ending its controversial practice of targeting and blocking file-sharing technologies from San Franciscos
• 

  Comcast Says It Will Stop Secretly Throttling Certain Web Traffic

  http://globalethics.org/newsline/2008/03/31/comcast-says-it-...
  246 days ago in Ethics Newsline® · Authority: 24

  At center of controversy is emerging ethics issue of Net neutrality SAN FRANCISCO Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest residential Internet service provider, last week reversed its denials and admitted that it has been blocking some Internet traffic, promising to revamp its approach to managing Web traffic after a series of press reports and public inquiries challenged the ethics of its behavior. Comcast was under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and public interest groups after it was disclosed that it was blocking some Internet traffic of customers who used certain file-sharing software programs, the New York Times reported. The Company previously had denied blocking the traffic. The issue came to light after an Associated Press investigation, which found that Comcast was surreptitiously blocking Internet usage via some popular file-sharing programs, a revelation that BusinessWeek characterizes as a “major public relations debacle.” The report led not only to outrage among customers, BusinessWeek notes, but also prompted an FCC threat to consider regulations on network management techniques. A report from the San Francisco Chronicle says that Comcast has agreed to end its practice of blocking traffic from customers using certain programs on peer-to-per networks and will work with software manufacturers to find ways to move files efficiently. The agreement announced by Comcast still involves the potential slowing of Internet connections of heavy bandwidth users during peak hours, though the slowing will not be based on the particular programs used, reports the London-based Independent, leading some critics to say that regulation is still necessary in order to protect Net neutrality. The ethics issue at hand is the quarrel between those who favor Net neutrality versus proponents of “bandwidth shaping.” Net neutrality advocates maintain that all traffic should be treated equally and warn that if telecommunication and cable companies are able to move certain messages at different speeds, it will lead to a system where fast and reliable service is only available to those who pay a premium for it. Backers of bandwidth shaping, which involves moving different types of traffic at varying rates and through varying channels, claim that bandwidth hogs, especially those who share audio and video files online, choke traffic for the majority of users. Privacy advocates argue that it is unethical for Internet service providers to sidetrack selected transmissions because they have no right to digitally inspect the content in order to determine whether it should be put on the fast or slow track. Sources: Guardian, Mar. 29 — New York Times, Mar. 28 — BusinessWeek, Mar. 28 –San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 27. For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 24 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 22, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 26, 2006.
• 

  Inside Canada's Telecom Nightmare

  http://angryrobot.ca/2008/03/30/inside-canadas-telecom-night...
  247 days ago in Angry Robot · Authority: 14

  This week there was news that Bell is slowing down P2P traffic, i.e. bitshaping, even for their resellers. And there was information on Rogers’ new fee structure, with the highest plan costing $100 a month and still subject to a bit cap. Meanwhile, in the US, Comcast is backing down from bitshaping after a public outcry. What the hell is going on? At issue here is net neutrality, and in the US there is public debate on the issue, whereas here there has been none. In brief, net neutrality is the principle that the network should treat all content and devices equally – that internet access should behave like electricity or your water supply. And generally that’s how it’s gone up until recently, when gradually the internet providers have been introducing bitshaping (slowing down certain types of traffic, most often BitTorrent) and bitcaps (a limit on how much you can download before incurring extra fees). Don’t be distracted by the current focus on piracy – the idea that ‘a few bad apples’ are slowing down the internet for everyone else. The real issue is internet video in all its forms: bittorrented TV shows, youtube, and pay-per-download services like iTunes and Xbox Live. Video takes a lot of bandwidth and with the explosion in online video, suddenly ISPs are seeing people actually use some of the bandwidth they are paying for. And they’d rather not, you know, make less money. Let’s not forget that both Bell and Rogers sell TV services, and online video threatens their profits in that business as well. The last thing they want is someone canceling their cable to download shows off iTunes – but if that happens, they want to get their cut. Despite the fact that their broadband services are sold on the promise of fast, rich media. Another issue is competition. We have less of it here, and so our telecoms can beat up the consumer to their hearts’ content without fear of consumers jumping ship, as there’s no ship to jump to. What they’d love to do is sell you access to pieces of the internet like they currently do with TV channels: wanna play games online? $15 a month. Facebook? $15 a month. Yeah, Rogers already does exactly that with its phone service (the facebook part, that is). It sucks for the little guy, yeah. But it sucks for our entire country as we watch Canada become a technological backwater in an age when high-tech competitiveness is more important than ever. We have 60% cellphone ownership here compared to 80% in the US. Typical broadband speeds in Japan are nearly 10 times faster than the Canadian average. There are a lot of amazing things that can be done with ubiquitous high speed access if we’re not paying through the nose for the ‘privilege’. So what should we do? Amongst other things, join the net neutrality Facebook group. By getting 40,000 members, Michael Geist’s Fair Copyright group was able to forestall brutal DMCA-style legislation up here, so it could very well work. Also check out this site although it hasn’t been updated in some time, the petition has 6000 signatures already. In general, just get the word out and let’s make this an issue that more people know about. Tags: bell, canada, futuremedia, internet, rogers, youtube
• 

  Comcast Adjusts Way It Manages Internet Traffic

  http://deccanchargers.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/hello-world/
  248 days ago in My Weblog · No authority yet

  Comcast Adjusts Way It Manages Internet Traffic Comcast, the country’s largest residential Internet provider, said on Thursday that it would take a more equitable approach toward managing the ever-expanding flow of Web traffic on its network. BitTorrent president: Comcast agreement is a ‘win’ CNET News.com Comcast’s P2P Conversion: I’ll Believe It When I See Results BusinessWeek InternetNews.com - CRN - Los Angeles Times - San Francisco Chronicle all 806 news articles »
• 

  Comcast deals with BitTorrent

  http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15421
  249 days ago in p2pnet news · Authority: 354

  p2pnet news | P2P:- “Comcast Corp. promised Thursday that it would not discriminate against specific Internet traffic on its network, ending its controversial practice of targeting and blocking file-sharing technologies from San Francisco’s BitTorrent Inc. and others.” That’s the San Francisco Chronicle. “After criticism for allegedly blocking a popular software program for watching video online, Comcast Corp. pledged Thursday not to discriminate against specific technology as it tries to keep increasing amounts of data flowing through its cable networks,” says the Los Angeles Times. “But the move may not be enough to keep Comcast, the country’s largest cable company, from being disciplined by federal regulators or to resolve a complicated debate about how Internet providers can manage their online traffic.” It’s all about America’s largest cable TV and Internet provider saying it’ll use BitTorrent “and other companies” offering P2P file-sharing, “to come up with improved ways to speed large files efficiently,” states the story, going on: “Comcast said it would still manage traffic during peak periods but by year’s end would not block specific applications - a recent practice that prompted federal scrutiny and pressure.” Still manage traffic during peak periods, eh? Canadian networking and protocol expert Robb Topolski isn’t impressed. “Comcast and BitTorrent seems to have solved world hunger - and I’d love nothing more than to be optimistic about it,” he says. “But I cannot be. As they say on Slashdot - show video, or it didn’t happen. “This deal is treachery, relies on how much we can trust the word of Comcast, and leaves the public interests out in the cold.” In October, 2007, Topolksi spotted Comcast using an application from Canadian broadband management company Sandvine to throttle BitTorrent traffic. “I was having a problem uploading on Gnutella in early 2007,” he says. “I tracked it down to Comcast using Sandvine-injected RST packets and documented it. Blog stories led to press stories which led to independent confirmation. And here we are today.” It took a while but then the same thing is happening in Canada with Bell Sympatico, caught red-handed throttling traffic. No doubt it’ll eventually reach similar conclusions to Comcast. p2pnet wrote about it first last year and to use Topolski’s words, “Blog stories led to press stories which led to independent confirmation. And here we are today.” On the Comcast farce, Topolski goes on >>> I think it’s strange that anyone believes a word that Comcast says. This is the Comcast that: 1. Told the FCC in 2005 that they would not degrade traffic in order to convince the FCC that network neutrality regulations were not needed. 2. Started degrading P2P traffic the very next year, and failed to tell anyone what they were doing. 3. Used a system that utilized forgery, and successfully placed blame on the other peer instead of Comcast. 4. Denied it when caught. 5. Then changed their story when the denials were not believed, but still never came out and said what they were doing. 6. Then they justified their actions by throwing their other Cable-Internet brothers and sisters under the bus with their “they do it too!” defense 7. Then stealthily changed the AUP days before an FCC filing where they referred to the new provisions. 8. When the changed AUP started getting press attention, they stated that a prominent story on Comcast.net alerted millions of visitors of the change and accused Marvin Ammori of crying wolf. (Google cache proved that nothing alerted users to the changed AUP until the day after the press started asking questions.) 9. Then they packed the Harvard FCC hearing. This company has not demonstrated that you can trust its promises, nor can you believe its assertions. Comcast just used BitTorrent Inc. as a tool to try and defang the FCC. BitTorrent Inc. is a content provider. Vuze, who actually DID make a complaint and petition to the FCC, is a competitor. Neither BitTorrent, Vuze, nor Comcast represents the interests of 12 million Comcast users nor the The Internet Society nor the public. And this middle-of-the-night deal was made without their input. Nothing has changed. The RST interference continues. It was a wrongful act. BitTorrent Inc. has no right making a deal with Comcast allowing it to continue to commit wrongful acts until it finally decides it is ready to stop. The correct relief is to stop the interference immediately and to FULLY DISCLOSE what it did and to accept responsibility for those actions. (Even today, Comcast’s Policy VP refused to answer questions about the interference.) Their word is worthless. Until the interference stops, I have no reason to believe it will. Until either meaningful competition returns to broadband, or until sufficient government regulation enforces Network Neutrality, we have no reason to think that this agreement will last ….. Stay tuned. Slashdot it! San Francisco Chronicle - Comcast changes tune, won’t block large files, March 28, 2008 Los Angeles Times - Comcast relents on Web video, March 28, 2008 spotted Comcast - Unlocking the Comcast handcuffs, October 22, 2007 caught red-handed - Bell download throttling: update, March 27, 2008 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here. This has been nicked from: p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media Comcast deals with BitTorrent
• 

  Comcast changes tune, won’t block large files

  http://news.johnl2007.com/comcast-changes-tune-wont-block-la...
  249 days ago in John’s Tech News — News Feed · Authority: 7

  Comcast Corp. promised Thursday that it would not discriminate against specific Internet traffic on its network, ending its controversial practice of targeting and blocking file-sharing technologies from San Francisco’s BitTorrent Inc. and others. The nation’s largest cable TV and Internet provider said it would work with BitTorrent and other companies offering peer-to-peer file-sharing services to come up with improved ways to speed large files efficiently. Comcast said it would still manage traffic during peak periods but by year’s end would not block specific applications - a recent practice that prompted federal scrutiny and pressure. “This means that we will have to rapidly reconfigure our network management systems, but the outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today’s emerging Internet trends,” Tony Werner, Comcast’s chief technology officer, said in a statement. The decision amounts to a reversal for Comcast, which had been accused of limiting or blocking uploads of large files over BitTorrent during peak periods. An Associated Press investigation last fall into Comcast’s practices prompted an investigation and a hearing by the Federal Communications Commission this year. Comcast has defended its practice of maintaining smooth traffic delivery. BitTorrent, for its part, is acknowledging Comcast’s right to manage data usage and is working on its end to optimize its technology to work with broadband networks. Eric Klinker, chief technology officer of BitTorrent, applauded Comcast’s move, saying it puts Comcast on the road to a more open and neutral Internet that is beneficial to all users. “An agnostic approach is huge for the Internet, for innovation and Silicon Valley,” Klinker said. “There are a lot of businesses booming in this corridor that fundamentally depend on this principal.” Bernstein Research analyst Jeffrey Lindsay said the deal means BitTorrent would likely identify its data transfers to Comcast, so the cable company wouldn’t have to go through the trouble of tracking them. The two companies would then agree on a way to shift some of those large file transfers to off-peak hours, ensuring that non-peer-to-peer users won’t experience a slowdown in service, he said. Lindsay said the deal between Comcast and BitTorrent helps skirt the larger issue of so-called network neutrality by having both companies work together to free up capacity. “A lot of people are transferring files that are not time-critical,” Lindsay said. “It’s better to push the use of P2P to off-peak times where they can have more capacity. That’s a good use of resources that we don’t think will interfere with P2P users.” Open Internet advocates are skeptical of Comcast’s change of heart and believe that the federal government still needs to develop regulations that protect Net neutrality. Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, a media reform organization, said the announcement doesn’t prevent future blocking of traffic or protect emerging innovative applications. “Innovators should not have to negotiate side deals with phone and cable companies to operate without discrimination. The Internet has always been a level playing field, and we need to keep it that way,” Ammori said in a statement. Under the agreement, both Comcast and BitTorrent will publish their techniques and efforts, so users will be able to know when Comcast’s management tools will be applied. The companies will also engage other service providers and technology companies to develop more efficient networks and applications. The FCC will continue to monitor Comcast and ensure that Internet users continue to have access to legitimate content, Chairman Kevin Martin said. The commission will hold a hearing April 17 at Stanford to discuss reasonable network management practices. Martin said he is still unhappy with Comcast’s current practices and called on the company to announce exactly when it plans to end them. “While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn’t stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications,” Martin said in a statement. Comcast changes tune, won’t block large files Share This

Advertise on Technorati