Comcast to Stop Hampering File-Sharing

[user]

Hello everyone. I was watching the news and came across a discussion related to Comcast and BitTorrent. I visited Comcast.net to read more of the news. I was nice enough to post it at uTorrent.com for the people who have missed it. Enjoy!

Source: http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/technology/2008/03/27/Comcast.BitTorrent/

Comcast to Stop Hampering File-Sharing

By DEBORAH YAO, AP

Thu Mar 27, 5:21 PM EDT

PHILADELPHIA — Under pressure from federal regulators, Comcast Corp. reversed its stance over hampering online file-sharing by its subscribers and promised Thursday to treat all types of Internet traffic equally.

The Internet service provider said it will collaborate with BitTorrent Inc., the company that invented a more efficient successor to file-sharing services such as Napster and Kazaa, to improve the transmission of large files over the Internet — and it will eventually stop delaying file transfers based on the specific technology used.

Since user reports of interference with file-sharing traffic were confirmed by an Associated Press investigation in October, Comcast had vigorously defended its practice, most recently at a hearing of the Federal Communications Commission in February.

At issue was whether a service provider like Comcast has the right to control what types of Internet traffic it will let through, block or delay. Comcast said it needs to clamp down on heavy users of Internet bandwidth so others won't be slowed down.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that while he was "pleased" that Comcast has reversed course, he remains concerned that the nation's largest cable company isn't stopping the practice now. Comcast gave itself until year's end.

"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.

Martin said the FCC will remain "vigilant" to ensure consumers can access any lawful content online.

Consumer-rights groups say the FCC should still act to protect consumers against other "discriminatory" network-management practices.

"Any arrangements made now would not cover any future developments in blocking, throttling or filtering that any other companies may use," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge.

Consumer and "Net Neutrality" advocates have accused Comcast of playing judge and gatekeeper for the Internet by secretly blocking some connections between file-sharing computers. They also accused Comcast of stifling delivery of Internet video, an emerging competitor to its core business.

"This deal is the direct result of public pressure, and the threat of FCC action, against Comcast," said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, a media reform group. "But with Comcast's history of broken promises and record of deception, we can't just take their word that the Internet is now in safe hands."

Comcast did not specify how it would manage traffic in the future but said one option was to delay file transfers for the heaviest downloaders, regardless of the specific mechanism used, as the company has been doing.

Comcast said it also was monitoring Time Warner Cable Inc.'s experiment in placing explicit caps on the monthly downloads for new customers in Beaumont, Texas. Subscribers who go over their allotment will pay extra, much like a cell-phone subscriber who uses too many minutes in a month.

But Comcast may be wary about charging certain users more because of competitive pressure, especially after rival Verizon Communications Inc. said recently that such traffic is legitimate and that its FiOS network can handle the flow, said Harold Feld of Media Access Project, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

BitTorrent and the eDonkey protocol are used for about a third of all Internet traffic, according to Arbor Networks.

The vast majority of file-sharing is illegal distribution of copyright-protected files. But file-sharing is also emerging as a low-cost way of distributing legal content — in particular, video.

Comcast initially veiled its traffic-management system in secrecy, saying openness would allow users to circumvent it. The company now promises to release details on the new technique and take into account feedback from the Internet community.

Comcast and BitTorrent said they want to work out network management issues privately, without government intervention.

BitTorrent acknowledged service providers have to manage their networks somehow, especially during peak times.

"While we think there were other management techniques that could have been deployed, we understand why Comcast and other ISPs adopted the approach that they did initially," Eric Klinker, BitTorrent's chief technology officer, said in a statement.

Comcast also said that the issue is larger than BitTorrent. It said it was in talks with other parties to find solutions, although the cable company might not have much choice.

Verizon recently announced that by sharing information with Pando Networks, another file-sharing company, it simultaneously sped file-sharing downloads for its subscribers and reduced the strain on its network. AT&T Inc. has been looking at similar collaborations.

But phone companies are better positioned than cable companies to deal with file-sharing traffic because neighbors don't share capacity on phone lines.

Shares in Philadelphia-based Comcast rose 17 cents to $19.88 in afternoon trading Thursday.

___

Associated Press Business Writer Barbara Ortutay and Technology Writer Peter Svensson in New York contributed to this story.

Source: http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/technology/2008/03/27/Comcast.BitTorrent/

[jewelisheaven]

I heard this too.

Unfortunately I bet they won't reach out to software manufacturers, only start mangling internet connections in other ways.... OR they may start rolling out pay-per-byte similar to Time Warner, which started testing in Texas.

[user]

The article mentioned that Comcast may delay file transfers for heavy downloaders, as they "have been doing." The article also mentioned that Comcast may be wary of charging users more money because of "competitive pressure." I guess we will just have to wait until the year of 2009 to see what happens.

[jewelisheaven]

Agreed. But you have to admit, if even after this the other big players are experimenting with eliminating the flat-rate internet Comcast has to be thinking about it too right? Or is the fact they're not proof they gouge you with their services enough they don't need to.

[user]

Comcast is simply trying to compete with other ISPs while keeping their bandwidth costs low. If other popular ISPs (like Verizon FiOS) start eliminating the flat-rate, Comcast will probably do so as well. If that does not happen, Comcast may have something else up their sleeves. You never know. Like I said, we will just have to wait until the year of 2009 to see what happens. What I do not get is the article stating that they "have been" delaying file transfers for heavy downloaders. Have they been doing that or are they planning to do that?

[jewelisheaven]

I think that they have separate countermeasures depending on location and metro area. :/ I interpreted the article's stating that meaning Comcast continues to shape heavy downloaders' connections above their hidden ethereal threshold, and are working on eliminating the sandvine hardware... unfortunately I feel this is a PR move. Since they obviously invested heavily in the hardware they're not about to return it all to the IHV and are probably in talks with Sandvine as to what upgrades they can add to the hardware so it doesn't do the current known spoofing attack. I remember reading somewhere that the hardware has several modes, and may even have DPI capability.

I can't wait until the latter half of 2009 because of the NEW anticipated trans-pacific cable. I'm sure there will also be something else regarding the FCC case which will make the news... and may even be a precursor to the shifting of ISPs stance of technology-fighting (cheers to the future)

[hermanm]

DreamHost has a model where they advertise 5TB of monthly traffic. Their blog says not all users user it, but honor their advertisement for those that do. They also state they receive good word-of-mouth advertising from this. Comcast could take a similar tactic. I don't know if they have much choice as Verizon is going to take market share away with their Fiber connections.

[Lord Alderaan]

The problem is ISPs use a ratio of sold bandwidth versus needed bandwidth capacity. Because of P2P and video streaming the real ratio has changed but Comcast, instead of adjusting their ratio accordingly (by increasing their bandwidth (=costs money) or reducing the speeds of their lines (=bad for competition)), tries to force people into the old ratio by throttling, hampering and delaying certain types of intensive traffic (=low costs, minor effect on competition).

imho this is unacceptable. They just went for the easy (and cheap) way out, they falsify competition in the process and they hamper certain technologies.

I advise any subscriber suffering from ISP throttling, etc to switch to a different ISP and give the current ISP the reason why you did this.

[hermanm]

Instead of charging more money, I'd prefer Comcast to state they will offer a certain level of service up to a certain amount of GBs per month, then gives lowest QoS on Bittorrent ports (e.g. 1024+). Traditional ports for e-mail, web traffic, etc. would still be normal or high priority.

[Switeck]

ComCast was de-priortizing (lowest QoS) file-sharing traffic they could identify for years.

[funchords]

ComCast was de-priortizing (lowest QoS) file-sharing traffic they could identify for years.

Switech,

If you have solid info on this, please let me know. Urgent.

--Robb robb-at-funchords-dot-com

[Firon]

I'll believe this crap when I see it, lol

[Switeck]

What do you think "network management" means?

It just makes good sense and isn't even particularly nefarious to lower QoS on non-time-critical items. File-sharing P2P isn't time-critical, though it helps if its latency isn't >200ms due to pipelining issues. VoIP just about has to be QoS shifted to first packet out as soon as received.

ComCast has been doing network management for years, they've admitted this as well as evidence that they have unmentionable bandwidth use limits that they refuse to post.

Sandvine is just one of their latest experiments.

[jewelisheaven]

http://newteevee.com/2008/05/06/comcast-abandons-p2p-bill-of-rights/

http://valleywag.com/388223/comcast-considering-250gb-monthly-cap-on-downloads

I guess Comcast decided which part of the $ pie they want to be on... whatever Murdoch wants.