Last week, the Associated Press reported that Comcast Corp. is interfering with certain types of data transfers on their network.
If confirmed, this would seem to fly in the face of Network Neutrality, an unregulated-yet-highly-encouraged philosophy whereby an Internet Service Provider should allow the free exchange of all types of data, regardless of its source, destination, content, or intent. In a purely neutral network environment, all Internet users are granted free access to the same bandwidth. In other words, the speed of their Internet connections is not affected by what they are trying to access.
A number of months back,
we reported that Congress was considering passing legislation that would enforce network neutrality. In the end, the legislation failed and it was left to free market policies to encourage all ISPs not to limit access for any reason. Now just 15 months later, we are seeing the result of how the free market can work: only if users are savvy enough to catch an ISP in the act.
A Reuters article Monday offered a
formal rebuke from Comcast Corp. Yinka Adegoke reported today that Comcast was not in any way blocking the transfer of files, but rather simply using an industry standard limiting technology know as "packet shaping" to help manage the tangle of data transfer through its network.
Packet shaping essentially prioritizes the transfer rate of data based on what the data is intended for.
In the Reuters article, Comcast stated the company utilizes packet shaping to ensure that VoIP customers (Internet-based
telephony) and other "more important" services are guaranteed access to
Comcast's available bandwidth, leaving the "less important" services such as P2P file
sharing to fight over what bandwidth remains.
Now consider that many P2P file sharing services have built-in timeouts to cut a transfer when bandwidth is poor or problematic. In other words, Comcast seemed to confirm the AP's prior report, but did so in a used-car-salesman manner to try and confuse the average Joe into thinking they were really trying to help all Comcast customers.
In all fairness, we can understand why Comcast might be concerned with how its network bandwidth was being used. Certainly, the company has every right to want to prevent abuse of its network for any reason, just as it has every right to try and ensure that its paying customers are guaranteed the best access possible. At the same time, if Comcast is truly network-neutral, then it should not be solely in the business of providing service for just its paying customers. As an ISP -- the second largest in the U.S. -- and as a major "network-neutral" participant in the Internet, Comcast has an obligation to do its part to help bridge other networks through its own, to help connect customers globally, and help complete the connections that otherwise would have to be routed through someone else's data pipes.
In any case, as such a major ISP, it is hard to understand why Comcast should have any concerns regarding the availability of their bandwidth. Only two realistic scenarios comes to mind: 1) Comcast is short on bandwidth, or 2) as a public company, Comcast must answer to their shareholders, who want to know why some profits are being sucked up into paying for bandwidth due to these "less important" file sharing services. In either case, it points to Comcast not truly being network-neutral, and to an even greater need for regulation of this market to prevent such abuses from recurring.
As an oddity, the Reuters article quoted Steve Bannerman, vice president of Narus Inc., "a supplier of network intelligence software to ISPs, including AT&T Inc, but not Comcast", almost in a defense of what Comcast is doing. As Bannerman stated, "U.S. ISPs are not preventing anybody from getting to the applications,
but they are preventing some users of P2P services from hogging all the
bandwidth and slowing down the experience for other users."
We found it very interesting that Bannerman would be quoted because his company not only develops analysis software for use by ISPs, but also software that can be used by ISPs to interfere with certain types of data transfers such as
international VoIP calls (please note, this article contains some profanity, but does also contain unique perspectives on Narus, which is why we're linking to it). It seems fitting then, that Narus would rush to the defense of Comcast.
Still, why did Reuters fail to see this conflict of interest? And why is the AP being made to look like the bad guy? And why do so many people, the U.S. Congress included, seem not to care about such a thing as Network Neutrality?
Well, we do, anyway. At Canvas Dreams, while our network routers come preconfigured with packet shaping software, we have all of these services shut off. We have no interest in limiting our customers' access to data so long as it is legal and not endangering anyone. That, in our minds is what "Network Neutrality" is all about -- "responsible data freedom." Not the watered-down version that Comcast and Narus would have you believe.
We will continue watching this article as it develops, and would encourage you to review the Terms of Service from your own ISP, just to ensure that you are not being limited with regards to your own data access rights.
Best regards,
David Anderson
Principal, Canvas Dreams LLC
