By Drew Clark
Comcast’s terms of service and other consumer broadband service documents make no mention of any restrictions on the use of “peer-to-peer” applications like BitTorrent, or of any Internet network management.
AT&T and Time Warner Cable, two of the other big broadband providers, do mention restrictions on “peer-to-peer” services in their consumer broadband documents. Verizon Communications does not mention the phrase, according to an analysis of the four broadband providers conducted by DrewClark.com.
Unlike Time Warner Cable, Comcast fails to mention any “management,” “network management” or “reasonable network management” of its consumer broadband service in its documents.
Of the four providers, however, Comcast makes the most extensive warning to consumers against the “excess” use of bandwidth. For example, Comcast declares that the consumer “shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user’s use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network.”
The issue of Net neutrality has resurged because of Comcast’s actions limiting subscriber bandwidth available through the peer-to-peer software application BitTorrent. Although the company has conceded delays on traffic in and out of peer-to-peer applications, it defended these on the grounds that they were reasonable network management tools.
Whatever the legality of Comcast’s network management of BitTorrent, another question should loom large. Is Comcast violating what might be called the “missing” Net neutrality principle?
In other words, are consumers receiving true and accurate service plan information about what is being offered and sold as Internet service by Comcast?
On Thursday, a coalition of non-profit groups led by Free Press and Public Knowledge filed a formal complaint (PDF) at the Federal Communications Commission. It charged Comcast with violating several of the Net neutrality principles in the FCC’s August 2005 policy statement (PDF) designed to “encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.”
In particular, according to the August 2005 principles, “consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice” (principle one), and “consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice” (principle two). Comcast violated those principles through “methods [that] deliberately discriminate against peer-to-peer traffic,” write Free Press and Public Knowledge. They also claim that Comcast undermines the competition that consumers are entitled to have among broadband service providers.
At first, Comcast refused to admit that it blocked Internet access to peer-to-peer applications, in an October 19 story reported by the Associated Press’s Peter Svensson.
Then, speaking on background in a New York Times blog post by Brad Stone, a company official admitted that Comcast “uses data management technologies to conserve bandwidth and allow customers to experience the Internet without delays. As part of that management process, he said, the company occasionally – but not always – delays some peer-to-peer file transfers that eat into Internet speeds for other users on the network.”
Now, in response to the formal complaint, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said that the provisions of the FCC’s Net neutrality policy are constrained by footnote 15, which reads, “The principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management.”
“We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy,” David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast, said in a Thursday statement. “The FCC’s Internet policy acknowledges that the Web is subject to reasonable network management. The commission clearly recognized that network management is necessary by ISPs [Internet service providers] for the good of all customers.”
What is striking is that none of Comcast’s broadband service documents make any mention of either limitations on “peer-to-peer” applications, or the use of “network management” practices on the purchased Internet service.
The only use of the term “management” in any of three broadband documents is about the Comcast Home Networking Service, which refers to the “gateways, routers, or wireless cards rented from or otherwise supplied by or on behalf of us [Comcast] to you [the consumer].” These three documents are Comcast’s Terms of Service agreement for residential services, Comcast’s high-speed Internet Acceptable Use Policy, and the Comcast Abuse Policy.
Comparable terms of service and acceptable use documents of each of the four largest carriers – AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable – were examined by DrewClark.com for the adequacy of the statements’ disclosure of issues that may bear on consumer broadband use.
While Comcast omits the phrase “peer-to-peer” entirely, AT&T says, “You agree that the Service is not to be used to host peer-to-peer application that you are not actively using.” Time Warner Cable says that it “may use various tools and techniques in order to efficiently manage its networks,” including “managing network resources through techniques such as limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions a user can conduct at the same time.”
Besides “peer-to-peer,” the phrases searched for in the documents included the use of network “management,” whether “bandwidth” was deemed to be “excessive” or the “exceed” a particular limitation, whether there was a ban on personal “servers” or the “resale” of broadband service, and whether there were any restrictions on bandwidth for “USENET.” The analysis is available here.
The Federal Trade Commission highlighted the principle of consumer access to service plan information in June 27 Net neutrality report. That report raises consumer protection and deceptive trade practice issues, noting that there are remaining “questions involving the clear and conspicuous disclosure of material terms of broadband Internet access.”
The report specifically references what former FCC Chairman Michael Powell called the “freedom to obtain service plan information,” or the last of the four Internet freedoms he articulated in a February 2004 speech (PDF). This fourth principle was dropped when the FCC, under Chairman Kevin Martin, issued its four Net neutrality principles.
FTC Commissioner Jonathan Leibowitz said it was important to protect “consumers from having to choose Internet service plans without sufficient information about those plans from broadband providers.”
21 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Bennett // Nov 6, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Go read the Comcast Comcast Agreement for Residential Services, where you will find the following (HSI = High Speed Internet access):
b. Prohibited Uses of HSI. You agree not to use HSI for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, “Web hosting” or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network.
BitTorrent acting as a seed (after the download is complete) is a server. That’s forbidden on Comcast Residential Accounts.
This is old news and has already been discussed at great length
2 Brett Glass // Nov 7, 2007 at 12:55 am
Indeed, BitTorrent not only acts as a server but consumes more than the maximum amount of bandwidth allocated to the user. (It does this because, even after the network throttles the user’s traffic, more and more “zombies” come pounding on the door, looking for files and consuming resources.) Because it’s abusive, the ISP does have a right to block it.
3 Tony Lauck // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:42 am
Richard is right. Comcast has disallowed the use of servers. Reason enough to use a competitor if given a choice.
Comcast has my sympathy. They are in a bind. After reading Jim Martin and Mike Westall’s papers it is apparent that DOCSIS does a poor job of scheduling upload bandwidth, a difficult problem in the HFC network architecture used by cable services, but one that could and should have been foreseen.
4 Eric Ralph // Nov 7, 2007 at 9:02 am
Richard
Would you categorise other peer-to-peer technologies, such as (as I understand it) Apple’s iChat (a Skype-like program) as involving use of servers (as per your characterisation of BitTorrent)?
5 Adam // Nov 7, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Richard would categorize an elephant a lemur if it allowed him to attack network neutrality advocates. He’s a professional blog troll.
Seeding a BitTorrent file is not hosting a server.
Hosting a server is hosting a server.
6 WISPA » What’s the TOS look like? // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm
[…] Drew Clark looks at the terms of service of Comcast, TW Cable, Verizon and AT&T — the 4 largest “ISP’s” in the US. The review of the TOS is to determine if they talk about bandwidth limits, network management, and application restrictions. Give it a read here. […]
7 Richard Bennett // Nov 7, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Drew, it should be abundantly clear that you need to revise your post. You made a classic error in on-line search, choosing the wrong search term. Comcast doesn’t have an issue with peer-to-peer generally;
BitTorrent isn’t throttled when it’s running in peer-to-peer mode, engaging in what’s called “tit-for-tat” file swapping. It only gets cut back when it enters server mode, and classic servers such as ftp suffer the same fate.
BitTorrent falls under the category of “or other similar applications” in the agreement I posted above.
So your reputation’s on the line Drew, do you admit to making a mistake in your choice of search terms or do you stonewall?
8 Drew Clark // Nov 7, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Richard, the story above does indeed reference Comcast’s inclusion of a ban on the use of “servers.” Indeed, above you can read that I did conduct a search of the phrases — in addition to “peer-t0-peer” and network “management” — excessive “bandwidth,” whether there was a ban on personal “servers” or the “resale” of broadband service, and whether there were any restrictions on bandwidth for “USENET.” The portion of the ToS document to which you link is in fact excerpted in my analysis to which I prominently linked.
I appreciate your comments, and this debate, and I think that it is indeed getting at the central issue in the matter: whether an application like BitTorrent is indeed “a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, “Web hosting” or other similar applications….”
9 Richard Bennett // Nov 7, 2007 at 3:36 pm
In your opening paragraph you claim:
“Comcast’s terms of service and other consumer broadband service documents make no mention of any restrictions on the use of “peer-to-peer” applications like BitTorrent, or of any Internet network management.”
The second part is easiest to dispense with because Comcast doesn’t need to belabor the obvious: customers expect a reliable network, and that means a managed network.. It goes without saying, but like silly warning labels on cigarette packs, if enough lawyers complain they’ll eventually have to state the obvious.
On the other point, do you understand the difference between BitTorrent engaging in download/upload tit-for-tat and BitTorrent seeding? The complaints about Comcast’s management had to do with the seeding mode only, not the peer-to-peer mode.
It doesn’t strike me that this is a subtle point, why are you unwilling to clarify your post?
10 Drew Clark // Nov 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Richard, I admit that I am not familiar with this distinction between “tit-for-tat” and “seeding.” All I can say is that I will look into it and get back to you (and everyone) when I have looked into it some more….
11 Richard Bennett // Nov 7, 2007 at 7:03 pm
That’s fair enough, Drew. In your research, look for the following terms: “seed”, “leech”, and “peer.”
In classic terminology, there are two basic modes of file transfer, “client-server” and “peer-to-peer.” I assume you know that “client-server” means, as it’s the method that the traditional file transfer protocol. ftp, uses.
What may not be immediately apparent is that peer-to-peer involves each computer acting as both a client and a server; its normal mode is to find peers with which it can literally trade portions of a file. These portions are sent in both directions, in other words. I send you the first part, and you send me the last part. Then we can find other peers with different parts of the file and trade with them.
At some point, we both have the entire file and have no more need to swap with anybody, but we’re willing to allow others to download it from us. That’s called “seeding”, and the computers who download without offering anything in return are called “leeches.” And in this mode, the seeds are acting as classical servers and the leeches are acting as classical clients. Every file in the BitTorrent system originally comes from a seed to a leech, because there are no peers with which to trade.
I’d refer you to a web document that explains this, but there doesn’t seem to be one that isn’t too terse to be useful or too complex to be understandable.
Good luck.
12 Richard Bennett // Nov 7, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Here’s a good place to start: http://www.bittorrent.org/bittorrentecon.pdf
It’s a semi-academic paper by the creator of BitTorrent, Bram Cohen.
13 Steve’s Tech Journal » Violations of network neutrality by Comcast and Verizon // Nov 9, 2007 at 9:16 am
[…] There’s been a formal complaint about Comcast filed to the FCC, Associated Press’s Peter Svensson (new hero of network neutrality) broke the story to mainstream media by running independent tests that showed the violations, and Drew Clark has turned his attention to the matter. […]
14 CCC // Nov 9, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I can’t believe these comments defending the providers.
“Comcast has my sympathy. They are in a bind.”
whaaa, the poor telcos and cable providers. Give me break. Or better yet, give me there monopoly and pricing power instead. I hardly call that being in a bind…
I don’t give a damn what the TOS says about servers or anything else because I don’t have a friggin CHOICE! If I want to have any service at all I have to accept the TOS from my provider because there are not any others to choose from.
THEREFORE, the provider needs to provide me neutral unfettered access to the internet or they need to lose ownership of the wires coming into my house and accross my state so that they can be used by anyone. Competition, remember the concept???
15 Eric Ralph // Nov 11, 2007 at 8:43 am
CCC–well, actually the odds are you do have a choice.
Not only are you likely to be able to get ADSL from your telco, usually a lower priced lower quality service, but also a much higher quality and much more expensive symmetric service from various sources.
It’s probably fair to say this is not effective competition (to use a term of art), but it is competition, and materially so.
More to the point, appropriating assets because you don’t like the choices offered to you is hardly likely to lead to better service.
& certainly is not competition nor will lead to it.
Inded, that experiment has been tried in various extremes and it almost always turns out bad.
16 remove the labels » Graphics, Gadgets, VoIP, Deals & Reviews » Blog Archive » Monday Morning Links - // Nov 12, 2007 at 7:48 pm
[…] need ‘Do Not Track’, just better adherence to existing guidelines BusinessWeek Comcast and Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information DrewClark.com Cablevision adds Wi-Fi service under pressure from munis MuniWireless Americans […]
17 CCC // Nov 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Huh?
So I do have a choice, but then you say its not really a choice - not effective competition.
I guess you are agreeing with me?
Encouraging competition is what is required. Appropriating certain assets may well be the best remedy to lack of competition, or better yet charging the carriers for their true value.
Requiring carriers to open up their lines to other service providers has worked extremely well in many countries. Do the telcos\cablecos own the land these wires traverse…no. As a corporation they have a responsibility to the public good and if they don’t meet that responsibility then the heck with them. They are costing our country long term competitiveness.
18 ThemePassion - Best stuff about design! » Comcast and Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:58 am
[…] Richard Mitchell wrote an interesting post today!.Here’s a quick excerptAT&T and Time Warner Cable, two of the other big broadband providers, do mention restrictions on “peer-to-peer” services in their consumer broadband documents. Verizon Communications does not mention the phrase, according to an analysis … […]
19 BroadbandCensus.com // Jul 31, 2008 at 7:36 pm
[…] Comcast and Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information, blog post on DrewClark.com, November 6, 2007 […]
20 FCC Hammers Comcast For Deception and Unreasonable Internet Practices // Aug 1, 2008 at 3:21 pm
[…] Comcast and Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information, blog post on DrewClark.com, November 6, 2007 […]
21 Technology Liberation Front » Archive » FCC Hammers Comcast For Deception and Unreasonable Internet Practices // Aug 1, 2008 at 3:24 pm
[…] Comcast and Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information, blog post on DrewClark.com, November 6, 2007 […]
Leave a Comment