New Legislation Could Eventually Lead to ISP Throttling Ban

An anonymous reader writes "Comcast's response to the FCC may have triggered a new avenue of discussion on the subject of Net Neutrality. Rep. Ed Markey (D — Mass.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, introduced a bill yesterday whose end result could be the penalization of bandwidth throttling to paying customers. 'The bill, tentatively entitled the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, would not actually declare throttling illegal specifically. Instead, it would call upon the Federal Communications Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether or not throttling is a bad thing, and whether it has the right to take action to stop it.'"

Which is worse?

[Archangel Michael]

While I hate Comcast's man in the middle "throttling" of internet packets (Bittorrent), I'm very concerned with the government getting involved. It almost feels like Alien vs Predator, "Who ever wins, we lose" scenario. Because the government will screw it up worse than it is now.

This is wrong.

[halivar]

I believe ISP's throttling bandwidth is wrong, but the answer is for consumers to punish them in the marketplace, not for government to regulate the internet. It will set a horrible precedent (IMHO).

Re:This is wrong.

[slapyslapslap]

But how much choice do consumers really have? Most can only chose from one or two providers. Hard to punish them in the marketplace with those realities.

FCC ?

[l2718]

First, giving the FCC more discretionary authority is not a good thing to do. They are very receptive to lobbying (broadcast flag, mandatory DRM ...) and industry corruption (employees that leave directly to cushy jobs in the industry they were supposedly regulating just recently). Secondly, I'm not sure where the Federal interest is in regulating businesses -- that the internet as a whole is international?

This is really a contract issue. If their TOS promise "unlimited bandwidth" then they should provide that. If the TOS say "we connect you to the internet" they should not be able to block random ports. And sending fake packets is already a computer crime (at least, if I sent fake packets to Comcast servers I would probably be charged with attempted DOS or something). So I would support a "contact terms mean what they mean" law -- not giving the FCC more discretion to help the industry to screw the customers.

Re:This is wrong.

[Billly Gates]

The problem is lack of competition thanks to the deregulation of the last decade or so that was supposed to enable more FIOS and DSL service paid for by our tax dollars.

Instead the telecoms said thank you and blocked competitors. Remember the amount of ISP's you could chose from back in the 90's compared to today? My point exactly.

You have 2 ISP's. DSL or cable and both throttle your traffic.

So what are you supposed to do?

Re:This is wrong.

[Tridus]

I can't wait until my options are cable monopoly throttling, or phone monopoly throttling.

There are some problems the Government actually is capable of solving better then the market. The market in this case dictates that throttling is good for the bottom line, and ending net neutrality is even better for the bottom line.

You said it.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Unless it is a case of a monopoly that has spun out of control, the free market is a better solution than government intervention.

And yes, it is a monopoly which has spun out of control. Or rather, an oligopoly.

How many ISPs do you have to choose from? Unless I go dialup, I've got exactly three. Fortunately, one of them claims to believe in net neutrality, and they're the one offering fiber, but that's extremely unusual. Unless you're prepared to move to where I live (a small town in Iowa), chances are, your only real option to "let the market decide" or to "vote with your dollars" is to decide that you don't really need this Internet thing anyway.

Video on Demand competition

[QuietLagoon]

Comcast wants to kill off P2P because it is competition for VoD. Follow the money.

Re:Which is worse?

[SanityInAnarchy]

If the government was smart, they'd turn right around and say "OK, you're now a regulated monopoly. This is the maximum you can charge. We know you don't need more to expand your network because we already gave you money to expand your network!"

Re:What about the other end?

[Qzukk]

Well hopefully, they'll say "if you come out and say that you throttle after X gb transferred or throttle throughput at Y mbps, or throttle protocol Z, then we'll allow it." It'll put an end to "unlimited" bandwidth, secret caps, and so on, and force the companies to actually participate in a market without fraud, which is probably the best we can realistically hope for.

Most likely they'll say "LOL sounds like a FTC issue to us, I don't think we have the right to do anything, take your complaint to..." and then give you directions to the wrong place in true bureaucratic style.

Re:Which is worse?

[Shakrai]

As a Comcast customer, the first thing I think will happen if the Government passes this is that Comcast will turn around and say that they need to raise my rates to expand their network to the capacity they need to support everyone running peer-to-peer apps

Yeah, cuz they are really hurting [marketwatch.com] right now and clearly have no cash available for network upgrades.

Re:Which is worse?

[plague3106]

As a former customer of Comcast, let me tell you something: THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE YOUR RATES NO MATTER WHAT!!

Re:FCC ?

[spiritraveller]

Secondly, I'm not sure where the Federal interest is in regulating businesses -- that the internet as a whole is international?

Internet access is a facility of interstate commerce comparable to your telephone line. It is possible to have a single-state communication over the internet, but it's very unlikely. Even if you send an email to your neighbor, it will probably end up going through servers in other states.

This is really a contract issue. If their TOS promise "unlimited bandwidth" then they should provide that. If the TOS say "we connect you to the internet" they should not be able to block random ports. And sending fake packets is already a computer crime (at least, if I sent fake packets to Comcast servers I would probably be charged with attempted DOS or something). So I would support a "contact terms mean what they mean" law -- not giving the FCC more discretion to help the industry to screw the customers.

In most places, broadband providers have either a monopoly or a duopoly. The nature of the service is that they use easements over public and private property (telephone and cable lines) to provide a service where there is little if any competition. And don't forget, the internet is an interstate/international system that relies on standards. If the Federal government can't enforce standards, who will? The states? The UN? No. As much as we rightfully fear Congress-critters writing legislation to govern the internet, the fact is that it affects all of us now (even them), to the point that things like sending false connection reset signals is something that Congress (or with its authorization, the FCC) should be allowed to regulate.

If you just say that it has to be in the contract, then Comcast will change the contract in the next billing cycle. Because they have a monopoly/duopoly, the market cannot correct it.

If the FCC does the wrong thing, Congress can overrule them. But if you leave it to Comcast to change its contract, that's exactly what it will do, and we will be screwed.

Re:This is wrong.

[Firehed]

Yeah. I'll show them by switching to... shit, they're the only option.

If there was competition in the marketplace, I'd agree with you. But alas, I don't even have the option between DSL and cable, let alone FTTH. I get a choice between Charter Communications cable and dial-up (most likely long-distance), which isn't exactly a competing service.

Granted I live in a pretty small town, but that doesn't change the fact that my options are cable and no connectivity. I don't even get enough cell signal at home to have EDGE be my only source of web access, as painful as that option would be were it an option.

Re:What about the other end?

[GiMP]

You have an interesting question. Although the situations you describe can have a negative impact on customers, some provider throttles make more sense. For instance, SMTP throttling. Some providers are throttling SMTP traffic to limit spam. For some, this is a much better option than the alternatives of blocking it altogether, transparently filtering it, or taking the risk of being unable to remove a spammer before they succeed in sending millions of messages.

Personally, as the operator of a hosting provider, and as a consumer, I see both sides of the argument. As a customer, I enjoy the opportunity to use VoD, VoIP, etc... but as a provider, I understand the occasional need to apply certain limitations in order to protect the customer and the network.

Re:Which is worse?

[gad_zuki!]

Well, I think the outcome is predictable (not that i think this bill has a chance of passing)

1. Comcast will just move to a tiered plan. Expect chronic users to pay 100-200 dollars and month and people metering their usage to they dont hit the limit. Casual downloaders will pay the current price.

2. Any shaping will lead to potential lawsuits. Suddenly your VOIP wont work as well because bitorrent has the same priority as VoIP. Whoops!

3. Lots of lawsuits. Did your webhost or email provider "shape" your packets in any way?

4. QoS dies because everyone legal department decides its too much of a risk to continue to use.

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like some senators might actually be listening to their constituents

Hardly. First off, he's from Massachusetts, so his constituents can't tell the difference between an LED and a bomb. (And, yes, his district is right next to Boston.)

But secondly and more importantly, no one cares about throttling. Throttling is not only fine, it's necessary.

What people care about is non-neutral throttling, where protocols are throttled based on destination. People care about out-right blocking, where certain protocols aren't throttled they're actively blocked. People care about Comcast actively interfering with connections.

If Comcast were merely throttling BitTorrent during periods of high demand, no one would care. But they're not. They're actively attempting to block it at all times regardless of demand.

So Rep. Markey (he's a representative, not a senator) is going after the wrong thing. Throttling is important. It's necessary. Bandwidth is a limited resource and at some point some things should have higher priority.

That's not the real issue. The real issue is non-neutral throttling, where connections to non-Comcast partners are slowed, and outright blocking, where Comcast actively prevents certain protocols from working.

So, yet again, Massachusetts goes after the wrong problem and in the end is likely to make things worse off for everyone as a result.

We need a new law for this?

[BigRedFish]

When I buy a quart of milk, the jug contains a quart of milk. If I try to pour out this quart of milk all at once, it does not slow to a trickle after the first half-pint and then announce that I've reached my daily pouring limit because the dairy doesn't have the cows, feed, and trucks required to actually produce the whole quart it sold me. Not if everyone who bought milk wants to drink it at the same time.

Whatever law covers that situation with my quart of milk not being a whole quart, can also quite well handle the situation where I buy 1.5Mb/second bandwidth, and then the second doesn't actually contain all 1.5Mbits, because the company doesn't actually have the infrastructure it's selling access to. ISPs already throttle, that's why they have different speed tiers for us to buy, same as milk is offered by the pint, quart, half-gallon, or gallon.

What we're really talking about here, is that the ISPs are lying about how much milk is in the jug. If our 1.5Mb pipes have to drop to 384K when everyone downloads at the same time, then we have 384K pipes, and they should be labeled and priced as such. Throttling based on content is just a way to legitimize weights-and-measures fraud.

Re:The end reult will be...

[Charcharodon]

Internet bandwidth is not a scarce resource, the price will not double or tripple. Just like everything else these days companies are trying to come up with ways to justify price increases while decreasing what they deliver. They want to sell you "unlimited" bandwidth even though they want to either block what you can send or put a cap in the name of "fair use". Conservation pushes are a crock whether they be for electricity or internet bandwidth, they are about maximizing profit with no new input on the part of the supplier.

If they can reduce useage by 10 percent and raise prices by 10% and then sell the extra they've saved to new customers they've just double billed the customer by 20% but given the customer nothing in return. If they doubled their bandwidth prices would fall by 20-50% and they'd have to sell more at the lower price or give you more for the same price, great for the customer, but not for their bottom line. This same Mikey Mouse game is being played by the power companies in the States. Their goal is to force useage as close to 100% of capacity as possible by limiting new plants (Do you really think a bunch of tree huggers or government red tape would stop companies when there was money to be made?) the amount of new generation being brought online, or by taking plants offline for "maintenance" to keep everything in a constant state of scarcity and of course ever increasing premium prices.

The government should tie the companies hands to keep them from doing traffic shaping and hold them to the things they advertise and then don't deliver.

ISP FRAUD

Unlimited service....but with fair use

Up to 8Mb connection!....but only if you live within 1/4 mile of the exchange on brand new wire, be happy that you get a 1.3Mb connection on the stuff we strung with a government grant in the 60's

DSL connections....but you have to get our phone line service too even though the only thing it has in common with DSL is the wire running to your house.

Unlimited long distance service in the US for only $20 a month....even though we use the technology that most chat programs do voice for FREE worldwide. We forgot to mention that the technology that we send your paid long distance service over, yeah it's the same internet we are billing you for, thanks by the way for paying 3 (phone, long distance, ISP) times for the same service, and if you don't mind we want to restrict you from using the internet the way you want so we can continue to take money out of your pocket.

Re:What about the other end?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you drink a nice tall glass of yourself? It said "unlimited" when I signed up, and I am just testing that amount of bandwidth. If *you* aren't taking advantage of what you paid for, it is *you* that is screwing yourself, not others.

Freedom of the Press == Freedom of the Router

[LongestPrefix]

One by one, standard router configuration commands are getting attacked as undemocratic. The "consumer advocates" wanted to argue that if you're somehow connected to my router, I should be prevented from configuring my router as I see fit!

First, the net-neutrality folks attacked the policy-map command and the whole idea if Differentiated Services (i.e., IETF DiffServe). policy-map lets you configure prioritization or other special treatment of packets. [cisco.com]

Now they're attacking the rate-limit and traffic-shape commands that let me control how many packets I forward [cisco.com] of a particular type.

Don't I own my own router? Why should I be forced to forward packets that I don't want to forward? Why should I be forced to prioritize or not prioritize if I don't want to?

Donating money to to political campaigns is considered "free speech" [wikipedia.org]. By the same logic, shouldn't it be "freedom of the press" for me to decide which packets I want to forward through a router that I own?

Re:What about the other end?

[sjames]

Personally, I find it shameful that a new law has to be passed that essentially says "you know those silly old truth in advertising laws? Well just this once, we've decided to actually enforce them once in a while".

Perhaps I'm just old school or something, but at one time, any network connection would have a committed rate, burstable (or not) and an SLA. What "broadband" provides these days is 0 bps committed rate burstable to 1-6 Mbps and practically no uptime guarantee. What they *advertise* is clearly meant to make the customer believe it's 6Mbps committed with 0 downtime.

This business of metering transfer rather than rate is for the most part a scam to make the customer think they're getting a lot more than they actually are. 1 Gigabyte of transfer sounds like a lot to people but actually translates to a rate of 3 Kbps (Yes, not even 9600 baud) and skips over discussing factors such as uplinks oversold by a factor of well more than 100 and the various dirty tricks to keep you from actually using the bandwidth you're paying for.

The ugly part is that because there has been practically no enforcement of truth in advertising, even companies that may WANT to be truthful are forced to either lie or get out of the market. If you advertise LIMITED service, even if the limits are actually higher than the secret limits of the competing "unlimited" service (and no dirty tricks to keep the customer from actually reach the limits) you will go out of business.

When ISPs say that net neutrality will bring the network down, what they really mean is that they will be forced to actually admit that they've oversold their uplink, the poor performance really IS their network, not some anonymous "out on the net" problem and they won't be able to double dip by charging two parties full price for carrying the very same packet.

Meanwhile, all of this sweeping under the rug has prevented market forces from applying downward pressure on the price of real committed bandwidth and forcing a more appropriate balance of price vs. SLA which is why we're supplying 0 SLA home broadband with expensive five nines uplinks rather than several dirt cheap three nines uplinks in spite of TCP/IP being designed to support it.

The big incumbants do NOT want the market to go that way because it would lower barriers to entry and force them to work harder for their revenue.

Re:What about the other end?

[Qzukk]

hogging all the bandwidth

If you bothered to read his post instead of spewing inane invective, you'd see that by advertising the contention rate, you'd have enough information to be able to subscribe to an ISP where you don't have to put up with "bandwidth hogs".

Funny, though, if you're not using the bandwidth, then I don't see where it hurts for someone else to be using the bandwidth, and frankly neither does the ISP, since that's how they justify over-subscription in the first place.

Throttle at advertised max bandwidth, OK

[gr8scot]

But throttling any lower than the advertised max should be ruled illegal; the only valid reason for a Comcast customer's download speed to be less than 4Mb [or 3, or 8, depending on locale -- advertised bandwidth] is that the remote server is not able to upload that fast. Comcast has made that representation, repeatedly and should be held to it, legally. But that is a trifling offense compared to the following.

Last month, the Commission tasked its Wireline Competition Bureau to seek comments on allegations by P2P provider Vuze that Comcast's throttling practice -- intended to curb high-bandwidth file sharing that Comcast believes to typically be unlicensed -- is actually cutting into its legitimate business.

What Comcast does or does not believe about traffic based on generalizations is completely irrelevant. They simply have no business monitoring content, whatsoever. They are not police, and are not qualified to behave as "deputized investigators" or any other type of law enforcement assistant. Owners of copyrights are responsible for their own investigations of alleged infractions. "Everybody's doing it" is not accepted as an excuse for the crimes of copyright or patent infringement, and should also not be accepted as an excuse for violation of privacy rights by third parties. The police need a warrant to inspect any customer's communications for unlawful content, not a survey that says some percentage of P2P traffic is illegitimate. "Reasonable suspicion" must be established individually, not collectively, and not by association. And Internet Service Providers have no place making inferences about what their customers are uploading or downloading, other than "data."

Comcast, let me explain to you the exact nature of the service you are contracted to provide: get the data where I tell you to send them, do so at the rate advertised, and get the hell out of my way. That is all.

Re:What about the other end?

[severoon]

Wait...the post you're responding to doesn't really make a point that's relevant to TFA. TFA is about ISPs throttling bandwidth to customers, not servers throttling bandwidth to a particular endpoint. These are totally different things.

If I'm hosting a server and I throttle the number of requests I'll respond to from a particular IP, (IP range, etc), that's just part of how my app is working. If the end user is paying me for a particular service then these kinds of terms are determined by that agreement and have nothing to do with the ISP that customer happens to be using. If there is no contract between me as the app provider and the customer, then I can throttle away. Just like Google could take down its main search page tomorrow and everyone that doesn't have a specific contract with Google for search services would be SOL (like me, and likely you).

On the other hand, as a consumer if I'm hitting the web and paying my ISP to deliver on their promises and they're not meeting the terms of their own contract...that sucks and I shouldn't have to pay for it. I'm tired of these connections being advertised as maximum speeds. I don't care about a potential maximum rate of 6.0Mbps if I'm only ever able to actually get 1.5Mbps burst and 768Kbps sustained. These ISPs should be forced to advertise minimum guaranteed rates. Forcing them to compete on that number would be beneficial to consumers, especially if the law allowed consumers to hold them to their promises and required them to provide consumers an easy way to monitor their speed to hold the ISP accountable.