When Does An ISP Cross The Net Neutrality Line?
from the up-for-debate dept
Not that we feel particularly sorry for them, but broadband providers have really put themselves in a bind by working so many people into a lather over net neutrality. They've made it very difficult for themselves to actually follow through on their hardline rhetoric about blocking sites or degrading traffic of content providers that won't pay them, and this heightened awareness or hyper-sensitivity to net neutrality continues to dog them. For instance, Comcast apparently plans to launch a music and video download service (via Tech Trader Daily) at the end of the month. The service will reportedly send media files to both users' computers and their set-top box, which seems like a nice feature, but it will also apparently ignore bandwidth caps on a user's connection, making downloads from the Comcast service potentially faster than those from outside download stores. Unsurprisingly, this gets labeled as potentially being in "the grey area of Net Neutrality" -- which is actually pretty accurate, since it's really not clear that Comcast is doing anything wrong. As long as Comcast is not actively blocking or degrading other services' traffic, and giving people what they pay for (meaning if somebody's paying for a 5 Mbps connection, that's what they're getting), is there a problem if their own services run faster? It doesn't really seem like it, but of course, nothing is quite so straightforward. What happens if a user is paying for a level of service on a DSL or cable line that's not fast enough for something like VoIP from an external provider, but the ISP's own service, which ignores the bandwidth cap, will run perfectly? Again, that doesn't seem like it's such a problem, because with or without the ISP's service, the external service still wouldn't be able to run on such a slow pipe -- and the pipe is slow because the consumer has chosen a particular level of service. In many ways, this is the crux of the net neutrality argument: telcos and cable operators want to be able to offer their own services over their networks, and be able to use their ownership of the network to make their service more attractive. On the face of it, this seems okay, when the only limiting factor on outside services is the level of service for which the consumer has chosen to pay. Of course, there's an easy way around that: make the only level of service they offer ridiculously slow, then ignore that cap for internal services and traffic from content providers that have paid up. While that's a possibility, again, it's a plan that would destroy a broadband ISP's business.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What happens when Comcast degrades everyone else's speed in order to pipe out the video to those few who need it faster? How would you identify it? Would you be able to argue that while paying for 1.5 Mb downloads, you were only getting 256 Kb because your traffic had lower priority than upsell services from Comcast?
This type of service almost defeats itself. If it becomes popular and someone is downloading music or movies at any given time, then your internet service becomes less valuable to every one else. Is it worth the cost of the customers you will lose for crappy service, or the cost of having to upgrade your infrastructure so that you do not lose them?
I'm glad I don't have to answer these questions (yet).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What? That's how it works now on Comcast. They make it clear that your speed isn't guaranteed (due in part to the kid next door downloading movies all day and night).
What this is about now is not slowing down competitors (which I disagree with) but in speeding only their own network up at apparently no extra charge (which I don't disagree with). They're removing caps that were normally there for regular usage in order to provide their services faster. Of course, to the Average Joe it will seem like everything else is slower once he's experienced the faster speed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On DSL the bandwidth cap isn't adjustable by the ISP unless the ISP also happens to be the telco and even then they have major limitations.
Most cable companies hookup a second cable modem to handle the VOIP traffic so that your standard traffic doesn't suffer so that's really not an issue either, and besides, VOIP traffic isn't all that bandwidth intensive overall; even my slowest 128k could handle it and with 256/384+ upstream (actually nearing 11mbs SYMETRICAL in my area right now) you have plenty of bandwidth to spare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are loads of technicalities beyond this, like my university shaping traffic for realplayer packets which are important only to the students studying remotely, and how existing services should not be degraded, but if the problem is video and audio, and the internet is to get rid of monopolies, there is no point in myspace spending extra to get preferred treatment on verizon's network alone, and if there is... we might as well not have the internet.
I like the me-owning-the-last-mile-of-the-fiber-coming-to-my-house idea, I get more bandwidth, and the ISP's can concentrate on something other than preserving their monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Think of it this way, VOD takes an insane amount of bandwidth and yet you and every one of your neighbors could watch it simultaneously and never get a single skip or glitch in the video; they can do the exact same with your VOIP, etc. and no one would be the wiser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If not than this isn't an issue and your perspective is moot as the higher priority packets don't affect the lower priority ones because the network bandwidth can handle the traffic.
However, if the answer to this question is 'yes,' than you make a very good point.
Anyone have an inside perspective on the speed of their pipes and whether or not this service will affect consumer connection speeds?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for the priority issue, if Comcast gives unlimited downloads and uncapped speeds for their service then they should allow customers to get the same unlimited downloads from another service (like Netflix). Failing to do so would likely lead to lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comment #9
BTW - I logged into my cable account - I'm only 1900% over my availiable download "cap" of 60GB, mind you I've got a roommate and a wireless access point as well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then why prioritize at all? The fact that they want to prioritize their own packets means that THEY believe that it will deliver higher speed to chosen customers. If their bandwidth was sufficient, then there would be no need to prioritize any packets at all, since the downloads would be the same for everyone, including what come from their service. Their bandwidth is finite, and they can see that delivering video along the same pipes as normal internet traffic might saturate it.
And after writing all of this I go back and realize I have gotten way off the point of the story. Packet priority was never mentioned, but I do believe it will be done on the backend without a major press release. Cable in particular uses a "shared bandwdith" model right? I have DSL, but everyone I have spoken to concerning cable internet tells me that their 1.5 Mb connection slows to a crawl (modem speeds) every workday at 5:30 PM. Thats when everyone gets home from work and checks their email. Email is very small compared to video content. Good luck on those days when a new release is put on their servers. You might not mind if your neighbor gets a little more bandwidth to get a movie, but what if your entire neighborhood was downloading the new feelgood J.Lo movie on release day, or weekend, or however long it will take to download it 30 times on your circuit?
I'm not for or against this. I just have technical knowledge with a lot of ISP's delivering a lot of different services with my job and I don't like it when companies use this kind of technology to give you less than you think your paying for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
let
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Solution
Thank you US. Government for caring more about the telcos than the people. yay?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In either cable or DSL networks, increasing the maximum speed available to one or more end users may require more capacity in whatever part of the network is shared. Otherwise congestion may rise. Comcast has basically decided that the benefit to lifting the cap for its video and music sales is worth the cost (which it will incur as more congestion, more capacity, or a combination).
From the perspective of its customers, it might be a bad thing of Comcast decides to incur the cost in the form of more congestion. But since Comcast has not obligated itself to deliver any particular level of performance, its customers have no recourse against Comcast other than to cancel their service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In other words, it's not a problem!
Comcast actually isn't part of our organization, but I'll still say, that could be a great service. If it ignores your caps, then consumers will actually be getting MORE than they're paying for. Gotta like that. And as for how this works out in the aggregate, well, there's a reason the telecom industry has been investing so heavily in bigger pipes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: To be or not to be neutral
Now as for neutrality, I am suspecting that Verizon actually hinders all connections originating from the Comcast network, and probably other competitors, and here is why I think this. Verizon has an infospeed bandwidth test page that I am sure most of us have seen. It is based in Reston, VA. My Comcast speed is rated at 16/1 but I usually get about 25/1. When I test using Verizon's test page it cannot even download any faster then 700K. But I can open another page at the same time and test on the Wash DC Speakeasy site and see my full bandwidth uncompromised. Either Verizon works against the Comcast speed or they just suck at networking, maybe both ! This isn't even for a service, this is just a speedtest.
The cable company should not be considered a net neutrality offender when they offer a special deal to their customers, heck ! you don't even have to call in or order any upgrades, they just give them to you without asking. Verizon will just sit tight with you at their lowest rated packages to see how long you will pay them too much money when they offer new customers the better deals.
I don't trust Verizon obviously, I would rather pay more to a cable company for a valuable service than to deal with rude and incompetent customer service reps at Verizon that don't even want to talk to you anyway. We'll see how much more they offend the truely higher speed internet world as we go along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]