The FCC's censure of Comcast
Jul. 28th, 2008 10:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksSo, I usually like The Register, but I think they got it wrong here when
they talk about the FCC action against Comcast and what it means. The
Register article does note that it's a victory for the Net Neutrality camp,
which is a good thing, but the tone of the article seems rather negative and
says that this ruling hampers the ability of ISPs -- large and small -- to
manage their network traffic. I believe this is simply untrue, and here's
why:
The whole thing started when Comcast started blocking bittorrent file
transfers. Bittorrent is just a protocol, though, and while it is
used for illegal sharing of copyrighted material (movies, music, video
games, whatever), it has lots of legitimate uses, too, such as
decentralizing the downloading of actually free software like most Linux
OSes, and actually free music, like what the guys at OCRemix do. Comcast
did two things wrong, really, and the FCC is only calling them on one of
them. What they did was forge internet packets in order to make
bittorrent users believe that their transfer had been interrupted. (For the
tech savvy, Comcast was sending Reset packets that were crafted to look like
they came from the remote source so that the bittorrent app would stop the
transfer.) Comcast then claimed that they weren't blocking the traffic, and
when later they admitted that they were "managing traffic" they
didn't explain to people what they were doing or how. Now, I
think that the first crime, forging packets, is the more serious offense,
but the FCC is just calling Comcast on not being up-front with their users.
Essentially, the FCC says the only thing Comcast did wrong was not tell
people what they were doing.
The Register article has a few lines about how the FCC censure threatens
"business modles that rely on a super-fast lane" for transferring video or
real-time data. That's nonsense, the FCC decision does no such thing. It's
not impossible (or even really difficult) to logically divide a connection
so that you have a 'super-fast' lane (presumably for 'premium' customers who
pay extra), and the FCC decision just says that if you're going to do that,
tell people. That's not hard and it's not going to break anyone's modle.
It MIGHT make you easier to compete against, if you're using 'network
managment' as a way to over-sell your capacity without the need to improve
your infrastructure (*pointed look at Comcast*), but I don't think that's a
problem.
they talk about the FCC action against Comcast and what it means. The
Register article does note that it's a victory for the Net Neutrality camp,
which is a good thing, but the tone of the article seems rather negative and
says that this ruling hampers the ability of ISPs -- large and small -- to
manage their network traffic. I believe this is simply untrue, and here's
why:
The whole thing started when Comcast started blocking bittorrent file
transfers. Bittorrent is just a protocol, though, and while it is
used for illegal sharing of copyrighted material (movies, music, video
games, whatever), it has lots of legitimate uses, too, such as
decentralizing the downloading of actually free software like most Linux
OSes, and actually free music, like what the guys at OCRemix do. Comcast
did two things wrong, really, and the FCC is only calling them on one of
them. What they did was forge internet packets in order to make
bittorrent users believe that their transfer had been interrupted. (For the
tech savvy, Comcast was sending Reset packets that were crafted to look like
they came from the remote source so that the bittorrent app would stop the
transfer.) Comcast then claimed that they weren't blocking the traffic, and
when later they admitted that they were "managing traffic" they
didn't explain to people what they were doing or how. Now, I
think that the first crime, forging packets, is the more serious offense,
but the FCC is just calling Comcast on not being up-front with their users.
Essentially, the FCC says the only thing Comcast did wrong was not tell
people what they were doing.
The Register article has a few lines about how the FCC censure threatens
"business modles that rely on a super-fast lane" for transferring video or
real-time data. That's nonsense, the FCC decision does no such thing. It's
not impossible (or even really difficult) to logically divide a connection
so that you have a 'super-fast' lane (presumably for 'premium' customers who
pay extra), and the FCC decision just says that if you're going to do that,
tell people. That's not hard and it's not going to break anyone's modle.
It MIGHT make you easier to compete against, if you're using 'network
managment' as a way to over-sell your capacity without the need to improve
your infrastructure (*pointed look at Comcast*), but I don't think that's a
problem.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 06:29 am (UTC)...
I do admit some bias. :-D
Larry "Liontamer" Oji
Head Submissions Evaluator, OverClocked ReMix
Creator, VG Frequency
Staff, VGMdb
http://www.ocremix.org
http://www.vgfrequency.com
http://www.vgmdb.net