Is "broadband" becoming "broadbanned" at Comcast?

In what is being described as "the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider," Comcast has been caught blocking upstream peer-to-peer Internet traffic on its cable network.

The Associated Press tested Comcast's network and found that many upstream peer-to-peer file transfers were being blocked. The news organization observes that if "widely applied by other I.S.P.'s, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella file-sharing networks."

"While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies," the news agency added, "BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content."

Some analysts estimate that peer-to-peer networks—links directly between users, as opposed to centralized server-based services like, say, Portfolio.com—account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of all Internet traffic.

The A.P. attempted to access a digital version of the King James Bible using BitTorrent from computers in Philadelphia and San Francisco. It found that Comcast blocked two of three file transfers, leading one snarky Web commenter to ask: "Why does Comcast hate Jesus?"

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told the A.P. that the company uses "sophisticated" methods to "manage" its network, and to make sure bandwidth, or capacity, is properly allocated. The company has indicated that it views peer-to-peer traffic as less "timely" than other traffic, such as email.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," Douglas added.

While that is literally true because users still have access to the application, the A.P. found that Comcast was blocking uploads of complete BitTorrent files.

Advocates of neworknetwork neutrality said the experience illustrates the importance of keeping the Internet free and open to all.

"Today's news about Comcast restricting its customers' Internet traffic is the latest example of the ability of broadband providers to make unilateral, non-transparent decisions about what consumers can send and receive over the Internet," says Markham C. Erickson, Executive Director and General Counsel to the Open Internet Coalition.

"Without federal rules of the road to provide boundaries to prevent discriminatory behavior, consumers do not know whether the Comcast example is the whole of the problem or the tip of the iceberg.

"What else is being blocked?" he adds. "What unilateral decisions are being made? Congress must act to answer these questions, protect consumers, and reestablish rules that preserve an open Internet."

On peer-to-peer networks, people need to upload the content so that others can download it. In other words, almost by definition, no uploads, no downloads.

Although rumors of Comcast blocking peer-to-peer traffic have been circulating in tech circles for some time, the A.P. probe is the first definitive evidence that widespread blocking is occurring.

The A.P. found that Comcast uses technology similiarsimilar to that produced by a Canadian company called Sandvine, which regulates and "directs" peer-to-peer traffic.

The revelation of Comcast's data discrimination comes against the backdrop of a fierce debate over "network neutrality" raging in the corridors of power from Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill.

For years, big broadband companies have been hinting that because the own the "pipes," they should have the right to decide who sends what content through them. They also assert a right to charge more to give priority to some content or block distribution of other.

Former AT&T chief executive Ed Whitacre captured the broadband providers' position when he famously declared in BusinessWeek:

"[Google and Yahoo] would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

Whitacre has a point. The broadband companies have spent a lot of money building out these networks. They "paid the piper," Whitacre and others argue, so they should be able to "call the tune." The news that Comcast is currently blocking peer-to-peer traffic is evidence that at least one broadband company is starting to make good on the industry's veiled threats to "manage" content on their networks.

Needless to say, against this backdrop, Google's rumored desire to build a nationwide—or even global—wireless network resonates.

Net Neutrality advocates argue that the Internet has exploded into a global communications phenomenon creating massive wealth precisely because it has developed in an open way.

If broadband companies have the ability to discriminate against certain content providers, advocates argue, innovation will be stifled because the Web will lose the meritocratic flavor that has propelled the best products—like Google—to the top of the heap.

One extreme scenario of network discrimination would be a situation where a company like Comcast inked an exclusive deal with, say, Yahoo, to provide Web search to Comcast customers. In theory, Comcast would be able to literally block its customers from accessing Google, or perhaps charge them a premium to access Google search.

This prospect has the broadband companies hearing cash registers and seeing dollar signs, and the content and services companies—basically any firm that wants to deliver content or services through the "pipes"—feeling very concerned.

That's why both sides have deployed small armies of lobbyists to Washington in an attempt to influence lawmakers and regulators currently mulling legislation and regulation that would require net neutrality—or prohibit broadband companies from discriminating against certain content providers.

Byron Dorgan, the influential Democrat from North Dakota who sits on the Senate Commerce Committee, said this week that incidents where broadband companies discriminate against certain types of content, "[demonstrate] the need to pass legislation keeping the Internet free."

Net neutrality proponents reacted swiftly and furiously to the news that Comcast is blocking peer-to-peer uploads.

"This is the latest in a series of bad examples of how big broadband companies are treating consumers and abusing their power," Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn said in a statement.

"Comcast has already been exposed for setting secret limits on how much bandwidth consumers can use, and then cutting them off," Sohn added. "Now Comcast has been shown to use hacker-like technology to cut down on all types of peer-to-peer traffic, again without telling consumers what the company is doing."

"Add this incident to the Verizon behavior on text messaging and AT&T's censoring of the Pearl Jam concert and it's clear that the policymakers who kept saying, 'Wait until there's a problem' before acting on legislation to keep the Internet free and non-discriminatory have to wait no longer. We have a problem, and it's time to act on it."

Free Press, a Washington-based group that advocates Net Neutrality, also criticized the move.

"We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard told the A.P.

Google network security engineer Paul "Tony" Watson told the A.P. that Comcast was probably acting legally, but he said the move could be a harbinger of a future in which the Internet—and our relationship to it—could be very different that it is now.

"It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an I.S.P. connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet."

by Sam Gustin