data discrimination
Latest
Verizon can now throttle top five percent of bandwidth hogs, downres multimedia transfers
Nice timing, Verizon. Just as thousands -- possibly zillions -- of smartphone users are pondering the switch to Big Red for Apple's iPhone 4, the carrier has slipped in two critical policy changes that are apparently effective immediately. Tucked within loads of fine print in a new PDF that surfaced on the company's site, there's this: "Verizon Wireless strives to provide customers the best experience when using our network, a shared resource among tens of millions of customers. To help achieve this, if you use an extraordinary amount of data and fall within the top 5 percent of Verizon Wireless data users we may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand. Our proactive management of the Verizon Wireless network is designed to ensure that the remaining 95 percent of data customers aren't negatively affected by the inordinate data consumption of just a few users." To our knowledge, this is the first time that VZW has taken a notable position on throttling, and the link to its stance on net neutrality (as it applies to wireless, anyway) is fairly obvious. What's most interesting to us is the five percent of data users figure; the top one or two percent isn't a huge amount, and there's a good chance that bandwidth abusers are up in that echelon. But we're guessing that quite a few business travelers will fall within this particular range, and given that VZW now holds the right to throttle data for your existing billing cycle and the next one... well, good luck gritting your teeth and lasting through that two-year contract. In related news, the company is also implementing optimization and transcoding technologies in its network, which is a politically correct way of explaining that it can downres any multimedia you try to send through Verizon's pipes. Head on past the break for the full quote.
Google and Verizon publish joint policy proposal for 'an open internet'
UPDATE: We've done a full breakdown of the proposal right here -- go check it out! Back in October of last year, Google and Verizon came together in order to provide an intense amount of corporate support for the FCC's then-fledgling net neutrality push. Today, said push has turned into quite the monster, with a recent court ruling asserting that the FCC doesn't actually have the authority to impose net neutrality. Since then, a cadre of telecommunications firms have banded together in one form or another to attempt a compromise (and slyly get what each of them really want), and today the Big G and Big Red have taken the stage together in order to publicize a well-thought out policy proposal for "an open internet." Both firms seem to agree that web users "should choose what content, applications, or devices they use," and they both want "enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" -- and yeah, that definitely includes prioritization and blocking of internet traffic, including paid prioritization. In an odd twist, what seems to be happening here is that both Google and Verizon are actually in favor of more government oversight on the internet, but they want that oversight to be beneficial to consumers. In other words, more regulations from the feds to enforce fewer regulations imposed on you from your ISP. Get all that? Where things really get interesting is when they touch on the wireless angle; essentially, they're admitting that the very proposals they are putting forth for wireline shouldn't apply to wireless just yet (aside from the whole "transparency" thing). It seems that the prevailing logic is that there's simply not enough spectrum for this idyllic "play fair" scenario to truly work, so fewer restrictions would be necessary for the wireless internet space to blossom as the wireless side already has. Moreover, we get the impression that these guys feel the wireless space as a whole is simply too competitive right now to withstand any red tape. The proposal also mentions that, if passed into law, the FCC would have the ability to fine "bad actors" (read: misbehaving ISPs) up to $2 million for breaking any of these "open internet" stipulations, and naturally, both outfits are highly in favor of the National Broadband Plan taking hold, moving forward and getting broadband to places that are currently using a strange mixture of used canisters and rope to check their inbox.
FCC to propose new net neutrality rules disallowing data discrimination
Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may stop the likes of Comcast from discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Cox follows Comcast down the data discrimination road
It's a sad day for Cox internet subscribers, 'cause if the FCC or some other almighty agency doesn't step in soon, your traffic could be slowed. The carrier has just announced a rather significant update to its data management policies, as it lays out plans to test a system next month that will "give priority to Internet traffic it judges to be time-sensitive, like web pages, streaming video and online games." We're also told that "file downloads, software updates and other non-time sensitive data may be slowed if there is congestion on the local network." Thankfully, "streaming video" was listed in the category that'll supposedly get first dibs on available bandwidth, but one always has to wonder what kind of juju is going on behind closed doors when a plan such as this is announced. If all goes well in the Kansas / Arkansas test markets, the system could be rolled out to all Cox internet customers (business users notwithstanding) by the year's end. Lovely.[Via HotHardware]
Comcast to revamp congestion management policy by year's end
It's no secret that Comcast has already put a stop to the most extravagant of download parties (all while charging more for its TV services), but for those still wondering what was to come of all the data tampering going on earlier this year, here's the final spill. According to an e-mail just sent out to customers, Comcast will be "switching to a new network congestion management technique by the end of the year." The new approach will focus on "managing network congestion only when and where it may occur," and obviously it completely replaces the current technique. As predicted, Comcast asserts that only the heaviest of users will even notice that it's watching their pipeline like a hawk, but it remains to be seen what kind of backlash the new throttling methods will / won't have. Hop on past the break for the memo in its entirety.[Thanks, M.N.]
Comcast cool with FCC ruling, will just slow all of your traffic now
First off, you've got to be kidding us. Okay, now that we've got that out, get a load of this. After the FCC told Comcast earlier this month that its data discrimination tactics weren't kosher, the provider has decided to react by simply slowing all internet traffic on its heaviest users. More specifically, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, stated in a recent interview that the top internet speeds for "targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing." Right now, this may not affect you one iota, but what's to happen when your kid spends his summer sucking down content on the VUDU / Hulu / etc.? We can think of quite a few reasons to legitimately use a huge chunk of bandwidth, and having Big Provider keep watch and determine when enough is enough frightens us just a wee bit.[Via CrunchGear, image courtesy of Kansas]
FCC rules against Comcast, now what?
The FCC finally acted on Comcast's "data management", finding against the company because it had arbitrarily decided which applications subscribers would have access to. Of course, the judgement did not include a fine, and while it enforced a policy for open access to the internet, it doesn't seem to do much for possible bandwidth caps. Comcast does have stop its blocking practice by the end of the year, and provide details to the commission on what exactly it's done so far, and to customers on whatever it plans to do in the future. With online video distribution growing more ubiquitous and even Comcast working with BitTorrent-style technologies like GridNetworks on how to deliver HD over the internet, we're sure we haven't heard the last of this.Read - Commission Orders Comcast to End Discriminatory Network Management Practices (Warning: PDF link)Read - Comcast Statement on FCC Internet Regulation DecisionRead - Verizon Statement on FCC's Comcast Decision
FCC chief supports sanctions against Comcast for data discrimination
You may not remember so vividly the fiasco surrounding Comcast's data meddling ways unless you were directly affected, but FCC chief Kevin J. Martin is looking out for us all by backing sanctions against the carrier in a stand for net neutrality. Essentially, Mr. Martin isn't asking that Comcast be fined; rather, he wants the provider to "change its practices and give the commission more details on what it did in the past." Essentially, he's aiming to establish a standard that will "make it difficult for an ISP to discriminate against users based on what they want to do online," which we couldn't possibly support more. Of course, there's nothing saying that sanctions will indeed be levied against Comcast, but whatever happens, we'd love to see a precedent set that forbids providers from tampering with those 1s and 0s.[Thanks, Matt]
Comcast sinks money in P2P video-delivery startup -- imagine that
After being accused of slowing traffic on peer-to-peer applications and eventually fessing up at least somewhat to controlling throughput, Comcast has went and sunk some cash into a P2P video-delivery startup. Seattle-based GridNetworks announced this week that the mega-corp would make "an unspecified investment in the company and collaborate on developing so-called peer-to-peer file-sharing techniques that are friendly to internet service providers." Outside of that, what the deal means for either party has yet to be fully revealed, but regardless of future plans, one can't help but chuckle at the glaring irony of the whole ordeal.
Comcast backs off BitTorrent, will continue to manage internet traffic
Although Comcast has been beating around the proverbial bush about its data-meddling ways, it seems the pressure from the recent FCC investigation efforts have forced it to play nice. Reportedly, the firm is getting set to (begrudgingly, we presume) announce that it will "stop targeting BitTorrent on the internet." More specifically, the cable company will purportedly "boost broadband capacity" in order to make things speedier all around, but details on this tidbit were unsurprisingly absent. Nevertheless, BitTorrent has also agreed to make its software "more efficient," but those hoping that Comcast would leave well enough alone are in for even more disappointment. The outfit still plans on managing traffic on the 'net (standard practice, we know), but Tony Werner, executive VP and CTO, noted that it was "working hard on a different approach that is protocol-agnostic during peak periods."[Thanks, Mike and Kenneth]
EFF claims that Comcast is still meddling with data
According to a report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Comcast has yet to relinquish its data discriminating habits, and users attempting to share content via P2P could still face slowdowns and unexpected delays. Of course, Comcast's Charlie Douglas proclaimed that the firm "does not, has not, and will not block any web site or online application, including peer-to-peer services," but followed up by stating that it did engage in "reasonable network management to serve all of its customers with a good internet experience." The EFF, however, saw things differently. During its own tests, it was reportedly able to confirm conclusions drawn earlier this year by the AP, and it also exclaimed that Comcast was "essentially deploying against its own customers techniques more typically used by malicious hackers." Pretty strong words, to say the least, but we're curious to know if the continued Comcast bashing is indeed legitimate. So, dear readers / Comcast users, are you still (or have you ever, for that matter) experiencing sketchy P2P performance, or is this all just one overblown mess?
Coalition urges FCC to halt Comcast's data tampering
Just a fortnight after the AP called Comcast out for tampering with some users' ability to swap files over P2P networks, a coalition has formally asked the FCC to stop the operator from interfering with such activity. The petition reportedly asks the Commission to "immediately declare that Comcast is violating the FCC's policy," and it's being supported by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Media Access Project and professors at the internet practices of the Yale, Harvard and Stanford law schools (among others). Separately, Free Press and Public Knowledge are filing a complaint that asks the FCC to demand a "forfeiture from Comcast of $195,000 per affected subscriber." It's also said that this will be the "first real test of the FCC's stance on Net Neutrality," but there's no telling how long the Commission will wait before acting on the filings.
Comcast fesses up to traffic delays
Following AP reports published last week that painted Comcast in a less-than-positive light for apparently stifling BitTorrent uploads, the company has come clean (somewhat, that is). Reportedly, the firm did admit to "delaying" some subscriber internet traffic, but stated that any hiccups were "temporary and intended to improve surfing for other users." More specifically, Mitch Bowling, senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, was quoted as saying that Comcast utilized "several network management technologies that, when necessary, enabled it to delay -- not block -- some peer-to-peer traffic," but that doesn't exactly jive with the AP's findings. Nevertheless, Mr. Bowling also stated that the problem was "unintentional and due to a software bug [saywha?] that had been fixed." So with that being said, are any of the afflicted users out there still seeing issues, or has all this negative attention really resulted in a change of heart?
Comcast engaging in data discrimination, claims AP
ISPs throttling or downright banning access is certainly not unheard of outside of America, but for Comcast customers fully expecting an unadulterated portal to the intarwebs, the AP's latest findings may cause some serious kvetching. Reportedly, the Associated Press has "confirmed through nationwide tests" that Comcast is indeed "actively interfering with attempts by some of its high-speed internet subscribers to share files online." Deemed the "most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a US internet service provider," the outfit seems to be stifling BitTorrent uploads (but not downloads), and spokesman Charlie Douglas even went so far as to confirm that the company utilizes "sophisticated methods to keep web connections running smoothly." Granted, we're not shocked at all that Comcast is engaging in traffic shaping, but as of now, it has yet to come clean about its apparent involvement in hindering P2P uploads. So, dear Comcast users, have any of you noticed any such shenanigans going on?[Thanks, Jerry]
