Comcast and BitTorrent Become "Net-Neutral" Friends

Comcast (CMCSA), the cable giant, and file sharing web site BitTorrent seem like natural enemies. The cable company wants to keep "broadband-hogging" BitTorrent from slowing down its system, and BitTorrent wants its users to be able to use as much broadband as they need to get files through its system, super-fast.

The cable company and web company have been at odds since Comcast said it blocked BitTorrent's traffic at peak times because BitTorrent consumed so much of broadband space that it slowed down internet speeds across Comcast's system.

But now, we have a monumental collaboration between the two. Comcast will no longer discriminate against specific applications like BitTorrent, which takes up half of Comcast's bandwidth. And, the companies will work together to transport data efficiently and to improve consumer experience.

That means BitTorrent is willing to change its software's structure so it doesn't take up quite so much space. One reason Comcast was biased against sites like BitTorrent was because they effectively cost cable companies more by taking up so much bandwidth. BitTorrent's president tells me that by building a better network together, Comcast will be able to get a bigger bang for its buck.

Comcast likes this collaboration because it should help avoid government involvement and regulation. The issue of whether broadband service providers can be biased against certain sites has been a hot-button one in Congress.

The buzz phrase is "net neutrality," and the question is whether broadband service providers can be forced to be "net neutral"-- i.e. give access to their broadband to all sites equally, even if some are hogging it and slowing down the system for everyone. This is the kind of collaboration that will allow the likes of Comcast to be net neutral without slowing down their systems.

BitTorrent's happy if it can give its users fast service. It also happens that BitTorrent, which started out as an illegal file sharing service, is increasingly trying to legitimize its now-legal approach.

This compromise also comes as file-sharing software is increasingly used to distribute digital video. If this is going to be the fastest way to get online video in the future, Comcast's smart to get with the program instead of trying to block it.

Comments

[ChamberPost]

This initiative proves that the marketplace is working and that net neutrality regulations are unnecessary. The ability to engage in e-commerce is critical for U.S. businesses, and the broadband market must be driven, not by government fiat, but by advances in technology, competition among the many wireline and wireless broadband providers, and consumer choice.

www.chamberpost.com/2008/03/marketplace-...

[bck136]

The skeptic in me can't let go of the possibility that this is just for show. Net neutrality ever goes away, and they're right back to throttling at their own discretion. Along side all the other ISPs, who'd love the abiltiy to determine what can and can't pass through their lines.

Chamberpost:

Hate to call someone out like this, but I think your view of net neutrality is tragically short-sighted. Comcast is simply backing down to pressure here, pressure which came in large part from existing net neutrality legislation.

Also, it seems like you don't fully understand the intent of net neutrality. Existing net neutrality laws only state that all information sent over the Internet be treated equal - all packets of data must be transferred through our (I say "our" because the tax payers paid for it - Google 200 billion dollar "broadband scandal") network infrastructure without being subject to the scrutiny of anyone between us and the information we intend to receive. It effectively represents the Internet's First Amendment...

Make no mistake, an Internet without neutrality is good for Comcast, all other ISPs, and no one else. The vast majority of the growth we've seen on the Internet has come from the fact that it is its own encapsulated free market. Anyone can start a business online from anywhere, using a third party hosting provider, and have a chance at global success. Current neutrality laws make the Internet a construct of the people who use it. Repealing those laws would hand the companies who sell us access the right to also determine how we can use it, and this simple fact is far worse for the growth of technology and the advancement of e commerce than a law which prevents the telecom industry from acting like the telecom industry...

A lack of net neutrality threatens the freedom of the Internet, and all that talk about how it inhibits innovation is telecom propaganda. Compare the lists of companies standing behind each side:

Over at handsoff.org (a phony grassroots site funded by AT&T, IIRC), you have a long list of telecoms, some no-name companies, and "The American Conservative Union."

While over at savetheinternet.com, you have Ivy League professors, the founder of craigslist.com, Google, the ACLU, the Electronic Retailing Association, a handful of educators, a myriad of private technology advocacy groups (professionally and as hobbyists), and Tim Berners Lee, one of the people who helped found the Internet as we know it.

The simple fact is that the Internet belongs to the people who use it, and net neutrality keeps telecom greed from getting in between that. "New Media" pages like myspace or facebook, worth billions to themselves, would not have been possible without net neutrality.

[bck136]

dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

[User 155013]

"Existing net neutrality laws only state that all information sent over the Internet be treated equal(ly) - all packets of data must be transferred through our (I say "our" because the tax payers paid for it ..."

Beg to differ.

1) What the telcos want is to be compensated fairly for the use of their bandwidth. Currently, you can start a business that sells toilet paper online and uses minimal bandwidth or you can start another version of YouTube that uses massive amounts of bandwidth and you would be charged exactly the same amount for your connection. This is like renting an apartment and demanding to be charged the same price for a huge penthouse as you would be for the storage space beside the boiler. If I have a business that runs one truck over the road or one that runs fifty trucks over the road, I pay proportionally for expenses and taxes. Net neutrality just means that after the first truck, the others are expense free. File sharing programs will merely increase the traffic in all directions and clog the pipes in a new form

Comcast and other providers charge subscribers different rates for different upload and download speeds, why not charge based on volume of bits transferred. This doesn't prevent anyone from getting on the internet, only from hogging everyone else's bandwidth without paying for it proportionally. That "extra" charge will go toward expanding the pipes and allowing more traffic to flow at competitive pricing.

2) Taxpayers haven't paid for the current "pipes" through which data passes - the original experiment may have been funded by DARPA but now it is all the big telcos and other businesses that provide the average user's bandwidth and pay for infrastructure improvements.


"The simple fact is that the Internet belongs to the people who use it, and net neutrality keeps telecom greed from getting in between that."

Apartments don't "belong" to the people who rent them and in most places existing laws don't allow the "users" to set the usage rates - competition does that.

We are slowly sliding into the morass of socialism in every aspect of our society. This "we the little people" vs "them - the greedy capitalist pig businesses" net neutrality argument is just another example. Let competition work things out. Keep the government out of it.

[bck136]

User 155013:

“Currently, you can start a business that sells toilet paper online and uses minimal bandwidth or you can start another version of YouTube that uses massive amounts of bandwidth and you would be charged exactly the same amount for your connection.”

This isn’t true. Companies which use vast amounts of bandwidth already have to pay more for what they use. Websites such as Google or Youtube have bandwidth costs in the millions per month as is (and rightly so – I’m not arguing that the telcos shouldn’t be allowed to sell higher levels of tiered service). Companies like Comcast already are compensated for the use of their bandwidth. Are you suggesting we allow the telcos to add per MB surcharges on top of the existing $2+ million Youtube or Google pay per month to get the levels of service they need to reach all their users?

And you cannot really compare the Internet to any physical medium – your apartment and trucking analogies are comparing apples to oranges. No truck is free under existing net neutrality provisions, because all Internet users are paying a “toll” to use the roads. When Comcast sells Internet service at 15Mbps down/5Mbps up, they are leasing the consumer a 4 lane highway. Whether that consumer chooses to use that highway to capacity (50 to 100 trucks, or maybe just a lone Prius) is up to them under existing neutrality laws. Comcast can’t add a clause to the lease, which prevents the lessee from only using so much of the leased highway. When ISPs sell these service plans to the consumer, all they are doing is providing access to the Internet at whatever the stated capacity happens to be. It’s then up to the consumer how much or how little of that capacity gets used at any given time.

Should Comcast be allowed to lease you that 4 lane highway, only to turn around and tell you that you can only use one lane at a time? If they didn’t have the capacity to support it, why did they lease you a 4 lane highway in the first place? Isn’t that fraud?

“Comcast and other providers charge subscribers different rates for different upload and download speeds, why not charge based on volume of bits transferred.”

As a consumer, would you genuinely accept this pricing structure from your ISP? If companies started trying to price Internet access the same way they price text messaging by cell phone, it would be a disaster.

Also, how would this work with web-based companies who already pay millions per month for the bandwidth they need to reach all of their users? Should they then pay more on top of that, based on how much data they transfer to the millions of people who are also paying extra to receive that data? This is the part wherein the big telcos win, while everyone else loses.

The article I linked to above by Tim Berners-Lee summarized what net neutrality is really about very well with this one line:

“If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.”

[bck136]

Also, with respect to the ownership of the lines, I’m not talking about the initial DARPA project which became the Internet of today. I’m talking about this:

www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

All the money and tax breaks given to the telcos as incentive to upgrade their networks to true broadband 15 years ago went right into their pockets. And now, they are trying to claim net neutrality as their enemy, and the cause for why they cannot upgrade their infrastructures while our nation falls behind. Look at how broadband works in Japan and parts of Europe – they’ve had true broadband for years. The telcos are holding progress hostage, by using it as leverage to get net neutrality repealed. Net neutrality doesn’t cripple advancement, ISPs overselling capacity is the real problem here. Abolishing network neutrality just makes it easier for them to continue overselling without upgrading the old copper lines.

And you can’t compare ownership of an apartment building to ownership of the Internet. The Internet is a construct of the people who use it, bloggers, web designers, entrepreneurs, etc. It’s not any more or less “owned” by any one person than any other marketplace.

“We are slowly sliding into the morass of socialism in every aspect of our society. This "we the little people" vs "them - the greedy capitalist pig businesses" net neutrality argument is just another example.”

You can’t be serious. Net neutrality is socialist now? And while I don’t normally subscribe to the “greedy capitalist pig businesses” thought process, I make an exception for the telecommunications industry. Their history of fraud and corruption is far too deep to ignore. Repeal net neutrality, and the telcos will ruin the Internet the same way they ruined every other medium of communication. All this talk about competition is hogwash, unless you genuinely believe you are getting fair service on your cable TV, cell phone, and/or land-line long distance plans.

[bck136]

I need to make a correction and can't edit. This sentence:

Comcast can’t add a clause to the lease, which prevents the lessee from only using so much of the leased highway.

should read:

Comcast can’t add a clause to the lease, which prevents the lessee from using the entire leased highway.

I must have gotten confused in my wording when I initially wrote that.

[cheesecake]

good lord i hope they never go to per Byte pricing, my bill would be astronomical, since i bittorrent so much :)