After further review into Comcast’s packet-shaping conundrum, FCC’s chairman Kevin Martin, testified to the Senate today regarding the actual traffic management capabilities executed by Comcast. What does this mean for Net Neutrality?
Contrary to Comcast claims, the FCC states the broadband provider was limiting Torrent traffic outside of windows of network congestion as well as larger geographic regions. If you recall, Comcast attempted to scurry around federal regulators by lifting the throttles and will be partnering with BitTorrent Inc.
While this example is being carefully watched by the FCC — what will happen if there isn’t any law protecting Net Neutrality?
First, let’s see who has interested in supporting or opposing Net Neutrality:
Then let’s say Net Neutrality get’s abolished, Comcast would *love* to block all outbound torrent traffic and tighten the ‘tubes to only allow Web, Mail, IM through. These restrictions could be overridden with a fee. Realistically, this would probably be executed with varied tiers of service, old-school bandwidth caps, and lag-induced limits placed on rich-media Web sites like YouTube, for example.
Currently the FCC has the ability to oversee the activity of broadband networks, but does so on a case-by-case basis and hasn’t been able to stand by on a law that preserves the values of the Internet as a whole.
If Comcast did indeed cook the books when it came to P2P traffic limits; it only opens the question for all other providers more. If you want to see if your ISP limits your connection (one of the powers prohibited with Net Neutrality laws), check out this study authored by Azureus on the “reset” (disconnect) rates [PDF Warning] from users over a period of a month.
Support Net Neutrality to keep the Internet equal, accessible and enjoyable for all. To learn more about Net Neutrality, check out SaveTheInternet.com.
{ 3 comments }
f__k comcast. commie bastards
You should double check to see if Vint Cerf really *is* on side of net neutrality. I suspect this table is incorrect. During the late 90s, I was a member on “MCI One”, MCI's internet provider. Vint Cert was head of this department. Under Vint Cerf, emails were limited (you couldn't send more than 20-or-so emails in an hour. Doing so, you would get suspended until you called back and spoke to customer tech that didn't even know their email admins were doing this and pointing this out to them, they still would not check it for themselves. Also, MCI One ran their own usenet servers, and posting on it would not propagate outside their own servers. So replying to a message on it, only other MCI users would see your post. That makes the post worthless if you're posting a message answering a question from a user from another ISP. Also, there were very low posting limits on usenet … so you couldn't post binaries larger than 20 or 30KB. Thats why its doubtful that Vint Cerf would be in favor of net neutrality. His real actions put him firmly on the extreme side of limiting bandwidth and free access to internet resources.
Interesting. I would be willing to venture that Cerf merely was a cog in the machine of older business models of charging per x-amount of emails, usage, etc.
Comments on this entry are closed.