Category: Networks

The Soul of Kevin Martin

Declan McCullagh takes a good look at the legal and political issues around the FCC’s pending wrist-slap of broadband carrier Comcast in FCC probably can’t police Comcast’s BitTorrent throttling:

If FCC enforcement against Comcast is illegal, why would Chairman Martin call Friday’s meeting? Only he knows for certain, but one explanation is that if the FCC is embarrassed when slapped down by a federal appeals court two years hence, Martin will have long since departed to a lucrative partnership at a law firm or private equity firm. (This is a customary exit path for FCC chairmen: Newton Minow went to Sidley Austin; William Kennard went to the Carlyle Group; James Quello went to Wiley Rein, named for ex-chairman Richard Wiley, where equity partners made an average of $4.4 million in 2006.)

Friday’s ruling may also end up as a cautionary tale for AT&T and Verizon, which as recently as last month seemed to be egging on the FCC to take action against their cable industry rival. But the same activists that have targeted Comcast before the FCC no doubt realize that AT&T’s terms of service limit “peer-to-peer applications”; Verizon Wireless flatly prohibits them; Verizon’s Fios service blocks incoming port 80. Another term for those network management practices is “Net neutrality violations.”

Motivation is interesting, and Declan’s probably right that Martin has a trick up his sleeve. My concern about this action is the precedent it would set. If the FCC is allowed to impose any madeup-on-the-spot rule that it fancies on companies with multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments, I can’t see the financial markets being too willing to part with the cash to engage in the continual upgrade that broadband networks require. The financial markets can tolerate many kinds of risk, but the political or career ambitions of Young Turk commissioners with the power to impose arbitrary sanctions isn’t one of them. Martin should sober up and look at the big picture instead of pulling the trigger on Comcast.

Don’t regulate, collaborate

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has written one of the most sober and sensible essays on the Internet’s present technical crisis in today’s Washington Post. With so many members of the Commission willing to jump into the breach with ex post facto rules and regulations, it’s good to see that there are some on the inside of the regulatory machine who have a sense of the Internet’s history. See Who Should Solve This Internet Crisis?

The Internet was in crisis. Its electronic “pipes” were clogged with new bandwidth-hogging software. Engineers faced a choice: Allow the Net to succumb to fatal gridlock or find a solution.

The year was 1987. About 35,000 people, mainly academics and some government employees, used the Internet.

This story, of course, had a happy ending. The loosely knit Internet engineering community rallied to improve an automated data “traffic cop” that prioritized applications and content needing “real time” delivery over those that would not suffer from delay. Their efforts unclogged the Internet and laid the foundation for what has become the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

The Internet has since weathered several such crises. Each time, engineers, academics, software developers, Web infrastructure builders and others have worked together to fix the problems. Over the years, some groups have become more formalized — such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board. They have remained largely self-governing, self-funded and nonprofit, with volunteers acting on their own and not on behalf of their employers. No government owns or regulates them.

The Internet has flourished because it has operated under the principle that engineers, not politicians or bureaucrats, should solve engineering problems.

Today, a new challenge is upon us. Pipes are filling rapidly with “peer-to-peer” (“P2P”) file-sharing applications that crowd out other content and slow speeds for millions. Just as Napster produced an explosion of shared (largely pirated) music files in 1999, today’s P2P applications allow consumers to share movies. P2P providers store movies on users’ home and office computers to avoid building huge “server farms” of giant computers for this bandwidth-intensive data. When consumers download these videos, they call on thousands of computers across the Web to upload each of their small pieces. As a result, some consumers’ “last-mile” connections, especially connections over cable and wireless networks, get clogged. These electronic traffic jams slow the Internet for most consumers, a majority of whom do not use P2P software to watch videos or surf the Web.

At peak times, 5 percent of Internet consumers are using 90 percent of the available bandwidth because of the P2P explosion. This flood of data has created a tyranny by a minority. Slower speeds degrade the quality of the service that consumers have paid for and ultimately diminish America’s competitiveness globally.

The Commissioner makes many of the points that those of us who’ve been involved in the development and refinement of Internet protocols for the period since Internet Meltdown have made: new applications have broken the Internet before. After the FTP crisis was averted by Van Jacobson’s patch, the Internet very nearly ground to a state of gridlock on the early 90s when HTTP 1.0 came along and opened too many TCP virtual circuits. That problem was averted by HTTP 1.1, which used fewer VCs more efficiently. We didn’t need government mandates to solve the problem, as everyone was motivated already.

The P2P crisis is already the focus of intense industry collaboration in the P4P Working Group sponsored by the DCIA and in the IETF. Whatever orders the FCC issues on the complaints against Comcast are going to be less helpful than these collaborative efforts, and will in all likelihood retard the course of the Internet’s technical evolution.

Don’t regulate, collaborate.

Technorati Tags:

Regulate first, ask questions later

Press reports on the FCC’s vote on the Vuze/Free Press petitions against Comcast suggest a peculiar outcome, where FCC orders Comcast to stop managing BitTorrent and to also tell the FCC how and when it manages BitTorrent:

The FCC would require Comcast to stop slowing or blocking access to certain online applications, mostly video file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. The company would also be required to provide more disclosure to consumers about its network management practices and provide more details to the FCC about how it’s blocked or slowed traffic in the past.

If the FCC is convinced the management is wrong, why ask for the data? And why only ask for the data after nearly a year of investigating and three raucous public spectacles?

Vuze recently changed its business model, providing search service for piracy sites such as Mininova and Pirate’s Bay:

In addition to Vuze.com, the new search box gives users the option to search third-party web sites, with Mininova, Sumotorrent, BTJunkie and Jamendo being preselected. With the exception of Jamendo, all of these also feature unlicensed content. In fact, Mininova was sued by Dutch rights holders just a few weeks ago. But Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa told me that he doesn’t think his company could run into trouble by searching these sources. “We have considered the existing legal framework and feel comfortable about the addition of this feature to our new release,” he told me, adding that rights holders could use the search to add their platforms to the mix as well.

We have a curious outcome where the FCC is ordering carriers to provide free bandwidth to pirates.

Small, wireless ISPs are hit harder by this order than the large corporations. If they can’t manage BitTorrent, they’re out of business. Brett Glass is in that situation.

See my recent FCC Comments here.

More as this develops, but for now enjoy the debate at DSL Reports, where the nefarious scheme to allocate bandwidth fairly first emerged.

John Dunbar’s AP story is here. Pretty straight coverage.

Nate Anderson’s Ars Technica is not so straight, tilting toward an editorial.

Blog talk is here, thanks to the good folks at GoogleTM.

Adam Thierer gives props to the big gov’t-pro regulator team at TLF:

It is a difficult thing for me to say, but I am man enough to do it: I must congratulate our intellectual opponents on their amazing victory in the battle to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. With the Wall Street Journal reporting last night that the FCC is on the verge of acting again Comcast based on the agency’s amorphous Net neutrality principles, it is now clear that the folks at the Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the many other advocates of comprehensive Internet regulation have succeeded in convincing a Republican-led FCC to get on the books what is, in essence, the nation’s first Net Neutrality law. It is quite an accomplishment when you think about it.

Indeed.

Bob Fernandez covers the story in the Philly Inquirer, Comcast’s hometown paper:

Consumer and advocacy groups say action by Martin is necessary to preserve First Amendment protections on the Internet and to protect broadband consumers. Free Press, an advocacy group opposed to media consolidation, filed the complaint with the FCC. It was disappointed that Martin wouldn’t fine Comcast to send a message to the industry.

But others warn that Martin’s decision, announced at a Washington news conference, advances the FCC’s powers on the Internet without new laws.

“This is the foot in the door for big government to regulate the Internet,” said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank in Washington. “This is the beginning of a serious regulatory regime. For the first time, the FCC is making law around net neutrality.”

Net neutrality refers to the concept that Internet operators should treat all data traffic the same and not interfere with it – a subject hotly debated in recent years on Capitol Hill. Companies say they sometimes interfere with Internet traffic for practical reasons, like easing data jams.

Nobody ever mentions that unmanaged traffic causes more delay for users than managed traffic.

Upgrading to IPv6

Speaking of Comcast, the cable giant is offering an interesting proposal to the standards community concerning the long overdue transition from IPv4 to IPv6, using NATs and tunnels:

Comcast is upgrading its networks from IPv4, the Internet’s main communications protocol, to the standard known as IPv6. IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses and can support 4.3 billion devices connected directly to the Internet. IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses and supports an unlimited number of devices.

At issue is how Comcast will support new customers when IPv4 addresses run out, which is expected in 2011. Comcast can give these customers IPv6 addresses, but their home computers, printers, gaming systems and other Internet-connected devices are likely to support only IPv4.

Comcast engineers have come up with a solution to this problem, dubbed Dual-Stack Lite, which it says is backwards compatible with IPv4 and can be deployed incrementally.

Comcast outlined Dual-Stack Lite in a draft document published by the Internet Engineering Task Force on July 7. Dual-Stack Lite will be discussed at an IETF meeting in Dublin scheduled for later this month.

It’s a reasonable approach, putting the onus of dual stacks on the carrier NATs and home gateways where it belongs. It’s fortunate the IETF has companies like Comcast to give it guidance.

H/T CircleID.

UPDATE: Iljitsch van Beijnum has some further illumination on the Ars Technica blog, without using the “C” word; they don’t go for that sort of thing on Ars.

Comcast sets the record straight

In the course of pursuing its grievance with the FCC over broadband traffic management, Free Press and its allies have developed annoying tendencies to overstate the qualifications of its “experts” and to make wild technical assertions unsupported by empirical data. They pass Robb Topolski off as a “network engineer” when he was, while employed, a low-level tester of PC software. David Reed, who was in the design loop for TCP/IP in the 1970s but has gone in other directions since then, is represented as having worked continuously for 35 years on the advancement of Internet protocols. Free Press now employs Topolski and increasingly relies on him for analysis.

Comcast has finally said “enough is enough” and filed a document with the FCC addressing the inaccuracy of Free Press and Topoloski’s claims about their management systems:

• First, Comcast’s High-Speed Internet customers can and do access any content, run any application, and use any service that they wish.

• Second, our network management practices are similar to those deployed by other Internet service providers in the United States and around the world, and are reasonably designed to enable, not hinder, the high-quality user experience that the Internet Policy Statement contemplates and that competitive marketplace considerations require.

• Third, although Free Press and its consultants believe they know and understand Comcast’s network and how it manages that network, they do not, and they have made no legitimate effort to gain such an understanding (as others have recently done).

• Fourth, Comcast’s network management practices are not discriminatory and are entirely agnostic as to the content being transmitted, where it is being sent from or to, or the identity of the sender or receiver.

• Finally, Comcast’s customer service agreements and policies have long disclosed that broadband capacity is not unlimited, and that the network is managed for the benefit of all customers. Comcast’s disclosures have always been comparable to — and are now far more detailed than — almost any other Internet service provider’s disclosures.

The bottom line is this: the Internet is a web of shared communication links provisioned by statistical predictions about traffic. Any application or user which uses more bandwidth than the typical profile takes it away from others. The owner/manager of every link has a responsibility to assure fair access, and allowing applications with enormous bandwidth appetites to gobble up an unfair share of communication opportunities is a failure to own up to this responsibility.

Comcast has been charged with degrading an innovative new application, but the facts don’t support the charge. Actually, the innovative new application – P2P as presently implemented – has the effect of degrading traditional applications. Hence, P2P has to be managed.

So the only interesting questions are how. There are several members in the set of reasonable means of managing P2P traffic. The burden is on the FCC and the petitioners to show that the Sandvine system isn’t one of them, and they haven’t seriously attempted to do so.

Hiding behind wild claims and overblown rhetoric doesn’t help consumers, doesn’t protect free speech, and doesn’t improve the nature of broadband networking.

Sober analysis does, and that’s what we try to do here. Kudos to Comcast for standing up to these bullies.

Does the FCC have the authority after all?

MAP attorney Harold Feld has put together an interesting argument on the FCC’s authority to sanction Comcast over the BitTorrent management question:

If the FCC had said directly to Comcast: “If in the future evidence arises that any company is willfully blocking or degrading Internet content, affected parties may file a complaint with the Commission.” I would think we could all agree that this constituted “notice,” yes? Perhaps not notice of whether or not the behavior at issue constituted blocking or degrading — that is, after all — what the Commission determines in a complaint. But certainly if the FCC had told Comcast directly, to its face, no ifs and or buts, the above quoted line, I would hope we could all agree that Comcast had received reasonable notice that parties could bring complaints to the Commission, asking the Commission to determine whether the parties had behaved in an inappropriate manner.

Comcast rebuts this argument in a recent FCC filing.

IANAL so I don’t have an opinion on the soundness of Harold’s legal argument or Comcast’s rebuttal, but if Harold were correct, the argument would simply shift from authority to reasonable network management. The system Comcast was using made an a priori judgment that P2P was less worthy of all the bandwidth it wanted under load and unattended than interactive applications. This is not an unreasonable judgment, as a) it’s a bandwidth hog by design; and b) it was asking for more than the typical user was getting. But there are cases, to be sure, when a particular instance of P2P is not hogging, and they lead us to the empirical question about the link state at the time of the throttling. And that’s what I told the FCC in both my filing and my oral testimony.

I’m glad we have all these clever lawyers to resolve all these devious questions of authority, but wouldn’t it be simpler to know the rules in advance? That’s important because the terms like “degrade” are completely vague when we’re talking about a shared wire. Not managing P2P means that web browsers get degraded, and it makes no difference whether they’re degraded by ISP action or ISP inaction, so Comcast is screwed either way. That’s un-American.

Technorati Tags:

Liveblogging the FCC, Panel 2

See First Panel here, and the live video here.

David Farber, former FCC chief tech, and CMU:
What would you need 300 baud for? It motivated faster TTYs. We’re moving to faster networks, and that will stimulate new applications. If this going to lead to a better world, or to 1984? Don’t cut off the future with bad regulations. Big rush to restrict P2P traffic. It’s not all illegal, but it’s hard to tell. Peak loads are hard to restrict with monthly caps. Three dollar surcharge on video downloads.
Continue reading “Liveblogging the FCC, Panel 2”

Court calls FCC “arbitrary and capricious”

The Third Circuit delivered the big smackdown to the FCC over the wardrobe malfunction incident:

The court said the FCC is free to change its policy without “judicial second-guessing,” but only with sufficient notice. “Because the FCC failed to satisfy this requirement,” the court added, “we find its new policy arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act as applied to CBS.”

It also found that CBS could not be held strcitly liable for the actions of independent contractors — another argument the FCC made for its finding. “The FCC cannot impose liability on CBS for the acts of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, independent contractors hired for the limited purposes of the halftime show,” the court said.

This ruling has implications for the proposed sanctions against Comcast: both involve post-hoc rules and both involve sticking it to someone other than the bad actor. The court doesn’t approve of the FCC making rules after an incident has occurred, which is exactly what the FCC proposes to do in the cast of Comcast’s management of P2P. Notice and rule-making have to precede sanctions, not follow them.

And the bad actor notion also applies. The Court found that Jackson and Timberlake were the bad actors, not CBS. In the P2P case, the users who congested the network are the bad actors, not the operator who sought to rein them in.

Chairman Martin, note this well.

Also of interest: the Court noted that most of the complaints against CBS were junk:

The Opinion notes CBS’s research indicating that over 85 percent of those complaints came from forms produced by activist groups. Many of the protests were filed in duplicate, “with some individual complaints appearing in the record up to 37 times,” CBS asserted.

The same can be said of the junk comments manufactured by Free Press against Comcast, of course. Free Press employed the electronic equivalent of seat-warmers to flood the FCC with junk comments, to the tune of 30,000 duplicate complaints.

Recommended reading

Brett Glass has filed a very good letter with the FCC regarding the current controversy. Of particular interest is one of the “Four Freedoms”, the freedom to run any application you want:

It’s important to step back and think about the implications of this clause – the one which Comcast has been accused in the current proceeding of having “violated.”

An application (a technical term for any computer program which is not an operating system) encodes and embodies behavior — any behavior at all that the author wants. And anyone can write one. So, insisting that an ISP allow a user to run any application means that anyone can program his or her computer to behave any way at all — no matter how destructively — on the Internet, and the ISP is not allowed to intervene. In short, such a requirement means that no network provider can have an enforceable Acceptable Use Policy or Terms of Service.

This is a recipe for disaster. Anyone who engages in destructive behavior, hogs bandwidth, or even takes down the network could and say, “I was just running an application… and I have the right to run any application I want, so you can’t stop me.”

The application freedom, like the others, is limited by “reasonable network management,” which is undefined. So the real exercise is defining this term, where the operative essence of the four freedoms is “you can do any damn thing you want, except for what you can’t do, and here’s what you can’t do.” Rather than enumerate freedoms, Michael Powell should have enumerated restrictions, on users, carriers, and services.

That’s hard work, but it’s the kind of thing that serious policy-makers do. Restrictions should start with the following list:

1. You can’t lie to your customers or the public, nor can you be economical with the truth:
– You have to fully disclose terms of service in language as plain is it can be, using standard metrics and terminology.

2. The Internet is a shared facility, and no one is entitled to overload any portion of it.

3. You can’t manipulate dominant market share in to fix prices or eliminate competition.

4. You can’t act arbitrarily or without notice to terminate services.

5. You can’t operate equipment on the pubic Internet with doors and windows open to malware, viruses, and bots. If your equipment is hijacked, you will summarily be cut off.

6. No stealing.

Etc.

Some of these apply to carriers, some to users, and some to services. In a mature Internet, we all have responsibilities, not just freedoms. With great power, etc.

What’s good for Google is good for the Internet

Anna Eshoo used to be my Congressional representative, so I paid particular attention to her remarks in the recent Markey Committee hearing on Internet privacy. Frankly, she’s an embarrassment. She started her remarks by jumping all over Scott Cleland for being a shill of the broadband industry, which would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Scott started his remarks by disclosing who pays him, and I didn’t hear any disclosure from Rep. Eshoo about who’s paying her (see: Open Secrets for details of Google employee contributions to Eshoo and for Google PAC bucks. This Congresswoman has raised $3 million from PACs.)

She carried Google’s water, essentially saying: “Google is entitled to rape and pillage personal information for their own purposes, but nobody else better mess with it in the slightest way.” You can see the video of the hearing here, warts and all. Eshoo, like her colleague Zoe Lofgren (D, Google) has a place in these hearings, but it’s at the table with all the other lobbyists, not on the dias.

Aside from Eshoo, it wasn’t a totally bad hearing. Markey likes to simplify issues to the point that they’re all so black-and-white that you can’t see why they warrant discussion, but the witnesses were (with one exception) pretty clear on the fact that DPI is simply a technology, and as such has no moral significance. What matters, obviously, is how it’s used.

After all the hand-wringing, it should be clear that DPI isn’t a privacy issue in its own right because it’s simply a tool for harvesting information out of network packets. The privacy issues are solely in the realm of the information itself: who provides it and under what terms, who processes it, and who retains it. And these same issues have to be addressed for all personal information, on the Internet or off it, in the packets or on the web site.

But the pattern here is something that’s all too common in Congress: this technology has a scary name, so it must be bad. The focus on the technology with the scary name then takes up the time that should be spent on the important issue, privacy.

But privacy isn’t black-and-white, so we better not talk about it; it might be bad for Google.

Technorati Tags: