Network neutrality no longer enough

By Michael Fraase

Sunday, 21 October 2007 11:56AM CST

Section: Internet

Network neutralityAssociated Press reporter Peter Svensson has discovered that internet service provider Comcast is blocking file sharing activities by its customers.

Svensson tested the thesis that Comcast blocked certain IP traffic by attempting to download the Bible—chosen because it has no copyright restrictions and was of a convenient size—using BitTorrent from Comcast-connected computers in San Francisco and Philadelphia. “In two out of three tries, the transfer was blocked,” writes Svensson. “In the third, the transfer started only after a 10-minute delay. When we tried to upload files that were in demand by a wider number of BitTorrent users, those connections were also blocked.”

Analysis of the failed transfer process on the San Francisco computer showed the failure was a result of reset packets. Reset packets tell the receiving computer to “hang up the phone.” According to Svensson, “traffic analyzer software running on each computer showed that neither computer actually sent the packets. That means they originated somewhere in between, with faked return addresses.”

Sandvine, a Canadian company that sells equipment capable of sending those reset packets, did not respond to Svensson’s request for comment and Comcast refused to confirm that it uses Sandvine equipment.

Comcast’s president of its interactive division, Amy Banse, admitted the company used network management technology to the Web 2.0 conference audience. Antone Gonsalves writing for Information Week:

“Banse defended Comcast’s use of management technology, reported Friday by the Associated Press, to reduce the impact users of file-sharing networks, such as BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella, have on overall traffic on the cable company’s pipe. While these users make up a small percentage of Comcast’s subscriber base, they account for a large majority of the traffic, Banse said.

“‘There is the hyperbole and the reality of what we call excessive use,’ Banse said. While 99.9% of Comcast customers get access to the Internet without interference, the 0.1% that fit into the category of excessive use have to be managed. ‘In the (course) of our management of that excessive use, we call the customers and offer them the commercial service,’ she said.”

David Isenberg writes that Banse is either lying or totally clueless with the 0.1% figure, “which in her position is not excusable.”

Seth Schoen at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was able to replicate the AP test, and found that the discrimination was specific to the BitTorrent protocol, something Comcast has denied:

“The TCP RST packet forging seems to be protocol-specific: as AP reported, it at least sometimes happens directly in response to specific BitTorrent protocol events. This contradicts Comcast’s statement to us that their network management does not target or discriminate against particular protocols. The timing of the injected packets suggests that something on Comcast’s network understands the BitTorrent protocol and treats it differently from other protocols.”

As Isenberg writes, Comcast’s activities are a violation of the internet’s end-to-end principle, directly interfering with the TCP protocol. “Here’s what’s important: BitTorrent is widely used to carry video objects,” writes Isenberg, “Comcast’s main business is providing video. By blocking BitTorrent, Comcast is keeping its customers from accessing disruptive technology dangerous to its main business.”

And that is precisely why a law ensuring network neutrality isn’t enough. Too many potential loopholes and exceptions. What’s now clearly necessary is what Susan Crawford calls structural separation. A return to common carrier status for the telephone, cable, satellite, and wireless companies. You can either provide the plumbing or you can provide the content, but not both. As Crawford puts it, “You’re either a plain-vanilla transport company serving all comers, or you’re something else competing for our attention. But this mixture, this hybrid of apparent-communication plus editorial control, is unacceptable.”

Permalink | (0) Trackbacks | (0) Comments