Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Kahn, Kevin" <kevin.kahn () intel com>
Date: October 25, 2007 1:22:30 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic

I think this is off base.  One of the much touted FCC principles for  
the Internet access is that users should be able to run any  
application so long as it does not damage the network.  Now there is  
nothing inherent in Bittorrent that damages anything.  Let's  
distinguish bandwidth consumption from the application.  It is quite  
possible to run BT at very modest bandwidth settings.  If Comcast  
were controlling the bandwidth impact this would be a different  
discussion.  I have no issue in principle with an ISP deciding that  
their service charges include capacity limits (although it would seem  
sensible to let folks know what they are if they turn out applying to  
any significant part of the user base).  In any case, whether secret  
bandwidth consumption limits or explicit caps are ok is a valid  
debate - but it is a different debate than this one.  Comcast is  
specifically prohibiting users from running an application that has  
no adverse impact on the network when run in reasonable  
configurations - this seems to me to be clearly across the line, no  
matter where a reasonable person draws it given the FCC principles.

____________________________________________________________
Kevin C. Kahn
Intel Senior Fellow, Director Communications Technology Lab
Corporate Technology Group

JF3-206
2111 NE 25th Ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961
Voice: 503-264-8802  Fax: 503-264-0973  Mobile: 503-701-8781


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:53 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic



Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: October 24, 2007 2:21:30 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic

Dave, Lauren, everyone:

Lauren's article is disturbing for a number of reasons.

To claim that optimizing one's network, prioritizing packets, and
preventing abuse constitutes "interfering with" or "tampering with"
Internet traffic is akin to saying that traffic lights "tamper with"
automobile travel by artificially restricting it. Internet service
providers have every right to contractually and technically limit
what people do on their networks so as to prevent abuse, stop illegal
activity, and preserve quality of service. In fact, none can stay in
business if they do not do it.

In the specific case of Comcast, the provider is preventing customer
equipment from acting -- with or without the customer's knowledge --
in ways which would compromise the integrity of the network, hog
network resources, violate contracts (especially provisions which
prevent the operation of servers on residential connections, whose
pricing depends upon this contractual provision) and/or violate
copyrights.

Only when behavior is anticompetitive should it be considered to
be actionable -- and then not by the end user but by the party which
was the victim of the anticompetitive behavior.

--Brett Glass



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com