A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars on Thursday formally
asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Comcast Corp. from
interfering with file sharing by its Internet subscribers.
Two of the groups are also asking the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.
The petitions will be the first real test of the FCC's stance on
"Net Neutrality," the principle that Internet traffic be treated
equally by carriers. The agency has a policy supporting the concept but
its position hasn't been tested in a real-world case.
The long-standing industry practice of treating Internet
traffic more or less equally has started to fray. In tests spanning
several states, The Associated Press found that Comcast hindered file
sharing by subscribers who used BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing
program. The findings, first reported Oct. 19, confirmed claims by
users who also noticed interference with other file-sharing
applications.
Comcast is the country's largest cable company and has 12.9
million Internet subscribers, making it the second-largest Internet
service provider.
Comcast denies that it blocks file sharing, but acknowledged
last week that it was "delaying" some of the traffic between computers
that share files.
In practice, the company blocks requests from users who are
trying to retrieve files from a Comcast subscriber's computer for a
period of time. But it eventually lets the requests through if they are
repeated.
In one AP test, a request went through after 10 minutes of
trying. The technology does not directly affect downloads of BitTorrent
files by Comcast subscribers, only uploads.
Comcast has said the interference is intended to improve the
Internet experience for all its subscribers, noting that a relatively
small number of file sharers is enough to slow down its network.
In response to the filings, David Cohen, an executive vice
president at Comcast, said that the FCC's policies recognize that ISPs
need to manage the traffic on their networks.
If other ISPs follow in Comcast's footsteps, file sharing
would essentially crawl to a halt. While the technology is a popular
way to illegally share copyright movies and music, legal uses are
proliferating, particularly in movie distribution.
"They're blocking an innovative application that could be a
competitor to cable TV," said Marvin Ammori, general counsel at Free
Press, one of the advocacy groups behind the petition to the FCC.
The petition asks the commission to immediately declare that
Comcast is violating the FCC's policy. The co-signers are Consumer
Federation of America; Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer
Reports; Media Access Project; and professors at the Internet practices
of the Yale, Harvard and Stanford law schools.
Free Press and another group, Public Knowledge, are separately
filing a formal complaint that asks the FCC to demand a "forfeiture"
from Comcast of $195,000 per affected subscriber.
The number is based on the statutory maximum of $97,500 for a
single continuing violation, doubled by what the groups see as
deception on the company's part. Comcast kept its practice secret until
publicized by the AP, saying that it couldn't divulge the inner
workings of its network for security reasons. Its filtering technique
also involves the company forging network messages so that they appear
to come from subscriber and non-subscriber computers.
The complaint includes affidavits from three Comcast
subscribers who say they have been affected by Comcast's interference.
The complaint asks the FCC to determine the total number of affected
subscribers.
It's not clear how quickly the FCC would act on the filings.
"The FCC should be aggressively reviewing these cases because
they go to ensuring the freedom and openness of the Internet which is
so vital to our communications future and to our civic dialogue," FCC
Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement.
Comcast's Cohen noted that the FCC's policy statement, which
says that consumers are allowed to run the Internet applications of
their choice, makes that "subject to reasonable network management" by
ISPs.
"The Commission clearly recognized that network management is necessary by ISPs for the good of all customers," Cohen said.
"If Comcast is right -- that what it's doing meets the policy
statement -- then anyone can start blocking BitTorrent tomorrow,"
Ammori said.
A ruling against Comcast could cause problems not only for the
cable company, but other Internet service providers. Many of them
acknowledge managing traffic to improve flow, which likely includes
slowing down file-sharing traffic by means less drastic than Comcast's.
The Net Neutrality debate erupted in 2005, when the FCC
abolished the obligation of providers of Internet service via digital
subscriber lines, or DSL, to carry all traffic nondiscriminately (that
obligation had been abolished for cable broadband in 2002). The
obligation was replaced with the policy statement.
Phone companies started suggesting that they would like to be
able to charge large Web companies more for guaranteed delivery of
their traffic as a way to finance the build out of their networks.
Web anchors like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc., joined by
consumer groups, opposed the notion, saying it would make Internet
service providers the toll keepers of the Internet and enable them to
stifle competition and innovation.
The debate was stilled when AT&T Inc. and Verizon
Communications Inc. agreed to shelve their plans temporarily to get
their respective plans to acquire BellSouth and MCI approved by the
FCC.
Ammori said it appeared that the "nightmare scenario"
portrayed by Net Neutrality proponents like his own group, Free Press,
had been averted.
"Then suddenly, out of nowhere, Comcast is doing exactly what
we most feared ... secretly degrading an application," Ammori said. "We
didn't expect the first violation to be so blatant."
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Recent Comments