Stephen Lawson reports here on BitTorrent CEO Eric Klinker’s comments about net neutrality regulation at the eComm conference yesterday. Klinker used the word “regulation” to mean a couple different things in his remarks, but nothing he said justifies the headline PC World gave the story.

Here’s Lawson reporting Klinker’s comments:

“There is no ambiguity. There is not going to be, at least in the near term, a strong regulator for broadband,” Klinker told the eComm conference in Burlingame, California. Instead, it is the public that will pass judgment on how service and application providers behave, Klinker said. “The public is our regulator.”

“The public is our regulator.” But PC World ran the story under this headline:

“Broadband Has No Regulator, BitTorrent CEO Says.”

It will not be a government regulator; it will be the public. Perhaps Klinker regards the public as a weak regulator, but PC World takes the public to be no regulator at all. Stupendous.

Even the strongest skeptic of markets believes that the public has some influence on businesses’ decisions and actions. With inaccurate headlines like this, PC World could stand to learn what market regulation is like when readers stop reading and advertisers stop advertising.

It’s worth noting that Klinker almost certainly helped incite and organize public reaction to the Comcast Kerfuffle, enjoying a PR coup that is still paying his company dividends. Klinker knows a little bit about how markets regulate.

Facebook has been at the center of a controversy involving its moderation policies and The Pirate Bay, a popular Bittorrent tracker that was found guilty of copyright infringement by a Swedish court last month. Since early April, Facebook has enforced a “site-wide” ban on links to The Pirate Bay – including those in private messages.

This practice may run afoul of federal wiretapping statutes that bar service providers from “intercepting” private messages, according to an article that appeared on Wired Threat Level last week. Wired quotes Kevin Bankston, a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who explains that Facebook’s filtering raises “serious questions about whether Facebook is in compliance with federal wiretapping law.”

It’s important to draw a distinction between the traditional notion of “wiretapping” and Facebook’s “interception” of user messages, which doesn’t involve any human intervention. Regardless of how the courts may interpret ancient laws like the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, an automated computer system flagging and deleting certain strings from user messages simply isn’t comparable to a third party secretly listening in on a private phone conversation.

Besides, Facebook makes clear to its users from the get-go that their messages and postings are subject to a set of rules (which Facebook lays out in plain English). If Facebook believes a message or posting is against the rules, it can block or remove it. This is not an unreasonable rule; many online discussion forums have enforced similar policies since the Web’s early days. Such filtering is possible only if sites can “examine” messages to identify misconduct.

Critics of Facebook’s filtering policies have rightly pointed out that even legal Pirate Bay links are being blocked. While this is a valid argument, it belongs on the feedback section of Facebook’s Site Governance page – not in a court of law. It isn’t the role of government to second-guess content judgments reached in good faith by social networking sites. Facebook must weigh a range of competing concerns in deciding how to cater to its hundreds of millions of diverse users. The same message that one user might consider “spammy” or malicious might be seen in a totally different light by another user. Add into the equation concerns over reputation and even potential copyright infringement liability, and it’s easy to see why Facebook has to make tough – and controversial – decisions all the time.

While I agree with Bankston that the legal ramifications of Facebook’s practices are far from clear, I’m concerned about the prospect of wiretapping laws being used against websites that moderate communications between users. If filtering Pirate Bay links from user messages constitutes illegal wiretapping, then it would seem that any social network or discussion forum that monitors and removes content from user-to-user communications would be in violation of federal law.

What would it mean for the Internet if websites were barred from moderating messages sent between users? AOL might not be able to “kids only” chat rooms; instant messaging services might be even more spam-ridden than they already are; and yoursphere, a social-networking site “just for kids,” likely wouldn’t even be able to exist.

Decisions about how to operate private online ecosystems are best left to individual firms competing in an open marketplace. Prohibiting website operators from moderating user messages may not bother people who don’t mind spam or porn (or Pirate Bay links), but what about people who desire a social network in which certain kinds of speech are off-limits?

One of the best aspects of the Web is that choices are abundant. If you don’t like one social networking site’s policies, you can go someplace else. Users can already send around links to Pirate Bay torrents through countless other social networking sites, email providers, and instant messaging services. Gmail, AIM, Ning, and Skype are just some examples of free online services that do not censor Pirate Bay links. Heck, if none of these options are satisfactory, you can even build your very own social network with free software like BoonEx and spread around all the Pirate Bay links you want.

In several of our previous podcasts (see episodes 34, 35,and 37), we’ve discussed what we’ve called the “Comcast Kerfuffle,” which was the controversy surrounding the steps Comcast took to manage BitTorrent traffic on its networks. Critics called it a violation of Net neutrality principles while Comcast and others called it sensible network management.

This week we saw a new kerfuffle of sorts develop over the revelation in a Monday front-page Wall Street Journal story that Google had approached major cable and phone companies and supposedly proposed to create a fast lane for its own content. What exactly is it that Google is proposing, and does it mean – as the Wall Street Journal and some others have suggested – that Google is somehow going back on their support for Net neutrality principles and regulation? More importantly, what does it all mean for the future of the Internet, network management, and consumers. That’s what we discussed on the TLF’s latest “Tech Policy Weekly” podcast.

Today’s 30-minute discussion featured two of our regular contributors at the TLF, who both wrote about this issue multiple times this week. Cord Blomquist of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote about the issue here and here, and Bret Swanson of the Progress & Freedom Foundation wrote about it here and here.  To help us wade through some of the more technical networking issues in play, we were also joined on the podcast by Richard Bennett, a computer scientist and network engineer guru who blogs at Broadband Politics as well as Circle ID and he also pens occasional columns for The Register.  Also appearing on the show was Adam Marcus, Research Fellow & Senior Technologist at PFF, who wrote a “nuts and bolts” essay full of excellent technical background on edge caching and net neutrality.

You can download the MP3 file here, or use the online player below to start listening to the show right now.

[display_podcast]

My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here.

Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin

PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008

The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open access” to the cable platform for third-party Internet service providers. Requests for open access first emerged in 1998 when the FCC considered AT&T’s acquisition of cable operator TCI. The FCC rejected open access, but the issue quickly re-emerged in a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate regulatory classification of cable Internet service. Depending on how the FCC categorized cable Internet service, it would either be subject to telecommunications “common carrier” requirements, “cable service” requirements, or treated as a then-unregulated “information service.”

In 2002, the FCC classified cable Internet service as an “information service.” This meant that the telecommunications common carrier requirements — that service be provided upon request, without unreasonable discrimination as to rates, terms and conditions of service — would not apply to cable Internet services. The FCC’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X. Afterwards, advocates of open access re-directed their efforts away from advocating wholesale access for third-party ISPs, and towards rules aimed at consumer rights to a “neutral network” or “net neutrality.”

 In 2005 the FCC extended its deregulatory “information service” approach to wireline broadband Internet services provided, thus freeing telephone companies of traditional common carrier mandates for these services. The FCC’s decisions not to impose cable open access and to relieve telcos of common carrier obligations reflected a policy of fostering infrastructure deployment through market operations. Concurrently, the FCC released a “Policy Statement,” declaring four “entitlements” that Internet service consumers should enjoy: (1) access to lawful content of their choice; (2) ability to run chosen applications and services; (3) ability to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) competition among network, application and content providers. The Policy Statement expressly stated that the FCC was not adopting rules and that the principles are subject to reasonable network management. The FCC subsequently stated that it would entertain complaints concerning violations of the principles, and in early 2007, the FCC opened an “Inquiry” into broadband industry practices, seeking information about network management and asking whether it should impose rules.

In late 2007, an advocacy group filed a Complaint alleging that Comcast had violated the FCC’s Policy Statement by “secretly degrading” BitTorrent traffic, thus interfering with the Internet rights of its subscribers, and that its practices did not constitute reasonable network management. Several months later, Comcast and BitTorrent agreed to work together to resolve network congestion issues through the use of protocol-agnostic network management. Yet on Aug. 20, 2008, the FCC released an Order purporting to rule on the Complaint, finding that Comcast had violated the Internet policy principles, and rejecting its defense that its practices were reasonable. The FCC ruled that Comcast’s network management practices: discriminated among Internet applications and protocols rather than treating all equally; effectively blocked Internet traffic; posed significant risks of anti-competitive abuse; were inconsistent with “an open and accessible Internet;” and that Comcast’s failure to disclose its practices compounded the harms. Alternative means of managing network congestion approved by the FCC include metered usage and throttling the connection speeds of excessive users.

This action was said to be an “adjudication,” although traditional agency complaint rules were not followed. Comcast was given 30 days to disclose to the FCC “the precise contours” of its network management practices and describe what it will do instead to address network congestion. The effect of the Order is to establish a fifth “non-discrimination” Internet policy principle, to be implemented by the FCC through case-by-case adjudication of individual complaints rather than ex ante rules. Thus, 10 years later, and without explicit acknowledgment, the FCC has effectively abandoned its “hands off” approach and imposed a form of common carrier regulation on ISPs.

I have written elsewhere on legal and procedural flaws that may doom the Network Management Order. In summary: (1) the FCC has not been granted explicit authority to regulate the provision of broadband “information services;” (2) the “ancillary jurisdiction” on which the FCC relied was not reasonably related to its other statutorily mandated responsibilities; (3) having failed to adopt enforceable rules concerning broadband network management, the FCC could not lawfully subject Comcast to an “adjudication” concerning its practices; and (4) the Complaint filed against Comcast was defective in several respects and should have been dismissed.

The Network Management Order has been appealed by Comcast and several advocacy groups. Comcast challenges the basis on which the FCC found that it had violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable rules. The advocacy groups appealed the FCC’s failure to order Comcast to immediately cease and desist interfering with P2P traffic. The appeals have been consolidated and will be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has shown little patience for the FCC’s unusual procedures and the FCC’s use of the doctrine of “ancillary jurisdiction” to expand its reach. Meanwhile, several network operators have announced bandwidth caps or plans to implement them. In addition, there are renewed calls both for the FCC to establish ex ante rules and for legislative action to grant the FCC express regulatory authority over broadband Internet service providers. In short, the legal and policy debate over net neutrality continues.

• Barbara Esbin is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Over at TechDirt, Tom Lee has a sharp critique of Muayyad Al-Chalabi’s much-circulated paper (via GigaOm) opposing bandwidth caps. Make sure to read Tom’s entire essay, but here’s the key take-away:

this whitepaper merely amounts to a complaint that a free lunch is ending. Bandwidth is clearly an increasingly limited resource. And in capitalist societies, money is how we allocate limited resources. The alternate solutions that Al-Chalabi proposes to the carriers on pages 6 and 8 — like P2P mirrors, improved service and “leveraging… existing relationships with content providers” — either assume that network improvements are free, would gut network neutrality, or are simply nonsense.

Indeed. But Tom generally agrees that “Comcast’s bandwidth cap is a drag” and that “Instead of disconnection, there should be reasonable fees imposed for overages. They should come up with a schedule defining how the cap will increase in the future. And the paper’s suggestion of loosened limits during off-peak times is a good one.”

Well, those are three different things but I generally agree with all of them. Let me just repeat, however, my strong endorsement of the first option — metering at the margin — and again highlight the optimal way to do it from an economic perspective. As I noted in one of my many previous articles about metering for bandwidth hogs:

my preferred model [is] what economists call a “Ramsey two-part tariff.” A two-part tariff (or price) would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level. I don’t know where the demarcation should be in terms of where the flat rate ends and the metering begins; that’s for market experimentation to sort out. But the clear advantage of this solution is that it preserves flat-rate, all-you-can-eat pricing for casual to moderate bandwidth users and only resorts to less popular metering pricing strategies when the usage is “excessive,” however that is defined.

My former PFF colleague Scott Wallsten penned an outstanding paper on the issue last year entitled, “Managing the Network? Rethink Prices, not Net Neutrality,” in which he also endorsed the idea:

Broadband use could similarly be metered. One could imagine simple metered pricing, in which users pay by the bit. Alternatively, providers could develop hybrid plans in which metered pricing begins only after some very high level of usage. In that case, heavy users would pay for the costs they impose on the network rather than being subject to what might otherwise appear to be arbitrary delays in their Internet traffic or threatening letters in their mailboxes. ISPs know how much bandwidth their users use, even if they do not know what content is flowing over the pipes. Implementing new pricing schemes presumably would not be a technical challenge.

I still think this approach deserves a fair hearing, but given the hysteria we have seen over bandwidth cap proposals I suppose that people will just keep looking for a free lunch instead.

On Wednesday, the FCC released the decision (PDF, text) it adopted back on August 1 holding that Comcast had violated the FCC’s 2005 net neutrality principles (PDF, text) by “blocking” peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic on its network using the popular program BitTorrent.  Paragraphs 3-11 lay out the FCC’s (still-disputed) finding of facts.

Commissioner McDowell‘s Scaliaesquely scathing dissent (PDF pp 61-67) provides an accessible summary of the order and should be required reading for everyone on all sides of the issue.  Despite having been provided with the final version of the order only the night before its release, McDowell distills the order into six key points, rejecting the Commission’s reasoning on all but one point (jurisdiction):

1. Was a complaint properly brought against Comcast under FCC rules? No, FCC rules allow the kind of complaint brought against Comcast to be brought only against common carriers, which cable modem operators are not.
2. Does the FCC have jurisdiction over Internet network management ? Yes, under the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X decision.
3. Does the FCC have rules governing Internet network management to enforce? No, “the Commission did not intend for the [2005] Internet Policy Statement to serve as enforceable rules but, rather, as a statement of general policy guidelines,” nor can the Commission “adjudicate this matter solely pursuant to ancillary authority.”
4. What standard of review should apply? No, even assuming this case had been properly brought under enforceable rules, the Commission applied what amounts to a “strict scrutiny” standard–something unprecedented for reviewing private, rather than governmental, action.
5. Was the evidence sufficient to justify the Commission’s decision? No, the “FCC does not know what Comcast did or did not do” and should have “conduct[ed] its own factual investigation” rather than relying on “apparently unsigned declarations of three individuals representing the complainant’s view, some press reports, and the conflicting declaration of a Comcast employee.”  The evidence did not suggest any discriminatory motive behind Comcast’s network management techniques
6. Is the decision in the public interest? No.  “By depriving engineers of the freedom to manage these surges of information flow by having to treat all traffic equally as the result of today’s order, the Information Superhighway could quickly become the Information Parking Lot.”  Comcast had already resolved its dispute with BitTorrent through outside arbitration.  The FCC should “allow the longstanding and time-tested collaborative Internet governance groups [already working to establish processes for resolving such disputes] to continue to produce the fine work they have successfully put forth for years.”

There’s been a fair amount of chatter on this blog (here, here, and here) about how to properly view the FCC’s recent Comcast decision. My take is that while everyone is focused on questions of market failure, we are in the midst of a huge government failure. Read my full explanation here.

Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Net, has a very thoughtful post up on the Google Public Policy Blog today asking “What’s a Reasonable Approach for Managing Broadband Networks?” He runs through a variety of theoretical approaches to network load management. There’s much there to ponder, but I just wanted to comment briefly on the very last thing he says in the piece:

Over the past few months, I have been talking with engineers at Comcast about some of these network management issues. I’ve been pleased so far with the tone and substance of these conversations, which have helped me to better understand the underlying motivation and rationale for the network management decisions facing Comcast, and the unique characteristics of cable broadband architecture. And as we said a few weeks ago, their commitment to a protocol-agnostic approach to network management is a step in the right direction.

I found this of great interest because for the last few months I have been wondering: (a) why isn’t there more of that sort of inter- and intra-industry dialogue going on, and (b) what could be done to encourage more of it? With the exception of those folks at the extreme fringe of the Net neutrality movement, most rational people involved in this debate accept the fact that there will be legitimate network management issues that industry must deal with from time to time. So, how can we get people in industry — from all quarters of it — to sit down at a negotiating table and hammer things out voluntarily before calling in the regulators to impose ham-handed, inflexible solutions? What we are talking about here is the need for a technical dispute resolution process that doesn’t involve the FCC. If the anti-Net neutrality regulation crowd (and that includes me!) wants to be taken seriously when they talk about “self-regulatory” solutions, this sort of dispute resolution process becomes essential. And the pro-Net neutrality regulation crowd needs to understand that, even if they ultimately desire some role for the FCC here, regulatory resolutions to technical disputes are notoriously slow and ultimately will always be one step behind the technical dispute du jour.

Therefore, wouldn’t it be nice if, as Cerf suggests above, those parties with a technical dispute about network management had a way of talking things through immediately and before they went to the regulatory equivalent of mutually assured destruction?

All the relevant players in the broadband / Internet sector need to put their heads together and think about how to create a forum or process that can serve as such a technical dispute resolution mechanism. On a smaller scale, Comcast and Bit Torrent did this in a voluntary, bilateral fashion when they sat down to hammer out a collaborative agreement in March. As their press announcement noted:

Comcast Corporation and BitTorrent, Inc. announced today that they will undertake a collaborative effort with one another and with the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with rich media content and network capacity management. While BitTorrent and Comcast are talking directly, they are also in discussions with other parties to help facilitate a broader dialogue and cooperation across industries.

But we know that countless more technical disputes will arise in the future at every layer of the Internet — not just with Comcast and BitTorrent. Thus, if we are really going to achieve “a broader dialogue and cooperation across industries” then what we really need is the equivalent of a multilateral trade negotiating process or forum to achieve sensible resolutions to complex technical difficulties surround Internet network management.

I am not prepared to say whether a new, formal organization is needed to accomplish this or if existing institutions and individuals (academic, trade associations, etc) might be able to work together to make this happen. For example, and I am just thinking out loud here so don’t quote me on this, what if we had the Internet Society working in conjunction with several major industry trade associations and some respected academic institutions to form some sort of collaborative, dialogue-oriented dispute resolution process? Sort of GATT or WTO for technical Internet dispute resolution.

Certainly that would be preferable to a politicized FCC taking over the show and making all these technical decisions, no? I’d be interested in hearing some input from others.

Web Pro News’ Jason Lee Miller seems to think he’s hoisted my colleague Bret Swanson, and The Progress & Freedom Foundation in general, on our own collective  petard.  Bret had responded to Tim Wu’s NYT op-ed by questioning Wu’s argument for developing “alternative supplies of bandwidth” to free us from the tyranny of the OPEC-like broadband cartel:

Unlike natural resources such as oil, which, while abundant, are at some point finite, bandwidth is potentially infinite. The miraculous microcosmic spectrum reuse capabilities of optical fiber and even wireless radiation improve at a rate far faster than any of our macrocosmic machines and minerals. It is far more efficient to move electrons than atoms, and yet more efficient to move photons. Left unfettered, these technologies will continue delivering bandwidth abundance.

Miller suggests that this response to Wu destroys arguments Bret and others at PFF have made against net neutrality regulation–a crusade led by Wu (who taught me Internet law, as it happens):

So what [Swanson is] saying is bandwidth scarcity is a notion invented by internet service providers and wireless providers to jack up prices and provide excuses for interfering with competing services on their networks. Nice. In a weird way, Swanson focuses so hard on disproving Wu’s analogy one way, he misses how the analogy is proved in another: a few organizations (government or not) controlling an important resource and forcing artificial scarcity in order to control the market for that resource is called a cartel.

Miller’s “Gotcha!” rests on the seemingly undeniable premise that broadband can’t be both abundant (as Bret argues) and scarce (such that ISPs must management traffic on their networks, however non-neutral that may be).   But in fact, this seeming contradiction is inherent in the very nature of the Internet–and the way Internet access is currently priced.

On the one hand, Bret is right that broadband is “abundant” in a way that resources in the real world cannot be:  Continued investments in broadband networks by network operators have dramatically increased the amount of bandwidth available–causing prices to plummet for both wireline and wireless broadband.  Consumers today enjoy greater download speeds while paying constantly decreasing prices per bit.  So much for Wu’s OPEC analogy.

But contrary to those defenders of net neutrality regulation who think we can somehow grow our way out of the problem of network congestion merely by increasing the amount of bandwidth available, the demand for bandwidth is also infinitely elastic.  Making more bandwidth available simply encourages the development of new services and content whose use and consumption requires more bandwidth.  The significant advances in bandwidth available to U.S. broadband consumers in recent years have made it possible for us all to share huge amounts of data through peer-to-peer file-sharing services, view essentially infinite amounts of video back up hundreds of gigabytes on online storage services like Amazon’s reasonably-priced S3, and even begin moving our most basic computing tools like email and word processing into the “cloud.”  One has only to contemplate the kind of bandwidth that will be required when YouTube goes hi-def (something the less-popular Vimeo has already done) to realize that, from the network operator’s perspective, trying to solve network congestion problems simply by increasing the amount of bandwidth available is like a pie-eating contest where the prize is… more pie.

Thus, broadband can be increasingly “abundant” in the sense that there is always more of it available than ever before and, in the narrow and particular sense of Internet network congestion, “scarce” ( i.e., unlimited) at the same time.  This apparent contradiction stems from three facts:

1. Internet content and services are increasingly free to the user, either supported by advertising revenues or by some “up-sell” of additional features beyond the basic, free version.  This means that consumers have no economic reason not to gobble up the “new, new thing”–which usually consumes more bandwidth than whatever content or service it replaces.
2. Similarly, and more importantly, data use is priced on an all-you-can-eat basis.  Consumers pay a flat monthly fee for essentially “unlimited” broadband.
3. The secret to the Internet’s efficiency lies in its architecture as a packet-switching network of networks:  Unlike the circuit-switched traditional telephone network, the Internet works precisely because only a small fraction of its users are sending or requesting bits at any particular moment.  If everyone tried to watch a hi-def video at once (or watch any video, for that matter), the Internet would simply crash to a screeching halt.  Thus, even “abundant” bandwidth is necessarily scarce in terms of how many people can try to use it at any particular moment for a particular application.  Yes, it’s conceivable that in some future world with orders of magnitude more bandwidth than exists today, every person could indeed watch a classic YouTube video from 2008, but if they all tried to host holographic conference calls…  the same basic limitation would apply.

Thus it is that a tiny number of network users can consumer the vast majority of its bandwidth.  Since fact #1 is essentially a law of the Internet universe, and since no amount of additional bandwidth will overcome the constraints inherent in fact #3, ISPs must find some way of dealing with the problem of network congestion if they are to satisfy the vast majority of their customers whose network use is degraded by those who use more bandwidth than they do.  Proponents of network neutrality regulation like Wu would limit the ability of ISPs to deal with this problem through traffic management by putting government bureaucrats in charge of deciding which forms of management are benign and which are not.  (On this very day, the FCC is about to hold Comcast in violation of a non-binding 2005 policy statement for throttling, but not blocking, certain bandwidth-hogging users of the peer-to-peer file-sharing system BitTorrent.)

While some amount of traffic management will always be necessary, the need for it can certainly be reduced by changing fact #2:  moving to a different pricing structure for Internet access.  As my PFF colleague Adam Thierer has explained,

a “Ramsey two-part tariff” … would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level. I don’t know where the demarcation should be in terms of where the flat rate ends and the metering begins; that’s for market experimentation to sort out. But the clear advantage of this solution is that it preserves flat-rate, all-you-can-eat pricing for casual to moderate bandwidth users and only resorts to less popular metering pricing strategies when the usage is “excessive,” however that is defined.

Experiments in this area are indeed underway (and see further discussion here).  Their ultimate success will likely depend on setting the all-you-can-eat threshold high enough that ordinary users (say, 90-95% of all users) are not affected.

In the meantime, those of us who defend the accelerating abundance of broadband as the result of ongoing investments by network operators while opposing net neutrality regulation as an impediment to such investments clearly have our work cut out for us in explaining the apparent contradiction of “scarcity”-in-abundance that is unique to Internet bandwidth.

The AP reports today the results of an investigation it conducted on Comcast’s “traffic shaping” practices as they relate to BitTorrent. The bottom line, if the AP is correct, is that Comcast interferes with packets coming from both ends of a BitTorrent communication. Comcast allegedly inserts messages pretending to be one or the other end requesting that the transmission be reset. Susan Crawford has a technical explanation on her blog.

If this is a consistent policy, this is much worse than the meaningless one-off snafus such as Madison River, Pearl Jam, or NARAL. While this is technically legal, and should always be, it’s a bit indefensible. No doubt Comcast and every other access provider should have the ability to manage their networks to ensure that a minority of users doesn’t slow down or increase costs for the majority. However, they should be transparent about what they do.

As the AP reports it (and I’m really looking forward to clarification), “Comcast’s technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.” If that means any BitTorrent user, even if they’re not a heavy user, then the policy seems over-broad to me. In its acceptable use policy,¹ Comcast reserves the right to take any measures it deems necessary to deal with subscribers who use too much bandwidth (although how much is too much is not clearly defined). But if the AP is right, this is targeting a specific application, not specific users.

What this all points out to me, however, is that we don’t need regulation prohibiting these kinds of network management practices. The problem is not the practice, but the lack of disclosure, and as Google’s Andrew McLaughlin has said, it’s more of an FTC issue than an FCC one. The other issue this brings up is Adam’s favorite: Why not just have a Ramsey two-part tariff style metering after instead of interfering with legitimate applications?