Comcast: Talking To Regulators, Not Customers

Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast Corp., gets generally high marks from his colleagues in the cable industry for smarts and good management.   That’s why his continuing refusal to deal with Comcast customers in explaining the company’s broadband “network management” practices is so confounding. 

Now Comcast finds itself prepping for what seems like a major investigation by the Federal Communications Commission into various practices, including how the company handles peer-to-peer traffic.   The irony is that even if Comcast “wins” in its dealings with the FCC, it’s likely to become the poster child for arrogance in customer relations, with long-term damage to its brand in the marketplace.

The FCC this week formally asked for comment in response to complaints by a coalition of public interest groups (including Free Press, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union) and Vuze Inc., a digital media company. 

The issue: what constitutes “reasonable network management?” 

Last year, the Associated Press conducted tests and reported that Comcast was interfering with customers’ use of the file-sharing software BitTorrent. 

Comcast has been decidedly closed-mouth about its network practices, issuing formal statements rather than engaging in any dialogue with customers.  In its latest statement, Comcast said that it would cooperate with any FCC inquiries into its activities. “Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services,” said David L. Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast.

While some might think the current political composition of the FCC – three Republicans and two Democrats – would work in Comcast’s favor, that’s not a given.  In fact, commission chair Kevin Martin, in a separate action, has already sought a rule that would limit cable companies (including, notably, Comcast) from serving more than 30% of pay-TV customers nationally.  Even some of the public interest folks who filed the latest complaint – a group usually critical of the FCC - believe Comcast might confront problems with the regulators.   

For insight into the complexities of the FCC process, and what it might mean for Comcast, see this comprehensive analysis by Harold Feld, Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project.   As Feld puts it:

Bottom line: no way to tell from this what's actually going on or how long it will take. But Martin has done everything that we could wish, and in a reasonable time frame. I therefore remain cautiously optimistic.

If peer-to-peer applications pose the dangers Comcast says they do (threatening the availability of bandwidth to all customers on its network), it’s difficult to imagine the company will find any long-term solutions at the FCC.   Technologists we’ve spoken with say users of BitTorrent peer-to-peer software are already devising “workarounds” that make it difficult for an Internet Service Provider to distinguish BitTorrrent internet traffic from any other. 

This analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation provides a glimmer of the complexity of the technical debate that might be involved in an FCC inquiry.

In the end, Comcast relying on the FCC for a definition of what the company can offer – or not offer – to its customers (and on what terms) seems a throwback to the days of monopolistic government-regulated telephone companies.  Perhaps that’s the model Comcast is embracing.  Maybe that’s why the company has been reluctant to provide explanations to customers.

In the long-term, it’s likely to be a failed business strategy.

Lauren Weinstein, a technologist and long-time internet activist, puts it quite well:

Cutting people off, or "charging by the gallon" for that matter, are only reasonable (and would only be acceptable in the context of power, water, or any other conventional utility) if specific rules are known to subscribers in advance and -- *very* important -- if proper notification is given before taking actions.  Even if people don't pay their power, water, phone, or cable bills, they're given notification and time to argue their case before they're cut off -- at least in this country. 

What ISPs are frequently doing is acting as judge, jury, and executioner at the *data* level, often based on vague and general statements in Terms of Service agreements -- leaving subscribers to wonder, as in the cases under discussion, how or if they violated a rule or limit, or whether they're being affected by some totally different technical issue unrelated to purposeful ISP actions. 

The argument that explaining the detailed rules and limits in advance would provide too much information to subscribers who might try to take "excessive" advantage of those limits is unacceptable.  If Comcast, for example, felt that they needed to manipulate P2P traffic for the sake of all customers, they should have made this clear in advance, and not denied what was going on until they got caught red-handed.   

One critical issue related to Network Neutrality isn't really a technical matter at all.  It's the obvious need for full transparency in ISP dealings with their subscribers.  Without that, all other efforts are likely doomed to inefficacy.  

Brian Roberts should take note.