The news that cable TV giant Comcast has been interfering with the internet traffic of customers’ peer-to-peer applications has sparked a flurry of activity over the last few weeks, including well-reasoned protests and complaints from media reform groups in Washington, at least one customer lawsuit (with more likely) and several regulatory filings with the Federal Communications Commission.
Comcast’s refusal to be candid with customers has also given birth to the Network Neutrality Squad (www.nnsquad.org [1]). Don’t be put off by the Squad’s somewhat flippant name – this is serious stuff, sort of a CSI for bandwidth detectives. Founded by long-time internet veteran Lauren Weinstein, along with net luminaries like Vint Cerf (sometimes called “the Father of the Internet”), the Network Neutrality Squad is an ambitious technical effort to detect and analyze “any anticompetitive, discriminatory, or other restrictive actions” on the part of ISPs.
The Network Neutrality Squad is a collaborative volunteer project involving technologists seeking to get at the facts. This group wants to know whether and how Comcast – and other Internet service providers (ISPs) – might be blocking or disrupting broadband services to customers.
Started only two weeks ago, the Squad has been soliciting “incident reports” (there have been 23 so far) and exploring methodologies to investigate claims against Comcast and other providers.
The process is made more difficult, of course, by the fact that Comcast hasn’t been at all forthcoming. The company says it employs “network management” practices to guard against customers who might exceed unstated bandwidth limitations, but it won’t provide details. And that has spurred action by members of the Squad, even those who don’t favor totally a totally neutral network.
As engineer Fred Reimer explained in one post.
I suppose what I am most interested in initially is network transparency, not necessarily network neutrality. Personally, I would not favor a totally neutral network. Knowing a bit about both security and VoIP, I see the technical reasons, and one could argue requirements, for treating some traffic different…However, network transparency is what this group seems to be focused on. If the network were transparent, such that we knew what each ISP chose for themselves as their policy and actual implementation as far as traffic engineering then we, the people, can either A) have an actual informed choice as to which ISP we select, or B) agree that there should be restrictions on what types of preferential treatment ISP's may impose by way of our government and regulations.
It’s really that simple. The vast Internet, which has become such a major part of all our lives, should be as unregulated as possible. That’s the beauty of the Internet. But there are, clearly, rules – in fact, Comcast and other ISPs issue lengthy documents (“Terms of Service” and “Acceptable Use Policy”) to provide themselves with legal cover. The problem is that Comcast wants to make all the rules while providing scant detail.
The free market requires transparency and the provision of accurate information, so consumers can make a choice. Failure to recognize that – in the face of evidence demonstrating abuse of consumer trust – will, ironically, lead to the regulation that Comcast and others seek to avoid.
Comcast needs to be careful. The Network Neutrality Squad - and other groups like it - are now on the case.