Comcast found itself on the stand yesterday, facing harsh scrutiny and pointed questioning from FCC commissioners during a summit held at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The topic: how ISPs are allowed to control their infrastructure under the FCC’s edict of “reasonable” network management, a term which, currently, is only vaguely defined. Public outcry prompted the FCC to revisit the topic when the AP discovered last October that Comcast actively meddled with P2P traffic by impersonating users’ computers – an unusual practice that many consider above the law – in an effort to conserve customers’ bandwidth usage.

Both during the summit and in prior statements, Comcast defended its tactics as necessary to protect the collective quality of its customers’ Internet experience.

At one point, FCC Commission Chairman Kevin Martin asked Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen why his company felt it necessary to block customers’ P2P traffic when customers were acting within the contractual constraints sold to them.

“Doesn’t that undermine the argument you’re making?” asked Martin.

In response, Cohen read from a list of frequently asked questions that the company provides to its customers, to which he quoted that “Comcast may on a limited basis temporarily delay certain P2P traffic when that traffic has or is projected to have an adverse effect on other customers' use of the service.”

“I don't think we're restraining the customers from using the service in accordance with the way we're selling it to them,” replied Cohen.

Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein continued to press on Comcast’s management policies, calling for tighter rules against overly aggressive network management.

“Comcast does not block any Web site, application, or Web protocol, including peer-to-peer services, period,” said Cohen. “What we are doing is a limited form of network management objectively based upon an excessive bandwidth-consumptive protocol during limited periods of network congestion.”

“Consumers need to know if and how network management practices distinguish between different applications, so consumers can configure their own applications and systems properly,” said Martin in an introductory speech [PDF]. “Consumers have alleged that these [ISP] practices have not been transparent … these are very significant issues. The seriousness of it is one of the reasons we’re holding this hearing – to hear from all sides.”

Martin said the summit’s intent was to approach the issue with an informed and open mind, and promised to withhold any action for the future.

“Hearing from experts today, as well as commenters in the record, will allow us to better monitor this market and determine the extent to which providers are acting consistently with our [Internet policy],” said Martin. “We can best fulfill these responsibilities by being fully informed.”