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.”