Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Since there are no laws guaranteeing net neutrality, media conglomerates like Comcast are free to engage in net prejudice.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Comcast's Secret War on File-Sharing

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted December 5, 2007.


Since there are no laws guaranteeing net neutrality, media conglomerates like Comcast are free to engage in net prejudice.
Advertisement

For the past several months, Comcast has been covertly sending commands to your computer that tell it to stop receiving information -- especially if that information is coming to you via BitTorrent, Gnutella, or other file-sharing applications. In May disgruntled Comcast users started posting on message boards about how BitTorrent and Gnutella weren't working for them anymore. So researchers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with an AP investigative journalist, started running tests on the Comcast network, using software tools to examine what exactly Comcast was doing to BitTorrent.

What they found was disturbing. Without telling customers, Comcast had begun a secret program to send automatic reset commands to customers' computers if they were using BitTorrent, Gnutella, or a few other programs. None of these programs are illegal. Moreover, Comcast had sold its services to customers without informing them that this popular Internet software wouldn't work on its network. And Comcast is still doing it.

To make matters worse, the method the folks at Comcast are using to shut down file sharing is underhanded. They stop BitTorrent by injecting reset data packets into information streaming between two computers on the Comcast network. Then Comcast makes the reset packets appear to be from one of the computers using BitTorrent -- not Comcast. So even if customers know to look for these reset packets, they'll believe the problem comes from the computer they're trying to share files with.

When the EFF and angry customers confronted Comcast about its sneaky system, the company claimed that it was merely "slowing down" certain programs. But as the EFF pointed out last week in a research paper on the topic, reset packets are designed only to shut down communication between two computers. If Comcast wanted to slow down BitTorrent, it could have used a common program called a traffic shaper, which can adjust data speeds.

Comcast spokesperson Charlie Douglas told me by phone that "Comcast is delaying peer-to-peer applications but not blocking them." He added that there is "no other technical way to delay" these applications than the method the company has chosen.

Without further explanation from Comcast, one is left wondering why the company would engage in such outrageously anticonsumer behavior. One possibility is that it views BitTorrent as a competitor. BitTorrent has made deals with various Hollywood studios to distribute movies online, which is something Comcast cable does for television. So maybe Comcast is playing dirty so its customers will turn to cable TV for movies instead of getting them online via BitTorrent.

For people who don't care about using BitTorrent, though, Comcast's behavior is still a gesture of bad faith. The company is demonstrating quite plainly that it won't hesitate to deny basic Internet services to its customers without warning, and without even acknowledging that it's doing it. Today those services are for file sharing. But tomorrow they could be for sending e-mail that doesn't use Comcast's Web mail system.

I also think Comcast's actions are a harbinger of what's to come as Internet service providers get sucked into larger media companies with cable or content-making divisions. No laws guarantee network neutrality online, so Comcast is free to engage in network prejudice. The company can block any service it wants, especially if there's a financial incentive. Certainly, consumers can choose to go with another Internet service provider, and I hope they do. But in the future, market competition may not be enough.

If Comcast blocks BitTorrent, then another company might welcome BitTorrent traffic but block my favorite game services. Internet service will become like cable TV, where getting the full range of channels is incredibly expensive. Except it will be worse, because the Internet is a far richer and more diverse place than cable TV. Selectively blocking the Internet is like selectively blocking expression itself.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: internet, net neutrality, comcast, file sharing

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who gets her movies on BitTorrent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Comcast also operates a monopoly
Posted by: Cameo on Dec 5, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried to switch away from Comcast to another internet service provider (RCN is the major competitor in our area) and they (RCN) told me that my landlord has an agreement with Comcast and RCN can't service me. My landlord denies this. Nevertheless, it is quite common in Chicago that only one service provider is available for a given apartment building. So my choices are Comcast or no internet, or ... have a landline installed and use dial-up. What's a geek to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Indeed Posted by: somegirl
» RE: Comcast also operates a monopoly Posted by: racetoinfinity
They've already promised...
Posted by: aethr on Dec 5, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can this really be a problem? They've already promised us they won't do this kind of stuff. Didn't they testify to exactly that before Congress some time back? We'd need net neutrality if they were doing things like this and they've told us we don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I used to have AOL
Posted by: Ellie1 on Dec 6, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and they did not like the things I said about Bush and threw me off. I now use Verizon, but that is censorship also. By the way, I recently heard that AOL is losing customers by the thousands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I used to have AOL Posted by: halg
Good article
Posted by: jeffr on Dec 6, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very eye-opening article. Scary business practices indeed.

However, the placement of the phrase "net neutrality" is worrisome to me. I assume it wasn't intentional, but for readers that only skim the surface of articles, that placement could be bad news when it comes time to vote on "net neutrality". Because as it exists in proposed legislation right now, "net neutrality" is anything BUT "neutral", and should be rejected at all costs.

Anyhow, I thought this was an otherwise excellent article about the underhanded way Comcast and others manipulate what is supposed to be "free and open" content.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's understand that we're in a RIGGED market/capitalism, not a real one.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 6, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as Big Cable and Big Telco continue to cooperate on limiting customers' choices and wiping out the competition even while faking competition on their sleazy commercials, we're all the LOSERS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And by the way, after reading this article and feeling like a LOSER, here's a solution.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 6, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ENCRYPT BITTORRENT TRAFFIC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAFE Act
Posted by: lamar on Dec 6, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a technical story on how impossible it will be to enforce the new SAFE Act, you know, the one that just passed 409-2 in the House. Ron Paul was one of the 2 who voted against it.

But, but, but it's to keep the children safe!!! (And to give the RIAA the ability to spy.....)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Compete When You Can Cheat?
Posted by: QQOblivion on Dec 6, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I use dial-up, since I don't download much that needs huge bandwidth anyway. But if I wanted to have high-speed internet I would have to, in my area, either go with Comcast or the phone-company, neither of which I am fond of.
I read somewhere that in many other countries high-speed internet is as cheap as dial-up is in America, if not cheaper. This is because the industry is regulated more there than in the US, so there is more competition. (Can someone confirm this?)

But as is the case with Comcast, why compete, when you can cheat?

Speaking of the RIAA, I hear that the Bush Admn's Justice Dept is siding WITH the RIAA in the case of the woman who was fined $222,000(!) for allowing the download of just 2 dozen songs off her computer.
Why am I not surprised?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frustrated Farmer
Posted by: Frustrated Farmer on Dec 6, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading about Comcasts attempts at censorship I sent them an E-mail
This was their response:
Thank you for contacting Comcast. My name is Melissa, and I appreciate you taking the time to contact us.
Thank you for writing to us in response to reports about Comcast's
efforts to manage peer-to-peer traffic on our networks.
First, and most importantly, you should know that Comcast does not block
access to any Web site or application, including peer-to-peer services
like BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and
uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing
digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications
like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.
We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good
Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our
network so that you can continue to enjoy these applications.
Peer-to-peer activity consumes a disproportionately large amount of
network resources, and therefore poses the biggest challenge to
maintaining a good broadband experience for all users, including the
overwhelming majority of our customers who don't use P2P applications.
It is important to note, however, that we never prevent P2P activity, or
block access to any P2P applications, but rather manage the network in
such a way that this activity does not degrade the broadband experience
for other users.
Network management is absolutely essential to provide a good Internet
experience for our customers. All major ISPs manage their traffic in
some way and many use similar tools.
Comcast believes we have a responsibility to our customers to provide
this service. Network management helps us perform critical work that
protects our customers from things like spam, viruses, the negative
effects of network congestion, or attacks to their PCs. As threats on
the Internet continue to grow, our network management tools will
continue to evolve and keep pace so that we can maintain a good,
reliable online experience for all of our customers.
We have posted new FAQs on our Web site making clear to our customers
the steps we are taking to protect the customer experience for all of
our customers. You may access content related to this issue in the FAQ
section of http://www.comcast.net

If you need further assistance, please feel free to respond directly to
this email. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us.
Thank you for choosing Comcast.

Sincerely,
Melissa
Comcast Customer Care Specialist

Some things don't change!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course
Posted by: gfatjax on Dec 6, 2007 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they're going to keep doing this. And they'll find other, less detectable means also. They will do everything they can to shut down communications that doesn't originate from them or make more money for them. The "tiered service" line of crap (what blogger can afford the fees they're contemplating?) they're pushing is nothing more than a means to keep people from seeing things like Colbert's skewering of bush (on what MSM did you see that before it was all over the web?) and forcing them to swallow the "news" we see cutie couric and britt fume spew each evening. Somebody needs to find another means to communicate soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: See my other means for communication below Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comcast Should be Allowed to Filter Traffic BUT Must Acknowledge It
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Dec 7, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Comcast or any other data provider who has paid for and built the network themselves should be allowed to filter and block whatever traffic they want.

It is their network and fiber optic/coax cable after all. However they should be required to disclose this upfront so every customer knows this.

What they are doing now is underhanded and illegal as they are advertising unfiltered internet bandwidth and not delivering it.


Ultimately I think the solution to all of this is Wireless Internet. The RF spectrum has always been considered a part of the commons, it is a natural resource.

The FCC should buy back the remainder of RF spectrum licensees contracts from tv stations, radio stations, etc and divide up the spectrum for providers to license it to provide unfiltered wireless broadband internet.

Unfiltered, unregulated communication is vital to a thriving democracy.

The RF spectrum is part of the commons and therefore special open access and anti-filtering regulations should apply to it so all of us may use this natural resource in any way we see fit and not how the provider sees fit.

If the RF spectrum was all wireless internet there would be plenty of bandwidth for each home to stream HDTV stations over it, listen to radio streams over it, etc, anything you can do over the normal internet.


This would also have the effect of everyone leaving Comcrap and Comcrap would be forced to ditch their filtering in order to compete with Wireless Internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I dont know who is worse EFF or Comcast (read this its important)
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Dec 8, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read these blog posts that discuss this issue. If you believe knowledge is power than take a few read these and think for a minute. I do not support metered internet. Period. Therefore I do not support the EFF on this issue. Its about networks, protocols, and bandwidth. Learn about them before making a decision. The normal working class people are being sold out by EFF on this one.
Here are two sides of the issue please click here to read a about phone call with EFF lawyers
Reply to above post by authors collegue defending EFF.
link

Do not support the EFF on this one, please



"
EFF, Free Press, and Public Knowledge are basically demanding DOCSIS 3.0 (yet to be implemented) features on a DOCSIS 1.1 network and they’re demanding the Government force these changes before the facts are in. The biggest betrayal is that these three groups are willing to sell us down the drain with metered Internet service."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]