FCC Says BitTorrent Throttling Illegal, EFF Releases Tool for You To Test Your ISP For It
The Federal Communications Commission ruled this morning by a 3 to 2 vote that Comcast's arbitrary throttling of customers' use of BitTorrent was illegal. Hours before the ruling, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released software that anyone can use to see if their Internet Service Provider (ISP) is engaging in the same or similar behavior.
BitTorrent accounts for a substantial percentage of traffic on the internet and some people believe it causes unfair slowdowns for web users doing anything else online. Many other people argue that ISPs have an obligation to treat all internet traffic equally regardless of content. This is a key battle in the Network Neutrality debate.
Enforcement Against Comcast
Comcast voluntarily stopped throttling in March, but today's FCC decision is important FCC Chair Kevin Martin says so that "consumers deserve to know that the commitment is backed up by legal enforcement." Martin, a Republican, is believed by some to be taking an out-of-charecter populist stance on the matter because he's preparing to run for a position in the US House of Representatives.
EFF Releases "Switzerland"
The Electronic Frontier Foundation today released software called "Switzerland" (as in, the neutral country) that can be used by consumers to test our networks for ISP interference.
The EFF explains:
"Switzerland is an open source, command-line software tool designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data by ISPs. Switzerland detects changes made by software tools believed to be in use by ISPs such as Sandvine and AudibleMagic, advertising systems like FairEagle, and various censorship systems. Although currently intended for use by technically sophisticated Internet users, development plans aim to make the tool increasingly easy to use."
We'll keep our eyes peeled for a version of the tool that doesn't require using the command line, though every network in the land can now assume that it has users tech-savvy enough to be monitoring its behavior.
This quote from the EFF release puts things into context:
"The sad truth is that the FCC is ill-equipped to detect ISPs interfering with your Internet connection," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney. "It's up to concerned Internet users to investigate possible network neutrality violations, and EFF's Switzerland software is designed to help with that effort. Comcast isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, ISP to meddle surreptitiously with its subscribers' Internet communications for its own benefit."
What Do You Think?
The FCC's ruling was narrowly decided, through a 3 to 2 vote. Do you think ISPs have a legitimate interest in favoring some web traffic over others? On one hand, a future where big players get preferential treatment could cause a major slowdown in innovation. Startups and unknown application providers could be prevented from leveraging maximum bandwidth to offer new types of services to consumers. The most common example given is that YouTube may have struggled to make online video so common if they were discriminated against in their earliest days.
On the other hand, people downloading long lists of huge media files over common networks could be seen as an onerous drain on the "bandwidth commons." Slowing down an entire neighborhood's web use because you want to get the entire archives of some TV show is arguably pretty anti-social behavior.
Discussion above hasn't touched on legal matters, but for many people that's a big part of this debate as well. The US Congress, for example, voted this morning to require US colleges receiving federal funding to make commercial music purchasing services available to students online and filter traffic to deter P2P music sharing. The music industry says thank you! Some scientists using P2P on college campuses to transfer large files used in academic research, on the other hand, probably don't appreciate it as much. (That's probably not going on over the same networks, but the point is that there are very legitimate and important uses for P2P as well.)
We'd love to get our readers' thoughts on these questions - and for those of you able to put Switzerland to use, let us know if your ISP appears to be doing the same kinds of shady things that Comcast was slapped for today. These are going to be very big issues for the near-term future of the web.
Photo: Im in ur Internets by Jason Walton
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Phew, that was a close one. Now, let's hope they can enforce it.
Posted by: Hao Chen
|
August 1, 2008 10:09 AM
This really gives me hope- FCC Chairman's OpEd piece in Washington Post - http://tinyurl.com/68exht
Posted by: Nice Fish Films
|
August 1, 2008 10:12 AM
It would be great to be able to use the "Switzerland" software from a website tool that pinged your system without a download.
Posted by: Avi Kaplan | August 1, 2008 10:22 AM
Slowing down an entire neighborhood's web use because you want to get the entire archives of some TV show is arguably pretty anti-social behavior.
I don't think it's a legitimate concern. Law enforcement regarding piracy issues should be independent of ISP service. Throttling the use of a technology for all internet users because of piracy concerns is stupid. Also, since there is a cap on total bandwidth available to a user, the neighborhood shouldn't be affected. I should be able to use my entire bandwidth for what it is worth.
Posted by: Gubbi | August 1, 2008 11:36 AM
I am staying in NorCAL right now.
The family here is subscribed to the Comcast network.
When I got here, all the bit torrent sites were being blocked.
But after the whole court trial, my BT's are running oh so smooth.
Hooray!
Posted by: Jason | August 1, 2008 12:21 PM
The argument
Some scientists using P2P on college campuses to transfer large files used in academic research, on the other hand, probably don't appreciate it as much. (That's probably not going on over the same networks, but the point is that there are very legitimate and important uses for P2P as well.)
Is like saying you read "Playboy" for the articles.
Yes, it is conceivable that a professor may choose to use P2P to distribute academic research. I'm sure that if he can articulate his needs to the campus IT department, they can allow P2P from his IP or subnet, depending on how strict their restrictions are.
I seriously doubt that P2P use in dorms and non-academic departments is used solely solely for the articles. Uh huh. Unless something is blatantly illegal and has even a whiff of legitimacy, there is a process that one can go through to get an exception. However, if they choose to take advantage of their exception to the rule and start using P2P in an unapproved manner (looking at the pictures, as it were), their exception should be revoked and be told to find a Plan B.
BTW, I *do* read "Playboy" just for the articles. And I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Posted by: Mickey Blue Eyes | August 1, 2008 12:33 PM
Bandwidth throttle my connection to whatever you promised ( 1.5 Mb/s, 3 Mb/s, 16 Mb/s or whatever ) but do NOT decide what I use that connection for. Comcast? Piss off.
Posted by: Khurt | August 1, 2008 2:00 PM
thank god ! we have no such problems in india .
Posted by: arshad | August 1, 2008 10:36 PM
Nice, thank you for sharing the test tool.
Posted by: ITrush | August 2, 2008 3:54 AM
@ Mickey Blue Eyes: I may use bittorrent for piracy, but I also use it for downloading Linux distros. I use it for both legal and illegal downloading, and most advocates of open-source freeware use it too. Lots of people downloading from a mirror instead of a torrent costs the host a lot of money in bandwidth, but torrents don't do this. I think it's stupid that anyone is trying to make P2P illegal because it's up there with making cars illegal to prevent street racing or making cough medicine illegal to prevent distribution of meth.
Posted by: Aldrasio | August 10, 2008 4:15 PM
To add to the previous comment, I have reasons for piracy: I pirate music because no band's album is worth $25, no matter how good it is. It's absurd that DVD's and CD's cost roughly the same.
I pirate TV shows because I don't have to wait for the DVD release and episodes are generally available within the hour after they air. Besides, if I can TiVo it and watch whenever I want, why should it be illegal to distribute it?
I pirate anime because it's way too expensive here and, as a college student, I don't have much spending money.
I don't pirate movies because they're typically worth the price, and I don't pirate software unless I just want to try it out before buying it because it's better than wasting $40 on something I'll never use because I don't like it.
Posted by: Aldrasio | August 10, 2008 4:28 PM
SPY SAPPIN' MY PACKETS!
Posted by: ish | August 12, 2008 1:29 PM
I think most people who pirate music and movies ect would never buy the stuff if they had no option of getting it free, so no one is really losing.
Posted by: b-rad | August 24, 2008 9:48 PM