1 / 7

Jon M. Peha Carnegie Mellon University

This testimony by Jon M. Peha from Carnegie Mellon University highlights the harmful effects of Comcast's discriminatory practices on P2P traffic and the importance of transparency in network management. It raises concerns about false advertising, fraud, and the implications for network neutrality.

walkerthomas
Download Presentation

Jon M. Peha Carnegie Mellon University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jon M. Peha Carnegie Mellon University Associate Director, Center for Wireless & Broadband Networking Professor of Electrical Engineering and Public Policy www.ece.cmu.edu/~peha Views expressed are those of the presenter alone. Not affiliated with any major actor in this debate

  2. Incorrect to say Comcast merely “delays” P2P They terminate P2P TCP sessions, block P2P traffic Comcast practices are “discriminatory” Unless they’ve blocked traffic from all applications Incorrect to say Comcast “does not degrade P2P” Service degraded for senders, recipients, & originators Incorrect to say Comcast targets P2P because P2P has an adverse effect on other applications. All traffic contributes to congestion, not just P2P. Comcast polices implicitly give them the right to selectively block based on any criteria Just The Facts

  3. The Comcast Case • It was reported that Comcast promised not to block, degrade, interfere with, or discriminate against P2P. • Customer expectations were violated. • If these reports were accurate, Comcast is guilty of false advertising and probably fraud. • But what does this mean for network neutrality? • about transparency • about discriminatory practices

  4. Misinformation and Transparency • Misinformation about Comcast practices did harm • Users of Lotus notes lacked information needed to diagnose problems with their system. • Users of closed P2P network might be fooled into thinking that there was a server problem • Users who fear secret measures may take countermeasures • Providers may profit through misinformation about congestion and how it is handled • Info may convince consumers to switch providers • If all ISPs provide enough info, consumers can choose

  5. Harmful and Beneficial Discrimination • Discriminatory blocking can harm consumers • Example: Cable company blocks dissemination of 30-minute videos to protect legacy service • Discriminatory blocking can benefit consumers • Example: ISP blocks denial of service attack • Congestion is a legitimate problem • ISPs need some flexibility to address congestion • Discrimination can be useful for congestion. • There are good reasons to treat P2P differently from VOIP • FCC should not mandate “protocol-agnostic” approaches

  6. Future Policy on Discrimination • FCC should • continue oversight of discriminatory practices • further clarify policies to support intervention in egregious cases • be cautious about adopting overly broad limitations.

  7. Carnegie Mellon University For more info, see Misstatements on Comcast P2P Practices, and Implications for Network Neutrality http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519870758 Jon M. Peha Carnegie Mellon University Associate Director, Center for Wireless & Broadband Networking Professor of Electrical Engineering and Public Policy www.ece.cmu.edu/~peha Testimony before FCC En Banc Hearing, April 17, 2008

More Related