Tangling over Net traffic cops

The battle between Internet users and network operators has heated up again after cable giant Comcast was caught quietly blocking customers from sharing movies, music and other stuff that can clog the Internet’s pipes.

Last week, the company caused another stir when it paid passers-by to fill seats at a contentious Federal Communications Commission hearing where critics turned out in droves to complain about surreptitious tampering with their online activities.

At the heart of the matter is what’s known in tech circles as “net neutrality,” the notion that all content is created equal and that network operators have no right to pick and choose what gets to traverse their lines.

Internet service providers like cable and phone companies argue that they’re being overwhelmed by a relative few bandwidth hogs who are spoiling things for other users, and that they have to play traffic cop to keep the information superhighway running smoothly.

Net neutrality proponents counter that the solution is for telcos to upgrade their networks, not pick and choose who gets a green light online and who doesn’t.

“We’re at a critical juncture,” said Craig Aaron, spokesman for Free Press, an advocacy group that focuses on Internet issues. “We’re either going to have an open Internet like we’ve had in the past, or a closed Internet where companies like Comcast get to decide what you can do.”

Comcast, which operates primarily in Northern California, is the only major Internet service provider caught actively interfering with customers’ file sharing without providing warning. But most others reserve the right to do the same.

For example, the “acceptable use policy” for Time Warner’s broadband Internet service says the company “may use various tools and techniques in order to efficiently manage its networks.”

A Time Warner spokeswoman said the company is “not doing what Comcast is doing” but could do so at any time.

“What Comcast did is just plain wrong,” said Doug Walker, chief exec of San Francisco’s BitTorrent, the leading provider of technology for sharing heavy-duty content over the Net. “They were blocking Internet traffic and not letting people know that they were doing it.”

Comcast’s shenanigans came to light early last year when a handful of tech-savvy customers started noticing their online file-sharing activities were continually being interrupted.

One of the first to spot the problem was former Los Angeles resident Robb Topolski, who now works as a software engineer in Oregon. When not picking apart computer systems, Topolski, 44, sings in a barbershop quartet and collects rare examples of the music.

He tried to make his collection available via peer-to-peer networks, services that allow people to share content by connecting their computers online. Repeatedly, though, Topolski, a Comcast customer, found the connections being mysteriously terminated.

“At first, I thought it was just a bug,” he told me. “Then I realized that it was happening on purpose.”

Topolski tested his theory by connecting to the Net via a client’s online service. Suddenly he had no trouble uploading “Sweet Adeline” to other barbershop buffs. Back on Comcast’s network, nada.

As Topolski dug into the problem, he discovered that Comcast was disrupting his transmissions with software that, in essence, tricked the file-sharing technology into thinking he wanted to terminate the connection.

Comcast used a lot of fancy jargon to tell the FCC that it employed something called a “reset packet” that “is used to signal that there is an error condition within the network and that a new connection needs to be established.”

But Topolski said that because file transfers can only be stopped by users, Comcast’s “reset packet” was tantamount to the company impersonating a customer to take control of a transmission.

“This was absolutely improper,” he said.

Topolski posted his findings online, and gradually word of Comcast’s actions spread throughout the blogosphere.

The company doesn’t deny messing with people’s Internet connections.

“We believe this is the best way to manage traffic,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, a Comcast spokeswoman.

She said peer-to-peer file sharing now accounts for as much as 90% of Internet traffic and thus has to be limited so other people’s online activities aren’t disrupted.

“Are you going to let a small number of users affect how the Internet works for everyone else?” Fitzmaurice asked.

She has a point. Not everyone wants to share full-length copies of “The Magnificent Ambersons” with other film aficionados. Why should bandwidth hogs slow things down for people who simply want to surf the Web and check e-mail?

That said, it’s more than a little creepy that Comcast uses its control of the network to surreptitiously control users’ activities. Moreover, if the company’s policy was to pick and choose which online content would receive a green light, it should have told people as much.

That’s the crux of a lawsuit filed against Comcast by a Northern California man, Jon Hart, who says the company’s promise of lightning-fast Net access was undermined by its behind-the-scenes efforts to control traffic flow.

Fitzmaurice said Comcast’s customer contract was revised a few weeks ago to make the company’s network-management policy clearer.

Does Comcast still fiddle with people’s uploads?

“We continue to manage the network,” Fitzmaurice said.

As for the stacking of the deck at last week’s Federal Communications Commission hearing at Harvard University, she said paying people to fill seats “is a common practice for hearings.”

Fitzmaurice said Comcast was worried that critics of the company’s practices would dominate the proceedings, so it paid “a small number of people” to hold seats in the auditorium until more Comcast employees could arrive.

She said she didn’t know if those employees ever got there and were able to replace the company’s place holders.

An FCC spokesman said the commission was aware of Comcast’s actions and was considering another hearing on net neutrality -- a do-over, if you will.

This is important stuff. Regulators are trying to determine whether the gatekeepers of the Net have the right to determine who gets to say and do what online.

Perhaps the answer is to charge more for people with heavier bandwidth needs. That money, in turn, should be applied to making networks faster and more reliable for everyone.

Got an opinion on this? It wouldn’t hurt to do a little file sharing of your own in the form of an e-mail to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. You can reach him at kjmweb@fcc.gov.

--

Presuming, of course, your Internet service provider lets you send it.

--

Consumer Confidential runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.