Network Neutrality has, for some time now, been a bit of a hot topic in internet ramblings. The critics of net neutrality would have you believe there’s no need for regulation because there “is no problem.” Proponents warn of tiered internet services and provider control of content over consumers. Will there be a problem? Is there one already?
In the city I live in, we have 2 main broadband providers, Comcast and Verizon. We used to have Verizon DSL, but we switched a couple years ago when we moved into our current home. We had made the decision to drop our land-line phone service all together as we used our cell phones primarily, and Verizon didn’t offer a naked DSL plan (DSL w/o contractual phone lines). This fact, combined with cable’s faster transfer rates, led us to adopt Comcast as our cable internet provider.
A few months ago, when I start designing a new-aged, all-the-rage, ajaxified, web 2.0, social-networking, any other buzzword website, I had heard a few negative comments about Comcast’s Terms-of-Use concerning what’s “allowed” on home networks, I decided to do some research, and, sure enough, everything I wanted to do was explicitly disallowed. After starting with the line, “It is Comcast’s intent to provide our customers with the best cable Internet service possible,” and a somewhat benign summary of the documents goal, it starts to become apparent how totally untrue that opening sentence actually is.
No later than the second paragraph, it outlines that not only is it the end-user’s responsibility to “secure your computer equipment so that it is not subject to external threats such as viruses, spam, and other methods of intrusion,” but also that, upon non-compliance to this (or “any other Comcast policy”), said user may be subject to suspension or termination of his or her internet service. You’ve got to be kidding me; a virus infection can lead to cancellation of my service? By that account, simply running Windows is probably enough to put you out of compliance (funny, as, when signing up for Comcast, linux wasn’t even an option in the call-center-worker’s drop-down list).
Next up is their list of prohibited activities. For the sake of keeping this fairly short, and since I’m already off the topic I sat down to write about, I’ll only post those that I find objection to or that are just absurd (and I’ll paraphrase a few):
ii. Posting, writing, saying, or doing anything that anyone may find objectionable. (By my rough estimates that about 40% of postings in 90% of forums.)
ix. Though it’s primary goal seems to be keeping users from acting as an ISP themselves, it includes the line, “…or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi, or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis.” (I find it a bit unsettling that Comcast considers my wireless access point and “other methods of networking” prohibited.)
x. “connect multiple computers behind the cable modem to set up a LAN (Local Area Network) that in any manner would result in a violation of the terms of this Policy or an applicable Service plan;”
xii. “send numerous copies of the same or substantially similar messages, empty messages, or messages which contain no substantive content, or send very large messages or files to a recipient that disrupts a server, account, newsgroup, or chat service;” (Think of most of the instant messages you’ve received, or probably even sent, in your life.)
and last, but not least…
xiv. “run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;” ( This was my big problem. No servers. This makes my development LAMP server, my IPCop firewall, and bittorrent all violations).
Now, I haven’t done any polling and I’m not a lawyer, but I’m fairly certain that, thus far, we’ve shown that just about everyone that is actually on the internet has violated these Terms of Use. Oh… wait, we’re not quite finished.
Security- if you, or anyone using your internet connection misuses the service, bad news.
Inappropriate content and Transmissions-includes the line, “However, Comcast and its affiliates, suppliers, and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with the Subscriber Agreement and any other applicable agreements and policies.”
Newsgroups-actually says you have a 2 GB limit on newsgroup content unless you subscribe to a service that allows you more (I didn’t know that downloading 2 GB of newgroup content was even possible, but still, limiting how much of the bandwidth you actually pay for you can use never seems like it’s best for the consumer.)
Personal Web Page and File Storage-is where they outline that they’ll host web space for you since you can’t host your own. They do, however, reserve the right to remove or block the content you put up.
Finally we’re nearing the end…
Network, Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations-is where the user is forced to comply with all limitations on bandwidth (and other limitations) that they impose, but, as many already know, they never actually specify what those limitations are. That means that they can (and do) suspend users’ accounts when they download X amount when X=???
Copyright Infringement-is the part that tells you they’ll turn over your information when queried by the RIAA and MPAA.
This document, by the sheer fact that it covers such a broad range of the internet’s uses, is dangerous. By having a policy in place that keeps most, if not all, users within the possibility of termination, Comcast has a control over it’s users that could be considered totalitarian. With this in mind, and the recent reports of blocked services, tiered service doesn’t seem so far fetched.
