FCC orders Comcast to change Internet practices

Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin today blasted Comcast Corp.'s Internet practices and said the agency's enforcement order against the company would protect consumers and competitors.

The controversial order was approved today by a 3-2 vote, with the two Democratic members joining Martin, a Republican appointed by President Bush.

Comcast's interference with traffic in its high-speed Internet service was more widespread than the Philadelphia company had admitted to, Martin said, forcing him to act.

The enforcement action was hailed as a landmark victory by "net neutrality" advocates for extending FCC authority to the Internet, but it was criticized by top Republicans and Comcast as being too regulatory.

The company's Internet-management practices amounted to opening private letters and reading them, Martin said. In this case, the letters were electronic packets of data traveling between computers on the Internet. Comcast said the comparison mischaracterized what it does.

As expected, the FCC ordered Comcast to give the agency more details of its practices in managing Internet traffic, submit a plan on how it intends to stop the practice by the end of 2008, and disclose the new practices to customers. The company has 30 days to comply. No fine was levied.

Martin was supported by commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. Republicans Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert McDowell voted against it.

"Today's action by the FCC may actually result in slower online speeds for 95 percent of America's Internet consumers," McDowell said. "Although I have a tremendous amount of respect for each of my colleagues, none of us has an engineering degree."

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the FCC enforcement was a "dangerous path" and one that could stifle innovation and "kill American jobs."

Comcast fiercely opposed the measure and said the federal agency was punishing it for breaking unspecified rules.

The company said it was considering "all our legal options" and was "disappointed that the commission rejected our attempts to settle."

Comcast's allies said they believed Martin was motivated by his dislike of the giant cable TV, broadband and telephone company. Comcast and Martin have clashed over indecency on cable channels.

Tom Tauke, executive vice president at Verizon Communications Inc., said Verizon was not making a judgment on this "unique Comcast case."

But "with both the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission engaged in oversight of Internet usage and practices, new legislation and more regulation, with all their unintended consequences, are not needed," he said.

In a conference call, the left-leaning media-reform group Free Press and others, including San Francisco Internet firm Vuze Inc., said the decision was historic and important for an open Internet.

Marvin Ammori, the general counsel for Free Press who crafted the legal strategy and pursued the case, said Martin was "politically courageous" for taking on the issue.

The controversy stems from the discovery in 2007 that Comcast interfered, some say blocked, BitTorrent Internet traffic. BitTorrent peer-to-peer technology is used to transmit full-length movies over the Internet, many of them pirated, and other big files.

BitTorrent users were "Internet hogs," Comcast said, who slowed online speeds for others.

One practical matter for cable companies is that their networks are engineered for heavy downloads. But BitTorrent uses both download and upload capacity, which reflects the rapidly changing nature of Internet technology.

Critics claimed Comcast was degrading customers' experience with BitTorrent because it competes with Comcast's video-on-demand services.

Martin made clear in a three-page statement on the Comcast order that he was displeased. "If we aren't going to stop a company that is looking inside its subscribers' communications - blocking communication when it uses a particular application regardless of whether there is congestion on the network, hiding what it is doing by making consumers think the problem is their own, and lying about it to the public - what would we stop?" he asked.

Martin said failure to act could have led to new laws or regulations.