Vuze vs Cox the Copyright Cop
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Cox is one of the few larger ISPs that’s actually agreed to become an RIAA fileshare vigilante.
Last year, “US ISP Cox Communications, which claims to be your friend in the digital age, has proved to be the exact opposite,” said p2pnet, going on:
“It’s caved in under pressure from the entertainment cartels, keel-hauling users accused of being pirates by disconnecting them, in the process apparently adopting the three-strikes-and-you’re out policy recently voted down by the European Parliament.”
Then a couple of days ago, “Starting February 9, Cox says it’ll begin implementing a new “network management” system in parts of Kansas and Arkansas,” we quoted dslreports‘ Karl Bode as saying, continuing:
“Cox is one of the only ISPs that’s actually announced it’s an active component in the RIAA’s new approach to file sharing.
“According to the Cox network management FAQ, the management system will, ‘prioritize what Cox defines as “time sensitive traffic” during periods of heavy congestion,’ Bode says.
“The system is similar to Comcast’s recently announced system, except that Cox will apparently be targeting certain protocols. Unlike Comcast, Cox so far isn’t getting into specifics concerning what level of network congestion triggers the system.”
Now, “Like many of you, we’re watching with growing concern recent announcements by Cox Cable that they’ll be taking steps to classify different types of Internet traffic as ‘time-sensitive’ and ‘non-time-sensitive,’ and may ‘delay’ certain traffic deemed to be ‘non-time-sensitive’,” says Vuze, a free BitTorrent client used to transfer files via the BitTorrent protocol and once known as Azureus.
Squarely on the list of ‘non-time-sensitive’ (read “second-class citizen”) are all traffic using P2P protocols, blogs company lawyer Jay Monahan, stating, “We take that personally, and think you should too.”
He goes on »»»
Cox outlined their plans at a very high level in their recently published Congestion Management Policy. The complete list of low priority uses includes:
- File Access (bulk transfers of data such as FTP)
- Network Storage (bulk transfers of data for storage)
- P2P (peer-to-peer protocols)
- Software Updates (managed updates such as operating system updates)
- Usenet (newsgroup related).
That means if you’re engaged in any of these apparently “second-class” activities and the network gets bogged down, you may see your connection slow — even though you’re paying the same price as everyone else for access. Cox’s announcement also notes that the low-priority list may change or expand in the future. Of course, the one of these that hits home for us (and you) is “peer-to-peer.”
Here’s what concerns us. While Cox may consider our content and business to be unimportant or of lower priority, all of the content we deliver through the Vuze HD Network is delivered using our bittorrent-protocol-based technology. That means that when you’re downloading Vuze content using Vuze, whether its a PBS documentary, the latest episode of “Pink” or some great user published content, it will automatically be classified as “non-time-sensitive,” and thus may be subject to delay at Cox’s sole discretion. Suffice it to say, our 10 million users who access over a petabyte of Vuze HD Network content every month care about “delay” of their content.
This is all both odd and troubling. On the list of “time-sensitive” activities entitled to higher priority is “streaming video and audio.” Apparently, Cox doesn’t know or perhaps doesn’t care that we offer a progressive download (“virtual streaming”) option for much of our content. Like other streaming experiences, you push “Play” and within seconds the content begins playing for the user. That’s the experience our users expect. So it would appear that under the new Cox regime YouTube and Hulu (and of course Cox services) are high priority, while Vuze’s similar services are relegated to the back of the bus.
Granted, Cox’s new classification system does not appear to mean that content will be automatically “delayed,” but it’s unclear what the criterion will be for making the determinations of the nature and extent of any delay. Nor is it clear what the actual impact will be on the Vuze user experience or others who enjoy the benefits of peer-to-peer technologies. This greatly concerns us. There’s no doubt that Cox would minimize such potential impact, but we are loath to trust the judgments of a network operator about what does or does not hurt our business, particularly when they too are in the content business.
It also remains to be seen whether Cox’s plan and actions fully comply with the standards enunciated in the FCC’s recent order against Comcast. Some of you will recall that Vuze became involved last year in a similar controversy with Comcast. In that case, Comcast was accused of improperly interfering with Internet traffic through the use of false reset packets, also known as the “man in the middle” technique. Several consumer groups filed complaints at the FCC against Comcast, and Vuze filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting the FCC to promulgate a set of clear rules that would govern “reasonable network management.” Vuze even testified at the FCC’s first field hearing at Harvard University.
The FCC eventually came down hard on Comcast, finding that their use of false resent packets was an “unreasonable” network management technique and a violation of Federal law and policy. In the Comcast case, the FCC found that Comcast’s interference with peer-to-peer protocols appeared to contravene the federal policy of “promot[ing] the continued development of the Internet” because that interference impedes consumers from “run[ning] applications . . . of their choice, … including the video programming made available by vendors like Vuze.” [Comcast Order, p. 25]
It remains to be seen whether Cox’s techniques will withstand FCC scrutiny, particularly under a new FCC Chairman to be appointed by President Obama, a known supporter of net neutrality.
Not surprisingly, FreePress.net, one of the original complainants against Comcast, was quick to express concern over the Cox announcement:
As a general rule, we’re concerned about any cable or phone company picking winners and losers online. These kinds of practices cut against the fundamental neutrality of the open Internet. We urge the FCC to subject this practice to close scrutiny and call on Cox to provide its customers with more technical details about exactly what it’s doing.”
We join Free Press and others in calling for close scrutiny by the FCC of Cox’s activities affecting peer-to-peer traffic. In the meantime, we will also be taking steps to monitor instances of actual interference with the delivery of our programming. Fortunately, this task just got a bit easier thanks to the efforts of Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf, and Google who, working with MLab, recently made available online tools for measuring interference with bittorrent traffic. We encourage all of you to use them and speak out about any irregularities.
Stay tuned.
February , 2009
pirates – Pirates killed during shoot-out, September 30, 2008
voted down – Europe parliament vetoes 3 strikes law, September 25, 2008
dslreports – Exploring Cox’s New Network Management System, January 28, 2009
only ISPs – RIAA claims of ISP support: equine excreta, January 6, 2009
new approach to file sharing – Mavis Roy takes on the RIAA, January 28, 2008
Jay Monahan - Cox Cable Delaying Traffic: Comcast Revisited?, February 28, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
