Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Comcast's P2P Conversion: I'll Believe It When I See Results

Posted by: Peter Burrows on March 28, 2008

Is Comcast serious about making nice with the “peer to peer” technology crowd? That would seem to be the case given the deal announced yesterday with BitTorrent Inc., in which the cable giant agreed to stop throttling the performance of heavy P2P users during peak times, and instead pledged to invest in the bandwidth and technologies to be able to handle that traffic. Says BitTorrent CEO Ashwin Navin: “It’s a great day for us. A lot of good can come out of this.”

I think that may well be true—somewhere down the line. For now, it’s pretty clear that this conversion is more about solving a nasty PR problem, than in truly working with P2P providers to better handle the rising tide of online video traffic. Clearly, Comcast needs to calm down critics—including at the FCC—who’ve had a field day since the Associated Press revealed last Fall that Comcast was throttling the bandwidth to heavy P2P users during peak times. And BitTorrent was the most convenient partner through which to make such a move. “Comcast has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, and they’re trying to quickly close the book on the issue,” says Gilles BianRosa, CEO of P2P rival Vuze Inc., which filed a complaint with the FCC last year seeking new rules on how ISPs can manage traffic over their networks. “Just putting out a press release doesn’t push the envelope too much.” Om Malik was similarly suspicious. And FCC chairman Kevin Martin says he’s watching to make sure words are followed by action.

More after the break:

Why such cynicism about the deal with BitTorrent? For starters, the company is a known quantity to Comcast. BitTorrent president Ashwin Navin says the company has been having talks with Comcast technologists about they could use P2P to their advantage for the past 2.5 years, and a year ago Comcast CTO Tony Werner joined BitTorrent’s advisory board. Also, BitTorrent certainly has the right name, since it may lead some to make more of the deal than really exists. That's because BitTorrent is the name of the most commonly used software protocol used to distribute P2P traffic. But while BitTorrent, the company, invented the underlying protocol, it's only one of many that make software that work with this standard. Vuze, for example, has created programs (mostly a client called Azureus) that have been downloaded more than 160 million times.

Navin is quick to admit that politics played a major role in Comcast’s turnaround. While his company may have been in talks with Comcast for 2.5 years, it didn’t find out about Comcast’s throttling policy until the rest of the world did. Indeed, BitTorrent has supported Vuze’s petition with the FCC.

Rather, Comcast only got serious about partnering with BitTorrent in the aftermath of amajor PR debacle. Not only did its surreptitious throttling create a prime-rib of an issue for the Net Neutrality crowd to bite into, but Comcast's clumsy efforts to deny or at least downplay the significance only made matters worse. That led to an FCC hearing in January, in which FCC Chairman Martin vowed to consider regulations on network management techniques.

Worse, telecom rival Verizon has since stolen the high-ground on this issue. Just days ago, the AP broke news that the phone giant has not only been partnering with P2P players, but had done research that suggests the collaboration can vastly improve download speeds for its broadband customers. With Verizon now out telling millions of young, Net savvy P2P users that it's on their side, Comcast can ill afford to stand still.

But if Comcast was serious, a greater symbol of sincerity would have been to reach out to Vuze, given that it was the company that filed the FCC petition. From the start, Vuze CEO BianRosa (who, by the way, is a former McKinsey consultant—not some wise-acre whippersnapper out to build a business on piracy), made it clear he hoped the pressure would lead to more fruitful talks with Comcast. “From day one, we’ve said that cooperation is required,” he says.

Regardless of the depth of Comcast's P2P conversion, yesterday’s news is a welcome step forward. At least Comcast will end its efforts to demonize P2P. I certainly understand the temptation. By some counts, P2P consumes as much as 60% of all consumer traffic—and carriers don’t currently charge extra beyond normal monthly bills.

But ask the technical experts, and they'll tell you that P2P technology has a critical role to play if Internet video really is going to become truly mainstream. By letting the world's PCs store vast amounts of video content, P2P can lighten the bandwidth load for content owners, who would otherwise have to pay much higher costs to pipe that fare direct to all of our living rooms. That's why many P2P companies have been quietly bought up by the likes of Verisign, Cisco and others in recent years

Even if tech experts have noticed P2P's promise, until recently the general perception of the technology among the Net-using public is still that defined for it by Napster, which used P2P approaches to become the first mainstream piracy site in the late 1990s (not the public company that bears that name today, which sells licensed music).

Ironically, I think Comcast may have done more than any PR campaign could have done to revamp P2P's brand-—from a weapon used by bandwidth-hogging online pirates, into a tool that all law-abiding consumers should be free to benefit from. Truth is, technologies are a lot like political revolutions: they're often dismissed by the prevailing powers as unreliable, under-powered and un-economical--until they prevail in the marketplace. Think PC vs. mainframe, Linux vs. Unix and Windows, and even cable versus broadcast back in the 1970s. We may well look back one day and see Comcast's conversion as a major milestone in the evolution of P2P. “The elephant in the room is that people are using P2P to watch long-form content—because it’s a very powerful platform for the job,” says Bianrosa. “More people are starting to realize this.”

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Reader Comments

Robb Topolski

March 28, 2008 02:59 PM

Just by way of re-introduction if necessary, I’m probably a key figure
as to why we’re all talking about Network Neutrality again. I was having a
problem uploading on Gnutella in early 2007. I tracked it down to
Comcast using Sandvine-injected RST packets and documented it. Blog
stories led to press stories which led to independent confirmation.
And here we are today.

Today Comcast and BitTorrent seems to have solved world hunger — and
I’d love nothing more than to be optimistic about it. But I cannot
be. As they say on Slashdot — show video, or it didn’t happen. This
deal is treachery, relies on how much we can trust the word of
Comcast, and leaves the public interests out in the cold.

I think it’s strange that anyone believes a word that Comcast says.
This is the Comcast that:

1.Told the government that they would not degrade traffic in order
to convince officials that network neutrality regulations were not

2.Started degrading P2P traffic the very next year, and failed to
tell anyone what they were doing.

3.Used a system that utilized forgery, and successfully placed blame
on the other peer instead of Comcast.

4.Denied it when caught.

5.Then changed their story when the denials were not believed, but
still never came out and said what they were doing.

6.Then they justified their actions by throwing their other
Cable-Internet brothers and sisters under the bus with their “they do
it too!” defense

7.Then stealthily changed the AUP days before an FCC filing where
they referred to the new provisions.

8.When the changed AUP started getting press attention, they stated
that a prominent story on alerted millions of visitors of
the change and accused Marvin Ammori of crying wolf. (Google cache
proved that nothing alerted users to the changed AUP until the day
after the press started asking questions.)

9.Then they packed the Harvard FCC hearing.

This company has not demonstrated that you can trust its promises, nor
can you believe its assertions. Comcast just used BitTorrent Inc. as a
tool to try and defang the FCC.

BitTorrent Inc. is a content provider. Vuze, who actually DID make a
complaint and petition to the FCC, is a competitor. Neither
BitTorrent, Vuze, nor Comcast represents the interests of 12 million
Comcast users nor the The Internet Society nor the public. And this
middle-of-the-night deal was made without their input.

Nothing has changed. The RST interference continues. It was a wrongful
act. BitTorrent Inc. has no right making a deal with Comcast allowing
it to continue to commit wrongful acts until it finally decides it is
ready to stop. The correct relief is to stop the interference
immediately and to FULLY DISCLOSE what it did and to accept
responsibility for those actions. (Even today, Comcast’s Policy VP
refused to answer questions about the interference.)

Their word is worthless. Until the interference stops, I have no
reason to believe it will. Until either meaningful competition returns
to broadband, or until sufficient government regulation enforces
Network Neutrality, we have no reason to think that this agreement
will last through the night.

Robb Topolski


March 28, 2008 06:00 PM

Thanks Robb for your input. I've modded you +5 insightful with extra modifier for being informative. I agree with you.

paying lip service to the public is ALL this deal is about.

chris Helton

March 28, 2008 10:06 PM

This article points out that Comcast's initial denial of Bit Torrent subscribers and now acceptance has done more for P2P than if they had simply let it happen. Now P2P has major recognition and the article mentions that companies like Cisco are buying up P2P providers since they notice it is a cheaper delivery mechanism.

Lester Vecsey

March 28, 2008 10:17 PM

Time Warner Cable in Manhattan (Road Runner service) seems to be going through similar growing pains right now, possibly due to their recent acquisition with Adelphia but I don't know for sure. The past couple months it seems they have been redoing parts of their network which has resulted in temporary network degradation. At least, I hopes its temporary!

Most buildings here use either one provider, or another. Customers don't really have a choice as to which one they can go with.

comcast customer

March 28, 2008 11:02 PM

I will believe in comcast when they stop
calling high usage p2p users and warn them to stop downloading or else cut service.

they are still doing that while they are talking about BT on the news.

The Mokoda

March 28, 2008 11:49 PM

Goodness, Peter! Where did you get that statement that Comcast "has agreed to stop throttling the performance of heavy P2P users during peak times"? According to what I read in the New York Times, this is what Comcast is going to do:

"Comcast said it would change its fundamental approach to playing Internet traffic cop. Instead of interfering with specific online applications, it will manage traffic by slowing the Internet speeds of its most bandwidth-hogging users when traffic is busiest.

“In the event of congestion, the half percent of people who are overutilizing an excessive amount of capacity will be slowed down subtly until capacity is restored,” the chief technology officer for Comcast, Tony G. Werner, said. “For the other 99.5 percent, their performance will be maintained exactly as they expect it.”"

Looks to me as if they are saying that they ARE going to slow down the heaviest users, but during peak times only (of course they didn't define 'peak times'; maybe they mean between midnight and midnight, who knows?.

Now if what you said Comcast plans to do is true, then you are right, since you will not see them actually stopping throttling at all, only doing it more, shall we say, selectively. However, unless you read something different than I did, or unless Comcast made another statement after that New York Times article was published, then you are basing your story on erroneous information. The article to which you linked doesn't even say that Comcast is going to stop throttling altogether, so your premise is shaky to say the least.

That being said, I don't believe Comcast has suddenly had a great infusion of benevolence either. What remains to be seen though, is whether the Internet will be neutral, whether voluntarily or by governmental decree. However it has to happen, I think it MUST happen. The Internet MUST, in my opinion, remian neutral. People ought to be able to send and receive whatever they want across the pipe (legal issues notwithstanding). If the ISP's can't provide what I need to be able to run full bore 24/7 if I want to, then they need to stop lying to me about the great bandwidth they are charging me for.

Lien Omit

March 29, 2008 12:05 AM

I cant believe this is a coincidence, in the last day since the hearings came to a close my internet speed has been reduced. This is the same type of interference I noticed when Comcast was indeed throttling bandwidth. Are they so full of hubris that they do such a thing? Unbelievable but I would like to see if anyone else can confirm similar findings!

Tyler Nelson

March 29, 2008 02:35 AM

You guys are blind. Shortly after comcast started offering broadband service it was at a 6mbit rate. A while later, they degraded the service to 1.5mbits and came out with their "Tiered pricing plan" Everyone that used to have a nice fast connection had a crappy one unless they paid more. Now theyre slowly upping the connection speeds a little at a time, and you retards love them for it. They havent even returned all of what theyve taken away from you, but you all are too ignorant to realize it. None of you fools have bothered to realize that they offer you an UNLIMITED service at a set bandwidth, then cry foul when you actually USE your alloted bandwidth for days on end. Now theyre playing around with the idea of limiting your downloads to 40-80 gigs a month and you tards are going to take it with a smile and love it. Not realizing that if you use Xbox Live and download a HD movie, POOF! 10-20% of your monthly allotment is GONE! WAKE UP PEOPLE! Comcast is a corrupt company with NO competition that has figgured out how to screw the public. Unless regulations are put in place to limit this or level the playing field for cable providers, we're all going to be paying alot more for ALOT less in the future. COMCAST = FRAUD, You never get what you pay for, and when you find a way to do it, they try and change the rules behind your back. When they get caught, they pull this garbage and try and avoid responsibility.


March 29, 2008 02:48 AM

comcast and any other isp should have the right to limit bandwidth to p2p. 99% of the p2p is the transfer of illegal files. p2p also wastes as much bandwidth as it uses transfering broken and incomplete and useless files. if every broadband customer ran p2p applications the whole structure of the internet would colapse worldwide.


March 29, 2008 03:02 AM

If you dont like your internet provider and dont want your bandwidth throttled dont gripe about it just go out and order a T1 line and believe me it will work great for P2P. Oh and if that is not enough UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH to swap your must swap files then get a bonded T1. And if that still is not enough UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH keep adding bonded T1 lines till your happy with the bandwidth you get.

Oh and one other note: With most managed T1 lines you will not have to call the provider when it goes down. They will call you 24/7 365 days a year in less than 5 minutes when the T1 line goes down so you can fix whatever YOU screwed up.

Stop complaining about something your really not paying for and read your Terms of Service.

JL Brown

March 29, 2008 08:01 AM

The really baffling thing it that there are technical approaches -- such as P2P caching -- that enable networks to handle P2P traffic while providing a good experience for all subscribers -- P2P users and nonP2p users alike.


A lot of international ISPs use P2P caching because international transit links are so expensive. The US is lagging.

Brian Roberts

March 29, 2008 01:16 PM

Well, what BS! Comcast offers a 6mb, 8mb, 16mb and soon to offer 150mb line to residential customers, but for what... If they can't use p2p then whats the point????????? Gaming, downloading hd movies, please, those speeds are just baiting the p2p users into legal problems. Just lower dvd, music and game prices, stop ripping ppl off and then we can all get along!


March 29, 2008 02:52 PM

Crapcast need to clearly define what it's reasonable limits are. As a "power user" or what ever you want to call someone that knows how to configure their download software, I'm more than willing to make sure I stay within a reasonable limit if that limit is clear.

However Comcast sold me an unlimited internet connection without giving me any clear guidelines on how to make full use of what they sold me without being unfair about it. Instead they just start blocking, resetting, and killing my torrent connections. Since they started doing that I downgrade my account. I had been paying for a premium account, but since I can't use it except for gaming and browsing I'm not willing to pay extra for it.

Something Changed

March 29, 2008 05:48 PM

I am a frequent torrent participant, and I use Comcast residential, and I believe they have given me 8mb/s. In the last two days, my connection speed has not decreased, however my torrent speeds went from a usual average of 75kb/s to well over 500kb/s. I am occasionally getting up to 1mb/s on my Mac using Transmission. They have definitely changed something...


March 29, 2008 06:46 PM

Typical of internet users. All they want is maximum download speed for next to no money. I own a small ISP and pay for the bandwidth and all costs associated with the network and I still have to remain competitive. I use bandwidth shaping and P2P / bit torrent are banned as part of my TOS. If a client has a problem with it, too bad. I'll let my competitors deal with all the bandwidth hogs.

What's going to screw all of the whining users out there is when ISPs charge not for access but by the gigabyte used. The tech to do that exists today and ISPs have a legitimate right to do it. Come to think of it that would solve RIAA's problem too.

Novel concept, if you use a lot of bandwidth doing your P2P crap, pay for it.

T. Russell

March 29, 2008 06:52 PM

What's the big shock here? Comcast ranks #19 out of the 22 largest ISPs in country, according a survey millions of Consumer Reports readers.

Top rated in every category: value, reliability, performance and support was Verizon's FIOS.

Comcast ranks #12 out of the top 14 TV service providers in the same Consumer Reports survey.

Once again, Verizon's FIOS came in first in every category. DirecTV came in #3 and Dish Network #4.

The writing is on the wall folks - if not for Comcast's monopoly in many/most of its service areas, it would be out of business. And from an economic perspective, Comcast is the perfect example of market failure, the prescription of which is generally government involvement. It's time for the FCC to get involved and change the status quo.


March 29, 2008 07:21 PM

100% of my P2P transfers are legal, business-related file transfers to and from work.


March 29, 2008 09:54 PM

I tried internet, phone, and cable tv service from Comcast for 2 months last summer. It was the worst customer experience of my life (55 years). Four times I was scheduled for hookup but there was always some problem and I would be put back at the end of the queue. I could never get anyone to explain what the problem was but I was always assured that it was taken care of. I asked to speak to a supervisor and was told they would contact me. They never did. I felt like a character in a Kafka or Orwell novel. By the time I gave up and went to Windstream I was really stressed out about it. The thought of doing business with them gives me a knot in my stomach. Comcast is a horrible company.


March 29, 2008 11:16 PM

It just goes to show that Net Neutrality laws are absolutely necessary. Bittorrent is a perfectly legal technology that is used by many big names and to degrade service to the users and companies is nothing short of discrimination. I'm just waiting until Comcast's monopolies run out and are forced out of business.

Long Live New Neutrality

March 29, 2008 11:43 PM

When I subscribed to Comcast's service there was no specific limitation on what I could or could not download or access (period!).

Comcast has been consistently raising their monthly fees so I also do not buy they are losing money.

Therefore, Comcast (or any other ISP) has no right to tell me how I can or cannot use my Internet connection and what I can or cannot download or access. If any ISPs are open about that I doubt they will get many customers.

So, in the end of the day, this looks much more like a "double dipping" greedy solution that not-so-ethical service providers are adopting to gauge prices, nickel-and-dime customers and limit/destroy competition.

What's next? ISPs will tell us that we can only access part of the Internet with our monthly fees and will charge extra fees if we want broader access, like cable TV companies do with their channel lineups?

Are we going back to the middle-ages and the culture/knowledge access restriction again?

bill lumberg

March 29, 2008 11:49 PM

Yeah "actionjackson" that the mostr retardeed thing I have ever heard. Do you realize how much a T1 goes for? Yeah just slap a bunch of 400$ T1's together and you will have great success! Dude, get a clue before you let the words out.


March 29, 2008 11:51 PM

Recently I was moved from Insight (excellent ISP) to Comcast. My speeds have gone from 10M down/1M up to at best 6M/800K and usually worse. This is with exactly the same cost. I don't use P2P much but when I have I noticed download speeds are good but I can barely seed at all as I am constantly disconnected from peers. This never happened on the Insight network. I can now understand why people complain about Comcast. If I had Verizon in this area I would move in a second.


March 29, 2008 11:53 PM

Recently I was moved from Insight (excellent ISP) to Comcast. My speeds have gone from 10M down/1M up to at best 6M/800K and usually worse. This is with exactly the same cost. I don't use P2P much but when I have I noticed download speeds are good but I can barely seed at all as I am constantly disconnected from peers. This never happened on the Insight network. I can now understand why people complain about Comcast. If I had Verizon in this area I would move in a second.


March 30, 2008 01:01 AM

The underlying issue here is whether a carrier like Comcast is going to peek into the content of the packet traffic they are carrying. Today, it's P2P so they can throttle it. The real horror for the carriers is that they suddenly become liable for the actual CONTENT of the packets they transmit. That's why Comcast is upset that they got caught (peeking). What a can of worms will be opened!

Papa G

March 30, 2008 01:05 AM

Awww gay.

What I'm confused about is if they are supporting a certain torrent program. If anything, Comcast should support utorrent and bitlord. Making the darn torrents faster would be nice.

I get comcast and it has a peak of 10 mb/s. I like it (except my parents don't because they have to pay for it).

I am a web designer, mmo gamer (Myst Online:Uru Live wich is gunna die really soon, but don't let it), torrent user, and I also sometimes run my own server on the same connection that three other comps are using. And it works fine!!!

No, Comcast is not corrupt (except for the fact that they were supposidly messing around with internet filters).

I used to run torrents and the whole internet connection would be just cut off. I would just reset the router, and things would be fine (thats the novelty of torrents, they resume). Now, I run utorrent in encrypted mode and it usually works well, but I have never been cut off with BitLord.

So, cheers and have your own fantasies with comcast.

Now, only if I could start my own isp...


March 30, 2008 01:49 AM

But to my knowledge BT has been doing this for years.. in their Fair usage policy.. in tieup with Ellacoya!!


March 30, 2008 06:56 AM

I think I'm gonna skip all this bs and upgrade to an OC-3 line. :D

Billy Solestis

March 30, 2008 09:18 AM

I agree with Dave; far too many ISP customers think it's their right to have an all-you-can-eat buffet for the price of a Pepsi, then go whining to the government when someone calls them on it. Comcast's customer service issues aside, any ISP's business model is designed around a statistical picture of likely bandwidth use. In other words, they could offer and deliver unlimited bandwidth, given their infrastructure and the customer demands at the time. Now, as applications (read: P2P) have evolved, customer bandwidth demands have grown beyond anything envisioned by the old statistical models. In other words, one customer's unlimited bandwidth in 2008 far exceeds what that same customer could possibly have demanded in, say 2000. When was the last time Comcast raised its prices? A couple of P2P users can suck up far beyond their fair share of bandwidth *based on what they're paying*. Talk about "caught with their hands in the cookie jar"...these bandwidths hogs are going to cause increased prices for all of us as ISPs have to spend $$$ to handle their increased bandwidths demands... unless ISPs do indeed decide to charge by the MB (or GB), like they did (some of them) in 1995.


March 30, 2008 09:34 AM

In admitting that they were throttling P2P traffic an that it was wrong of them to do so,they have given P2P a new legitimacy that could potentially be used to beat back the assaults launched by the RIAA and MPAA against end users. If filesharing is legal and cannot be restrained by service providers, how can the RIAA and MPAA continue to sue anyone?

don dimarco

March 30, 2008 11:14 AM



March 30, 2008 01:33 PM

The Comcast position is a complete fraud, as users can only go as fast as their cable connection speed allows. This appears to be essentially a breach of contract issue on Comcast's part. Namely, users sign a contract for a specific amount of bandwidth when signing up for the service. When Comcast builds out its backbone network it must add up all of its users' bandwidth that feeds the backbone, and account for that aggregate bandwidth in the backbone network. Otherwise Comcast's practice appears to be similar to Mel Brooks' "The Producers", in which the theater producers sell 100% of the profits many times over.

Peter G

March 30, 2008 04:05 PM

Wow.. Am so glad that I don't have to deal with Comcast, but am stuck with Verizon for now.

I think you guys are giving Comcast way too much credit. I have worked at large companies and many times what one part of the company is doing is not really known in detail by the rest. The initial problems were probably of some low level engineer that made a bad decisions. But when it was noticed the company screwed up by not checking internally first and just denied it. Then once they realized they made a mistake they should have just come clean then but instead some other person up in the chain tried to cover their ass.. Anyway, that is probably what really happened. I don't think for a minute that they are that smart to orchestrate such an elaborate scheme upfront.

On another front, does anyone know how this is going to effect P2P applications other than BitTorrent. Lately I have been using (BTW 100% of my file transfers are legal transfers) and am worried about once that becomes popular that Comcast and others will start blocking that as well?

Also, I don't understand why the P2P applications can't just make their traffic look like email traffic. That way all the ISPs could do is to put limits on your downloads, and this would be independent of what application you were using?

jack tufts

March 30, 2008 06:27 PM

I can't wait foe FIOS to get to Atlanta. Bye Bye Crumcast


March 30, 2008 08:53 PM

Comcast is an atrocious company. Nothing demonstrates this more than their "excessive use" policy. Every month, Comcast compiles a list of their top 1% of bandwidth users. They call each user and leave a message telling them they've been flagged as a problem user and that, if they don't cut down their use "drastically", they will be banned for a year. They absolutely refuse to tell you what "drastic" means or specifically how many GB/month you need to stay under. If you get flagged in that mysterious top 1% again in the next six months, that's it. You are BANNED for the next year. There is no appeal process or avenue for any type of resolution. Do a search on "comcast excessive usage" and you will hear one nightmare story after another.

After getting one of these calls, it became very apparent to me that they wanted me to know that they were a monopoly and they they could do whatever they wanted. They couldn't care less that the particulars of the policy were nonsensical and that they might lose me as a customer. I'd even go as far as to say that they seemed to be daring me to unsubscribe. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that this policy was designed so that they could drop that top 1% of users and resell it via VOIP or a bigger pool of low-bandwidth users.

For a company that has a monopoly on cable service, this is absolutely unconscionable in this day and age when we are all so dependent on internet access. I sincerely hope that the government sticks it to them hard and pray for the day when they have competitors in all markets. They are hands down the worst company I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with.


April 13, 2008 08:08 PM

There is something more about Comast blocking P2P traffic.
The true real reason behind Comcast's traffic management is to degrade the service quality of Skype or similar P2P VoIP phone service.
Comcast has much more to gain financially by doing so because Comcast also market their own internet phone service.
By blocking/delaying all other P2P/VoIP traffic, Comcast's phone service will have supreme voice quality over all other competitions.

Post a comment



BusinessWeek writers Peter Burrows, Cliff Edwards, Olga Kharif, Aaron Ricadela, Douglas MacMillan, and Spencer Ante dig behind the headlines to analyze what’s really happening throughout the world of technology. One of the first mainstream media tech blogs, Tech Beat covers everything from tech bellwethers like Apple, Google, and Intel and emerging new leaders such as Facebook to new technologies, trends, and controversies.



BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!