Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

Back in the days of dial-up Internet access, consumers could choose from a dozen or more independent providers selling service from prices ranging from free (for a limited number of hours per month) to $20-25 a month for unlimited dial-in access.  As long as an ISP maintained a local access number, they could set up shop and sell service at competitive prices in virtually any community in the country.

For awhile it seemed that this competition would continue as the days of broadband DSL arrived.  Phone companies like Qwest opened their network to third party competitors who could lease access to company facilities and lines and market their own DSL service.  In states like Minnesota, Qwest customers could choose from several providers, including Qwest itself, and receive service at competitive pricing.  But in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission announced phone companies no longer had to share their phone network with other providers.

It was the beginning of the end for independent service providers in that state and others.  The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that out of 47 independent ISPs that existed in the Twin Cities area alone in 2005, only about a dozen remain today — and many of those can count customers in the hundreds.  In fact, business has dwindled so badly, many providers no longer actively market DSL services to consumers.

The 2005 FCC policy allows phone companies to cut off the independents as network upgrades are completed. What service can be sold by independents in Minnesota is speed restricted as well — only up to 7Mbps. Even at those increasingly uncompetitive speeds, CenturyLink makes sure customers are notified they can no longer buy DSL service from independent companies once their upgrades are finished.

Today, the march forward for incrementally faster DSL broadband speeds at CenturyLink (which acquired Qwest), continues to force more and more competitors out of the broadband business.  Many of the remaining customers are located in rural or suburban exchanges only now seeing network upgrades.  But some companies are not waiting for the last of their customers to depart.  Implex.net saw the writing on the wall and decided to exit the business, telling the newspaper they could not compete with CenturyLink, much less Comcast.

“It was a dying business because we could only sell old technology,” said Stuart DeVaan, CEO of Implex.net in Minneapolis.

US Internet of Minnetonka also realized selling DSL was not going to be a growth business under current FCC rules.

“If you are a traditional Internet service provider from the mid-’90s that relies on someone else’s network, you’re at a serious disadvantage,” said Travis Carter, technology vice president at US Internet.

CenturyLink denies the FCC policy limits competition, pointing to cable operators, Wi-Fi, and wireless mobile broadband as all viable alternative choices for consumers.

But Bill Kalseim, who lives in rural Stillwater, having received notification he is about to be cut off from his ISP — ipHouse — thinks otherwise.

“I had a choice of DSL providers before, and now I don’t.” Kalseim told the newspaper.

Downtown Leverett (Courtesy: Town of Leverett)

Life in Leverett, Mass. could get a lot faster as the community considers entering the 21st century by bringing high speed gigabit broadband to town.

For years, residents have had three relatively slow choices for Internet access: dial-up, wireless or satellite-delivered service.  Verizon and cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which have systems in western Massachusetts, have largely ignored Leverett’s need for speed.

Now the town is considering building its own fiber-to-the-home network to reach every home in Leverett starting in 2014.  The proposed $3.6 million network will also offer residents cable television and phone service — helpful upgrades in the western half of Massachusetts where Verizon has allowed their landline network to degrade to conditions declared intolerable by the state Department of Telecommunications.  Last year, the state agency ordered Verizon to assess and repair its landline network in almost 100 communities in the western half of the state.

Town officials will introduce their plans for the new municipal broadband network at a public meeting April 28.  The community would borrow the money to construct the network, paying it off over 20 years and outsourcing its construction and maintenance to outside companies.

The town originally planned a fiber-to-the-neighborhood network similar to AT&T U-verse, but quickly decided the benefits of a true fiber-to-the-home network were worth the extra investment.

Unlike some other community-owned networks, Leverett will raise taxes on local residents to cover the cost of the service, but Selectman Peter d’Errico says it will save most residents money if they currently pay a satellite provider for broadband service. Research shows the largest majority of Leverett residents get broadband from satellite providers.

“It will be a little more on their tax bill and a lot less on their Internet bill, so overall they will pay less,” d’Errico told the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

d’Errico added the local community is done waiting for private companies to deliver modern telecommunications services in Leverett.  Those companies have repeatedly told town officials there isn’t enough profit or return on investment to justify expanding broadband in rural communities.

Leverett hopes to serve as a template to more than 40 other western Massachusetts communities who belong to WiredWest, a consortium of similarly-situated towns working together to build a regional broadband network.  Leverett’s network would leverage the Massachusetts Broadband Institute’s 1,300 “middle mile” fiber backbone network that is working its way through 123 western and central Massachusetts towns.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGGB Springfield Internet Connection in Leverett 4-11-12.mp4[/flv]

WGGB in Springfield previews Leverett’s efforts for better broadband. Big commercial providers ignore the community so now they want to provide service themselves.  (2 minutes)

Comcast's shoddy installation work in one Savannah resident's home.

Savannah residents fed up with Comcast Cable’s performance in the Georgia city should see major service improvements soon, the company promised residents and city officials on Thursday.

City officials began investigating Comcast back in January as residents flooded city hall with complaints about the company’s service, billing problems, and treatment of customers.  At least 350 formal complaints led Alderman Tony Thomas to suggest Comcast had failed Savannah.

A series of town hall meetings held across the city brought scores of complaints about incompetent service technicians, endless billing errors, and deteriorating service.  When the city threatened to consider not renewing Comcast’s franchise, which permits it to operate within city limits, the company quickly began resolving complaints.

Last week, Comcast formally introduced an 11-Point Plan for improved service for Savannah, although many of the promised improvements come with some caveats.

Some of the key components gleaned from the Savannah Morning News:

• Re-introduce the Comcast Guarantee, which gives a 30-day, money-back guarantee; a 24-hour service line; a $20 credit for a late or missed appointments; an easily understood bill and a promise to resolve a problem in one visit or offer a complimentary service. However, this nationwide guarantee was already in place in Savannah and other Comcast service areas, and requires consumers both to be aware it exists and specifically request the company deliver on its promises. Comcast does not volunteer service credits or provide money back or free service unless specifically requested;
• Provide 6,000 hours of training to Comcast technicians over the next year. Contractors cannot participate because of federal regulations regarding non-employees, said Andy Macke, a Comcast vice president.  However, many of Comcast’s installers across the country are contractors, and they committed some of the worst offenses for Savannah residents complaining about shoddy installation work. They are exempt from the required training Comcast promises to deliver;
• See whether bus service can be extended to Comcast’s Chatham Parkway office or see whether another local office can be opened. Comcast only operates one walk-in location for the entire city of Savannah.  However, Comcast has no authority to require public transportation officials to extend bus service to their cable office and the company has made no concrete commitment to actually another one;
• Quarterly town hall meetings and a city of Savannah hot line to get feedback. Comcast will hold three meetings over the next year, but will use them to promote new products and initiatives. This alters the original intent of the town hall meetings — to provide an opportunity for residents to air grievances, recreating them as marketing and sales events;
• By mid-year, Comcast will extend broadband services to 111 businesses downtown, which will cost about $150,000.  However, Macke says only those businesses that express “interest” and fall within the company’s “Return On Investment” formula will qualify for service. Unless Comcast loosens its payback formula, most businesses that couldn’t get Comcast to install service before will remain unqualified to receive it going forward.

Despite these caveats, most city officials seem relieved the company is now addressing the complaints which turned Comcast’s performance into a political issue earlier this year.

Mayor Edna Jackson told Comcast she was pleased with the company’s improved level of service.

“It seems as if you heard us and the message went out very well,” Jackson said. “You have worked very hard and very diligently.”

Comcast also promises to expand its low-income Internet Essentials broadband service into more parts of its service area.  The company reported that out of 18.1 million homes that purchase broadband service from the cable operator, just 41,000 qualified for the Internet Essentials program, which sells low speed Internet access for $10 a month.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOC Savannah Comcast Resolving Complaints 4-8-12.mp4[/flv]

WTOC in Savannah covered the city council’s reaction to Comcast’s promises of improved performance for the city’s cable subscribers.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJCL Savannah Comcast Promises Improvements 4-8-12.mp4[/flv]

WJCL, which apparently anchors their newscast outdoors, got into the specifics of Comcast’s 11 point plan for better cable service in Savannah  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAV Savannah City Council and Comcast Reach Solution 4-8-12.flv[/flv]

WSAV, also in Savannah, called the agreement with city officials and Comcast “a compromise.”  (2 minutes)

Vranish says the community's free Wi-Fi has to go because of a "complaint-happy climate." (Image: KVIA-TV)

A bizarre political dispute involving board members of the Tornillo, Tex. Independent School District threatens to shut off community-owned Wi-Fi service for more than 500 subscribers.

The Tornillo school board is no stranger to controversy, and evenly divided factions often create at atmosphere some local residents describe as the best political theater in town.

Unfortunately, the town’s Internet access may be a casualty of the school board’s latest dispute.

Tornillo, a small community of 1,600 in southeast El Paso County, needs Internet access.  With 36.8% of the population below the poverty line, commercial providers have shown little interest in selling broadband to the community, more than 99% of which are Latino-American.

Since 2004, the local school district has provided free wireless access for a one-time setup fee of $275.

Now school Superintendant Paul Vranish has said he will shut off the service because a majority of the school board failed to vote for a resolution that would pay for any legal fees incurred by school district employees respecting any potential complaints about the service.

Vranish blamed a local “complaint-happy climate” for necessitating legal protection, but some local residents suspect the real issue is a political dispute between Vranish, the rest of the school board, and Tornillo resident Ricardo Hernandez, who separately filed an unrelated complaint against Vranish with the Texas Education Agency.  Two state agencies are presently conducting investigations into allegations Vranish misused district funds for personal gain.

Hernandez, according to the resolution, has “questioned a former employee as to the legality” of the Wi-Fi service. Vranish apparently is unwilling to find out whether the service is legal or not, declaring he would simply terminate the service at an unspecified future date.

“It’s a simple personal and political dispute that may well cost Tornillo its Internet access and leave 500 residents in the dark, all because Mr. Vranish thinks the community will turn against Mr. Hernandez if the service does close down,” writes Maria, a local Tornillo resident. “What are these people hiding because this is certainly not about Wi-Fi.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KVIA El Paso Tornillo ISD To Discontinue Free Community Wireless Internet 4-4-12.mp4[/flv]

El Paso’s KVIA sought answers to the Wi-Fi dispute, but found themselves chasing the school district superintendent down a hallway, unwilling to address questions about the matter.  (3 minutes)