Comcast hammered a nail into the concept of net neutrality this week, prompting all the people who have worked so hard to achieve net neutrality to stand up and yell, "We told you there oughta be a law!" In a bad news, funny news two-for-one punch this week, Comcast was also on the other end of a hammer.

Bad news first. CNET News and many other mainstream news sources revealed this story. According to CNET:

For a few months Comcast has been the subject of scattered reports that say it throttles BitTorrent traffic.

TorrentFreak said in August that Comcast was surreptitiously interfering with file transfers by posing as one party and then, essentially, hanging up the phone. But when we contacted Comcast at the time, it flatly denied doing it.

Thanks to tests reported Friday by the Associated Press, however, it's clear that Comcast is actively interfering with peer-to-peer networks even if relatively small files are being transferred.

The tests involved transferring a copy of the King James Bible through the BitTorrent network on Time Warner Cable, Cablevison, AT&T and two Comcast connections (in Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco). Only the Comcast-connected computers were affected.

This is significant. The Gutenberg version of the King James Bible is only 4.24MB, which is relatively tiny and indicates that Comcast was singling out even small files.

CNET points out that this is not illegal. It draws some conclusions about this news that relate to tiered pricing. Which either misses the point, to my way of thinking, or is some kind of code phrase for "no more net neutrality." The reason Comcast's behavior is not illegal is that net neutrality laws have failed to pass thus far. All data does not have to be treated equally under the law.

Alice, at 10000 Monkeys and a Camera said,

Maybe Comcast can get away with data discrimination while they're the only show in town, but as soon as people have another option -- especially if that option pledges net neutrality -- Comcast could start to feel pretty lonesome.

Iria, at Driver Heaven said,

In a move that violates the very concept of Net Neutrality, one of the founding principles of the Internet --- that all data is treated the same --- tests have shown that Comcast is blocking certain types of P2P traffic. It appears that the technology has not rolled out nationwide --- nor is it consistent --- based on testing, however.

You may recall that in August Comcast denied such shenanigans.

At New Communications Review, Elizabeth Fletcher explained the news in more detail.

In a blow to proponents of Net Neutrality, Comcast, the Internet’s No. 2 service provider, has been accused of obstructing file-sharing efforts by some of its subscribers. The Comcast news is huge, as the Internet has been operating on self-imposed concept of keeping the Internet free and open. Such net neutrality prevents Internet access providers from blocking sites or content based solely upon the company’s decision of what sources will be delivered via their systems.

Both the Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in two separate tests, confirmed Comcast’s actions. Comcast denies the allegations.

Seth Schoen explains in an EFF post: “Comcast is forging TCP RST packets which cause connections to drop (a technique also used by Internet censorship systems in China). These packets cause software at both ends to believe, mistakenly, that the software on the other side doesn't want to continue communicating.”

Critics of Comcast say the company’s actions amount to data discrimination. Comcast, in response, claims their actions were merely a way of keeping “Net connections running smoothly.” While such traffic shaping is commonly utilized by network access providers as a means of control, the difference in the Comcast case is they actually blocked as opposed to directing the traffic. A class-action lawsuit may be on the horizon.

ChicaDeaLeah also got right to the heart of the net neutrality issue in her blog.

Who is Comcast to decide which user is more important. I understand that it is their company, but when people pay for internet access, they do so with the impression that they will be able to access everything that is available on the web, not just bits and pieces. When people pay for service, they expect good service. The majority of the world functions by the term “the customer is always right;” Comcast is not the exception; their customers pay for service and should receive the best service possible.

By taking away bandwidth from BitTorrent users in order to giver more bandwidth to other users, Comcast is deciding which user is more deserving of that bandwidth. In their eyes, people who share files through the internet are not worthy of full access. It is not their right to decide which user is more important, or what the user should have access to.

Since when is Comcast the authority on who is important in the world. The next question racing through my mind is; who will be the next group to be knocked down the totem pole.

As mcjoan pointed out at Daily Kos in an article called "Why we need Net Neutrality, reason 3,742,"

Some of the traffic targeted could be illegal file-sharing, but it's also things like highly legal voice over Internet phone service, like Skype, or TV like Joost, or basically any BitTorrent download. Want to get that movie from Netflix to watch on your laptop on your next flight? Only if Comcast decides to let you do it.

As mcjoan said, this is only reason number 3,742 why Internet users should get themselves over to Save the Internet and do what you can to help out. In case you haven't already seen the widely circulated Save the Internet video on YouTube about net neutrality, take a minute and watch it.

(photo by Richard A. Lipski -- The Washington Post)

In a deliciously ironic concidence, we get to the funny part of Comcast's spotlight week in the news.

According to The Washington Post, one very unhappy Comcast customer in Manassas, Virginia, is Mona Shaw. Mona is normally a patient woman. But she was trying to switch her service to Comcast, and they didn't treat her with one bit of respect. They didn't show up when they were supposed to. They didn't finish the job. When she went down to the Comcast office and asked to speak to a manager they made her wait outside in the sun on a bench for two hours before telling her the manager was gone.

Mona and her husband went home for the weekend. They reflected on their experience with Comcast. On Monday morning they went back down to Comcast with a claw hammer, where Mona proceded to pulverize the keyboard, monitor and phone of the customer service rep. As they lead Mona away in handcuffs, she got in the last word by calling them "sub-moronic imbeciles."

Much as I support Mona's efforts (raise a hammer and shout "Tawanda" everyone) to obtain service from a service-oriented company, I do not urge you to do anything illegal. However, if you are inclined to write your senator or representative with a message about net neutraility, there are some perfectly legal ideas about doing that at Save the Internet.