FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:

August 1, 2008 Clyde Ensslin, 202-418-0506

Email: Clyde.Ensslin@fcc.gov

Robert Kenny, 202-418-2668

Email: Robert.Kenny@fcc.gov

**COMMISSION ORDERS COMCAST TO END DISCRIMINATORY NETWORK MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES**

*FCC Affirms Its Authority to Protect Vibrant and Open Internet*

Washington, D.C. -- Comcast Corp.'s management of its broadband Internet
networks contravenes federal policies that protect the vibrant and open
nature of the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission found
today.

Ruling on a complaint by Free Press and Public Knowledge as well as a
petition for declaratory ruling, the Commission concluded that Comcast
has unduly interfered with Internet users' right to access the lawful
Internet content and to use the applications of their choice.
Specifically, the Commission found that Comcast had deployed equipment
throughout its network to monitor the content of its customers' Internet
connections and selectively block specific types of connections known as
peer-to-peer connections.

The Commission's action today is the result of an exhaustive examination
of conduct that was first brought to light by Comcast subscribers who
noticed that they had problems using peer-to-peer applications, such as
BitTorrent, over their Comcast broadband connections. When first
confronted with press reports about these difficulties, Comcast
disclaimed any responsibility for its customers' problems. However,
after tests conducted by the Associated Press and Electronic Frontier
Foundation suggested that Comcast was selectively interfering with
attempts by customers to share files online using peer-to-peer
applications, Comcast changed its story and admitted that it did target
its subscribers' peer-to-peer traffic for interference. The company
initially claimed that it did so only during periods of peak network
congestion and of heavy network traffic. Later, confronted with yet more
evidence suggesting that interference was not limited in this manner,
Comcast recast its position yet again and admitted that it interferes
with peer-to-peer traffic regardless of the level of overall network
congestion at the time and regardless of the time of day. The
Commission's extensive investigation into this matter --which included
two public hearings, substantial input from experts, and thousands of
comments from companies, organizations, and the public at large --
confirms that Comcast's interference is far more invasive and widespread
than the company first conceded.

The Commission concluded that Comcast's network management practices
discriminate among applications rather than treating all equally and are
inconsistent with the concept of an open and accessible Internet.
Indeed, the Commission noted that Comcast has an anticompetitive motive
to interfere with customers' use of peer-to-peer applications. Such
applications, including those relying on BitTorrent, provide Internet
users with the opportunity to view high-quality video that they might
otherwise watch (and pay for) on cable television. Such video
distribution poses a potential competitive threat to Comcast's
video-on-demand ("VOD") service.

The Commission also concluded that Comcast's practices are not minimally
intrusive, as the company claims, but rather are invasive and have
significant effects. The Commission found that Comcast monitors its
customers' connections using deep packet inspection and then determines
how it will route some connections based not on their destinations but
on their contents. In essence, Comcast opens its customers' mail because
it wants to deliver mail not based on the address on the envelope but on
the type of letter contained therein. The Commission also found that
Comcast's conduct affected Internet users on a widespread basis. Indeed,
Comcast may have interfered with up to three-quarters of all
peer-to-peer connections in certain communities.

The Commission concluded that the end result of Comcast's conduct was
the blocking of Internet traffic, which had the effect of substantially
impeding consumers' ability to access the content and to use the
applications of their choice. The Commission noted that the record
contained substantial evidence that customers, among other things, were
unable to share music, watch video, or download software due to
Comcast's misconduct.

The Commission rejected Comcast's defense that its practice constitutes
reasonable network management. While Comcast claimed that it was
motivated by a desire to combat network congestion, the Commission
concluded that the company's practices are ill-tailored to serve that
goal for many reasons: they affect customers who are using little
bandwidth simply because they are using a disfavored application; they
are not employed only during times of the day when congestion is
prevalent; the company's equipment does not target only those
neighborhoods suffering from congestion; and a customer may use an
extraordinary amount of bandwidth during periods of network congestion
and will be totally unaffected so long as he does not utilize an
application disfavored by Comcast.

The Commission's determination that Comcast was not engaging in
reasonable network management is supported by the overwhelming weight of
expert testimony in the record. For example, Professor David Reed of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, widely respected as one of the
architects of the Internet, said that "\[n\]either Deep Packet
Inspection nor RST Injection" --- Comcast uses both to manage its
network --- "are acceptable behavior."

The Commission also concluded that the anticompetitive harms caused by
Comcast's conduct have been compounded by the company's unacceptable
failure to disclose its practices to consumers. Because Comcast did not
provide its customers with notice of the fact that it interfered with
customers' use of peer-to-peer applications, customers had no way of
knowing when Comcast was interfering with their connections. As a
result, the Commission found that many consumers experiencing difficulty
using only certain applications would not place blame on Comcast, where
it belonged, but rather on the applications themselves, thus further
disadvantaging those applications in the competitive marketplace.

The Commission also reiterated that its interest is in protecting
consumers' access to lawful content. Blocking unlawful content such as
child pornography or pirated music or video would be consistent with
federal Internet policy.

The Commission announced its intention to exercise its authority to
oversee federal Internet policy in adjudicating this and other disputes
regarding discriminatory network management practices with dispatch, and
its commitment in retaining jurisdiction over this matter to ensure
compliance with a proscribed plan to bring Comcast's discriminatory
conduct to an end.

Under the plan, within 30 days of release of the *Order* Comcast must:

-   Disclose the details of its discriminatory network management
    practices to the Commission

-   Submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these
    discriminatory management practices by the end of the year

-   Disclose to customers and the Commission the network management
    practices that will replace current practices

To the extent that Comcast fails to comply with the steps set forth in
the *Order*, interim injunctive relief automatically will take effect
requiring Comcast to suspend its discriminatory network management
practices and the matter will be set for hearing.

Action by the Commission, August 1, 2008, by Memorandum Opinion and
Order (FCC 08-183). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Adelstein,
with Commissioners Tate and McDowell dissenting. Separate statements
issued by Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and
McDowell.

> Docket No.: 07-52

Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Contact: Marcus Maher at 202-418-1500

-FCC-

News about the Federal Communications Commission can also be found

on the Commission's web site [www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).