Just days after the Federal Communications Commission asked for public input on whether certain broadband service providers are degrading peer-to-peer traffic, dozens of users have filed their comments. They identify Comcast as the culprit, and call for the cable giant to be honest about its broadband management practices.

"As a comcast home user I have seen my P2P traffic interfered with," one network administrator wrote to the FCC today. "I see connection throughput rate DROP after a short period of full speed. Even during off hours. Comcast is clearly selling me 2 Mb/s of networking at their discretion. They and all other ISP's should be forced to sell a real CIR (committed information rate) and to advertise ONLY that number."

Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks rely on users to share files, rather than concentrating the data on a few large servers. Comcast has been accused of degrading access to popular P2P sites like BitTorrent and Gnutella. In October of last year, Associated Press reported that the news company's own investigation found that in some instances Comcast "hindered file sharing by subscribers who used BitTorrent."

A telecommunications research firm has asked the Federal Communications Commission to encourage "preferential treatment" for companies that offer VoIP and gaming services over the Internet.

TelecomView's filing with the FCC's proceeding on broadband non-discrimination, popularly known as "net neutrality," says that the discussion has "lacked rigor." The firm argues that some high speed offerings, especially VoIP (Internet phone service), should be permitted to provide "priority" service over AT&T's broadband system.

"One of the questions in this inquiry is whether or not all packets on an Internet service should receive equal treatment," the statement contends. "TelecomView believes that the answer to this is no, that there should be service differentiation that gives the packets for some services higher priority over other services."

TelecomView's Robert Larribeau, Jr. submitted the comments in response to the FCC's Notice of Inquiry on the net neutrality question. The FCC posted them on May 29th. The agency launched its net neutrality proceeding on April 16th, with a comment deadline set for June 15th.

The American Conservative Union (ACU) has filed a statement with the Federal Communications Commission calling net neutrality "a 'solution' to a non-existent problem "

"There are so many problems with so-called net neutrality that it’s difficult to know where to begin," J. William Lauderback, Executive Vice President of the American Conservative Union, wrote to the FCC on May 2nd, "but probably the most obvious is that it is completely unnecessary."

Lauderback's are among the first serious comments submitted to the Commission in response to its Notice of Inquiry on the net neutrality question. The FCC launched the proceeding on April 16th, with a comment deadline set for June 15th and a reply to comments deadline set at July 16th.

In a side comment on the Adelphia buyout, FCC Chair Kevin Martin mentioned that the agency's five Commissioners remain divided on the question of "net neutrality."

"I continue to support the principles we adopted last summer," Martin said yesterday. "However, I do not think requirements are necessary at this time without evidence of actual harm to consumers or Internet users. The Commission has, and will continue to, monitor the situation and will not hesitate to take action to protect consumers when necessary."

Net Neutrality is the principle that all data flowing through the Internet should be treated equally, and more specifically, billed equally and allowed access equally, so that private interests, such as AT&T or Verizon, cannot prioritize what content consumers see and hear on cyberspace.

While not specifically using the phrase "net neutrality," on August 5th, 2005 the Commission declared that it had "jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner." The agency outlined four principles that would guide its policy making and enforcement practices in this regard: