I read the news this week of an arrangement between Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. (called a "non-deal" by some) with great interest. My initial reaction was "Great, Comcast has finally seen the light. Cooperation is a good thing." Then I took a moment to put it all in perspective and reflect back on Vuze's original objectives when we filed our Petition for Rulemaking [1] with the FCC in November 2007. Here are my thoughts.

First, let’s call a spade a spade here. Comcast got caught with its hand squarely in the cookie jar. It publicly denied it was engaging in questionable “traffic shaping” practices, but was doing so all along. It was only after a news organization investigation confirmed its activities that Comcast came clean. For years, Comcast engaged in definitional gymnastics by denying that it was blocking “particular companies or applications,” but all the while it was engaging in “man-in-the-middle” attacks intended to interfere with seeding activities of all bit-torrent protocol based applications, like Vuze.

Comcast eventually testified at the FCC’s hearing at Harvard, plug-in [2]” which is intended to monitor network interference and report back to Vuze. If we are able to gather some meaningful data, we will surely share it with the world. What this debate needs is facts, not more press announcements.

This brings me full circle. When we filed our petition for rulemaking with the FCC in November, 2007, we stated that both regulation and meaningful industry cooperation are necessary to protect consumer rights and foster innovation. We still believe that. Whether you believe that Comcast’s cozying up to BitTorrent, Inc. arises out of genuine enlightenment or is just a publicity stunt, in my view it changes nothing in terms of our original Petition.

Network operators already have demonstrated their willingness to engage in mischief that harms consumers. For years they said that market forces will solve all ills and that network management restrictions were a “solution in search of a problem.” Both turned out to be untrue. We are at a point where non-binding policy statements and assurances of good faith are no longer sufficient. Innovative companies like Vuze rely critically on the pipes controlled by network operators to deliver their service to consumers. It is unreasonable to expect companies like Vuze to compete in a world where there are no clear, enforceable rules to keep bad behavior in check. There is even greater cause for concern when the company that controls the pipes also is your competitor, as is Comcast with its own video offerings.

The FCC should adopt enforceable rules that protect all consumers against improper throttling tactics that threaten the ability to consume rich media. Ultimately, only the rule of law will compel network operators to stay on the straight and narrow. While we give the benefit of the doubt to Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. that their cooperation may hold promise, we will continue to urge the FCC to move forward with our Petition with all due dispatch.