Earlier this month I directed your attention to a new test dubbed the Glasnost Project, a Java applet project by the Max Planck Institute in Germany, aimed at testing whether ISPs are fiddling with user BitTorrent traffic. Preliminary results showed that the most frequent blocking (as they conservatively define it) is occurring in the United States and Singapore. The Associated Press has obtained a list of the offending ISPs (not originally included with the results) and seems shocked to learn that Cox is engaging in the same packet forgery P2P throttling as Comcast:

Cox Communications appears to be interfering with file-sharing by its Internet subscribers in the same manner that has landed Comcast Corp. in hot water with regulators, according to research obtained by The Associated Press. . . Of the 788 Comcast subscribers who participated in the study, 491, or 62 percent, had their connections blocked. At Cox, 82 out of 151 subscribers, or 54 percent, were blocked.

The AP shouldn't be surprised. Last November [1] I reported that Cox was engaged in the same kind of packet forgery as Comcast. However, the story got little traction, and Cox managed to fly under the FCC radar while Comcast had the living hell beaten out of them by, well, everyone. Part of that is because Cox has been a little more forthcoming in their use of such systems, though even their statement to me last fall left a lot to be desired:

To ensure the best possible online experience for our customers, Cox actively manages network traffic through a variety of methods including traffic prioritization and protocol filtering. Cox does not prohibit the use of file-sharing services for uploads or downloads, or discriminate against any specific services in any way. To help our customers make the most out of their Internet experience, we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service. These network management practices are outlined in our subscriber agreement and Acceptable Use Policy.

So they engage in protocol filtering, but they don't discriminate against any specific services? That's still not particularly clear, and it certainly doesn't specifically tell customers exactly what's happening to their P2P traffic. The FCC has stated they want these practices specifically disclosed to broadband shoppers, so they know exactly what they're buying (and for once I agree with the FCC). So why the free pass for Cox?

I'll note that Glasnost Project lead Krishna Gummadi tells the Associated Press that there are no phone companies on the list of offending ISPs. That's something else phone company marketing departments can put in their competitive ad arsenal, right beside caps and over-use fees [2].

Unfortunately, our users say the Glasnost project must be on a strict budget, given the servers are consistently busy. I've also seen at least one blogger [3] complain that when it does work, the test is delivering NSFW popups, something I've yet to confirm.