Self-Appointed Traffic Cop

Should that alone bother anybody? Not necessarily.

By the letter of Comcast's terms of service, file-sharing use isn't allowed in the first place. Its "acceptable usage policy," like those of many providers, bans customers from file sharing.

Not all providers include such a strict prohibition -- and in practice, Comcast is happy to take peer-to-peer users' money. But even the most liberal-minded Internet services include a blanket statement in their terms of use that prohibits conduct obstructing other customers' access.

That's a fundamental contradiction of the Internet-access business: Companies sell unlimited service on the assumption customers won't all take them up on the offer.

Comcast went wrong by trying to keep network-abuse regulations -- and the tools used to enforce them -- secret from its customers.

Comcast could have told users upfront about its "network management." It also could then have notified them when those automated traffic-cop routines kicked in.

This seems to be a common reflex among large telecoms. Comcast, for example, once disconnected users who used too much bandwidth without defining "too much."

Comcast followed the example of Verizon Wireless, which marketed its cellular-data service as "unlimited" but closed the accounts of customers who exceeded a fine-print usage cap. On Tuesday, the company settled a case brought by the New York state attorney general's office, agreeing to reimburse customers it had disconnected for overuse.

Customers ought to have a simple remedy in these cases. When a telecom company has a problem communicating with them, they should take their business elsewhere.

But in many parts of the Washington area and nationwide, Comcast is the only broadband service available. In other areas, some other huge company provides the only high-speed access in town.

The network-neutrality debate will never go away as long as that remains the case -- nor should it.

Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro atrobp@washpost.com. Read more athttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/