The Federal Communications Commission recently ordered Comcast to stop blocking customers from sharing online videos and other large files on the Internet — because doing so violated federal policy.

The ruling came at a time when online providers are searching for new ways to relieve Web traffic jams. It was the first time the FCC has enforced open Internet access or "network neutrality" principles.

Comcast said it delays so-called "peer-to-peer" traffic from programs such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, or eDonkey. Even then, the company said it only steps in when someone is trying to upload large files to the Internet. So consumers who watch a video on YouTube, download a movie from iTunes or Netflix or make a call using Skype are not affected.

In separate interviews with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, an official from Comcast and a professor at Georgia Tech discussed whether the company is playing traffic cop or Big Brother.

Q: Could you boil this down for me? What's the basic issue here?

Waz: While we are constantly expanding the speed and capacity of our broadband networks, Internet traffic has exploded. To manage this congestion — as well as for things like spam, viruses, and spyware — all broadband providers have to manage their networks. Cable broadband is a shared network in the last mile, so a few users taking up a huge amount of upstream bandwidth can negatively affect the experience of other customers on the network.

Zegura: The main issue is: To what extent can Internet providers exert control over the traffic that they carry? To what extent they can decide, based on content, to deliver packets. It's also to what extent can the FCC impose requirements on providers.

Q: What, exactly, was Comcast doing?

Waz: If there is significant peer-to-peer traffic uploading in a geographic area, and more peer-to-peer uploads would begin to affect other users negatively, Comcast's network management would send the equivalent of a busy signal on a telephone.

More than 80 percent of the time, an uploading computer that encounters a "busy signal" can complete a successful upload less than a minute later.

Zegura: A reasonable analogy for Internet packets is that each of them has an envelope with an address on it. You can think of the envelopes as coming in different colors, depending upon the application. What Comcast has done is to treat those envelopes differently based on their color. ... So if the contents inside might include file sharing, those packets are being treated differently than those that indicate that it might be an e-mail.

Q: Was Comcast doing something that was any different than any other Internet provider?

Waz: Comcast's technique is used by other Internet service providers in the United States and around the world. Some ISPs have even more restrictive practices when it comes to peer-to-peer traffic. AT&T Wireless broadband, for example, forbids any P2P traffic on its network at all. Many college campuses have similar restrictions.

Zegura: I don't know the answer to that.

Q: Do you think the FCC was coming down hard on big business?

Waz: We are gratified that the commission did not find any conduct by Comcast that justified a fine, but we are disappointed in the commission's divided conclusion because we believe that our network management choices were reasonable, wholly consistent with industry practices, and did not block access to Web sites or online applications, including services using peer-to-peer protocols.

Zegura: They are certainly a prevalent provider to homes. The home is where you're going to see a lot of peer-to-peer traffic.

Q: Was Comcast being uncompetitive?

Waz: Comcast's terrific success in broadband comes from giving our customers full access to all the content, services, and applications on the Internet, including those that use P2P protocols. We do not block access to any content, application, or service.

Zegura: That wouldn't come to mind as my first inclination. The problem has to do with discriminating against content.

Q: If Internet providers don't take steps to control Internet traffic with large files and videos, will the problem get worse?

Waz: Absolutely. All broadband networks have to be managed for a number of reasons including congestion. If we didn't manage our network, then all consumers' Internet experiences would be affected, not just those few that are the primary cause of the congestion.

Zegura: It's certainly the case that the more traffic, if it exceeds the capacity of the network, it tends to slow things down. The question is what are the appropriate networks. Charging users for usage regardless of what the content is could be used for networks to manage their load. It's like when we use more electricity, we pay more money – the electric company doesn't ask us what lights we are turning on in our house.

Q: How would this affect the typical consumer who does not download or share large videos?

Waz: Most consumers don't use peer-to-peer protocols and so are not affected by our current network management technique. Even most customers who use P2P are not affected.

Zegura: For some network technologies there's a sharing of the bandwidth. Cable happens to be in this category, whereas DSL is not. If your neighbor is making heavy use (of the cable Internet) and it's not controlled, your bandwidth could be affected.

Q: What about the customers who like to share or watch videos? What should they do?

Waz: Any customer watching videos on YouTube or iTunes or Joost is not affected by our current network management. Any upload to YouTube wouldn't be affected either.

Zegura: Sometimes your connection is slower than others, but it's hard to tell why that is. There are lots of other reasons why the network could be slow.