We've had a string of posts on Comcast's repeated anti-consumer actions regarding "reasonable network management" and their throttling of BitTorrent downloads. We also covered the fact that they hired people to take up space at an open FCC hearing on the subject to keep out people who might not have been there to cheer for Comcast. Now their shenanigans have brought Net Neutrality into the spotlight and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin may be ready to make his move.The scoop from Broadcasting & Cable
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/3/2008
The issue of network neutrality was back with a vengeance last week, with Comcast in the hot seat and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin leading the interrogation.
Network neutrality is an umbrella term for the debate over whether the FCC or Congress needs to spell out what broadband networks--essentially, an entity like Comcast.net that provides an Internet connection to customers--can and can't do in managing Internet traffic to their customers.
Martin said last week he thought the FCC had the authority to fine or otherwise penalize Comcast if allegations of blocking peer-to-peer file-sharing services are true. Comcast says the allegations aren't true, but according to Martin, the FCC is taking the matter very seriously.
It certainly seemed that way. At a day-long open meeting on network management practices last week, Martin repeatedly grilled pro-network-neutrality advocates about the allegations against Comcast, which was represented at the meeting by Executive VP David Cohen.
More fuel was added to the fire after activists accused Comcast of packing the meeting with its own executives. Comcast denied that but admitted to hiring line-sitters, not to keep out the public, but rather to accommodate its interested employees.
...
And while trying to define "network neutrality" was the seemingly impossible quest when the issue dominated the telecom agenda in the last Congress, "What is 'reasonable network management?'" appears to be the $64,000 question this time around.
The issue is more than an academic question for content companies. Much of the bandwidth-heavy content in question is the sort of high-resolution video that studios and networks are increasingly putting on the Web.
Indeed, the other company complaining about Comcast, online content distributor VUSE, pointed out during the hearing that the content it is distributing using the peer-to-peer application includes programming from CBS, Showtime, A&E and others.
Mike McCurry, co-chair of Hands Off the Internet Coalition, the anti-regulation net-neutrality group, contends that legislation, rather than FCC enforcement of its own guidelines, could be a big problem. "[Content providers] really need to watch this debate because regulated network neutrality is a killer for them," McCurry says. "It basically makes it impossible for network providers to manage data flow that would give the consumer a satisfactory experience."
McCurry says that Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee chairman, is clearly signaling that this will be the year for the debate because the U.S. will have a new president, a new commission and a new Congress in 2009. "It is a good time right now for people concerned, particularly the content providers, to think about what kind of universe they want to live in," he says.
So Comcast's actions have brought it to the forefront, but now what? The content providers are sure to argue (probably on their own, sadly) that there should be true neutrality and that the ISPs should just provide the gateway to the content and call it a day. I'm sorry, but that won't happen. Do you really think that multi-billion dollar companies are going to accept legislation that effectively says that they have no control over their own network? I'm sorry, but no. If the various content providers would band together, maybe with VUZE, the so-far largest and most vocal, at the helm they'd have a better chance of reaching a compromise that doesn't favor the "big boys"; the ISPs. This definitely plays into one of Andrew's big things, which is that a lot of tech companies seem to ignore Washington. If the content providers were represented by one single entity they might have the weight, not to push around, but to bargain on an equal lever with Comcast, AOL Time/Warner and Cox. Time/Warner mentioned possibly going to a pay-per-use system where, like your electric bill, you would get charged accordingly with your usage. That way, instead of limiting high-bandwidth users who pay the same flat rate as casual users they would just pay more. Unfortunately, Comcast's actions have forced the FCC to jump in and probably in a big way. With all the changes in Washington in the next year everyone will be looking to make their mark - can you really make a bigger mark than the one you'd make by putting a giant like Comcast in their place?
Leave a comment