Recently in Broadband Category

Ok, so yesterday I posted the witness list for today's Net Neutrality/Broadband hearing. I could have woken up at 5am to beat the line standers and get a seat with the lobbyists who pay people to stand in line for them in the halls of the Rayburn building, but I didn't. I could be listening on the Audio Webcast. I tuned in for about 10 minutes, and haven't been impressed yet. I've got other projects, other things to work on, so I'm listening but my attention has not been caught. Why? Have you ever turned on your favorite TV show expecting a new episode and instead getting a rerun, or worse yet, a 3 hour extended version of American Idol? You know what you'll be seeing and hearing. No surprises, nothing to discuss with your friends. Just the same, this hearing, despite a few new faces, was a rerun in a series over the past year or so, including a few at the FCC. 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and his Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will be holding a hearing tomorrow on H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. The bill would direct the FCC to figure out exactly how many households get real Broadband service, as well as establish very basic Net Neutrality protections.

Steve Peterman, Executive Producer, Hannah Montana (against)
Mitch Bainwol, CEO, RIAA (against)
Kyle McSlarrow, CEO, NCTA (against)
Ben Scott, Director, Free Press (for)
Walter McCormick, CEO, USTA (against)
Christopher Yoo, CDT (against, academically)
Michelle Coombs, Christian Coalition (for)
Scott Savitz, Shoebuy.com (for)

Google, MS, Dell and the rest of the White Spaces Coalition (WSC) want to keep white spaces unlicensed.  They want the unused spectrum to be available for use to anyone, the way the internet is.

Sprint and T-Mobile want white spaces to opened up as well.  But under licenses.  Specifically, they want to license the spectrum and use it for backhauling. CTIA  has joined Sprint  and T-Mo (the number 3 and 4 wireless carriers in the country) in supporting the use of white spaces under licenses.  CTIA pointed out that they're worried about interference with devices on the licensed portion of the spectrum, but FCC-mandated tests are being run on potential white space devices to make sure that doesn't happen.

I'm a little torn or the issue.  On the one hand, it would be great to be able to buy a white space device and access the internet for surfing or Skype-ing.  On the other hand Verizon and AT&T (who surprising aren't voicing opposition to the White Space Coalition) spent billions of dollars for 700MHz licenses.  Is it really fair for the WSC to roll out devices that will access that same spectrum without paying for a license?  Although the 700MHz spectrum could be used for voice calls Verizon has already stated that they're going to use theirs to roll out LTE, their next generation wireless broadband.  I don't see them as being happy with white spaces being used for the same thing.

I (as I've said close to 258,798,663,325,458 times) am not a lawyer or anything, but here's my common sense take on white spaces.

If you think (or know) that I'm way off base, please leave comments.


More on CTIA vs Unlicensed White Spaces at FireceWireless.

Yesterday, I had the honor of speaking with Ambassador Richard Russell, who headed the U.S. delegation to Geneve in October and November of 2007 for the World Radio Telecommuncations Conference. Every four years, the U.N. mandates that the members get together and decide where they're going to put "new stuff" and how handle other issues, such as talking to satellites (and robots, although in the interests of security we didn't talk about that. because remember, persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.) and standardizing usage to minimize international interference and maximize compatibility. This results in a binding treaty that, surprisingly, we really do care about honoring.

Ambassador Russell gave me a look inside what went on, and while I don't have any sound bytes or podcasts for you, I hope this will shed some light on why things are the way they are, and what we have in store for the future.

Two major issues came up at the outset, which were

1) where to put the next generation "Wireless Broadband" and what specific technologies would be used.

2) How to protect the new Wi-Max standard from Satellite interference.

First off, I did ask about White Spaces and unlicensed spectrum. He pointed out that at the last WRC in 2003, the U.S. successfully pushed for the 802.11 standard to be adopted for Wi-Fi internationally in an unlicensed band, and that internationally, there is an understanding that unlicensed is an important category.

Next, I asked about FCC Chairman Martin's CTIA remarks (re Skype) and how Ambassador Russell felt in his role as deputy director of OSTP how he felt we as a nation could continue to innovate and create an environment with a diverse marketplace.

He responded that we want to make sure that new technologies "get a shot," and steered us back to the WRC proceedings, where the U.S. took a position in defining what the "IMT" (International Mobile Telecommunications) standard would be in governing what would be considered acceptable for using that term.

With regard to Wi-Max, Germany and China wanted to specifically exclude it, but we were able to roll Wi-Max into the standard, which pushed the WRC to expand the spectrum reserved for IMT to include the 700Mhz band.

This is a big deal. While we're going to have that 700Mhz area available at this time next year, many countries aren't transitioning to DTV so early (Mexico is waiting until 2020). On the other hand, many developing countries are going straight to DTV. This means that 700Mhz won't be encumbered already and it'll be internationally sanctioned (including across the Americas, China, Japan, Singapore and India) for mobile broadband. Europe, on the other hand, is going to reevaluate this in 2015. Big picture? 700Mhz (and Wi-Max) is here to stay for  information services.

What did I take away? America is still the leader on many technlogical issues, and if we're on the right track, the world will follow our lead.

Verizon Wireless announced that it plans to use it's block of the 700 Megahertz spectrum to build out its LTE (Long Term Evolution) network.  This is their next-generation wireless broadband answer as opposed to their CDMA competition (Sprint's) banking on WiMax.  AT&T said that they will use their 700MHz spectrum for LTE as well.  VZW's spectrum block is nation-wide as opposed to AT&T who won several regional licenses.

 

While I'm excited to see what VZW and AT&T can do with LTE there is something that is a little troubling to me - LTE is a GSM technology.  Verizon (and Sprint) use CDMA for their current networks.  It makes me wonder what VZW's move is going to be.  Will they have LTE data-only devices, like aircards, and still use CDMA/EVDO for phones?  Will it be like when AT&T/Cingular transitioned?  Are they going to maintain CDMA, but just until they can transition their customers to newer devices that will use the LTE network?

 

Verizon has marketed itself as being of the highest quality.  Although they're the number 2 carrier in the country, they're generally the highest-rated when it comes to quality and reliability.  I'm pretty confident that they'll figure out a way handle a transition (if it is a true transition as opposed to a dual-network scenario) with a minimal impact on service or call quality.

 

AT&T upset a lot of TDMA customers who they forced into GSM after their switch and Sprint still doesn't seem like they know what the heck they're doing as far as phasing out Nextel's iDEN network in favor of CDMA.  I guess now it's Verizon's turn.

 

Details at Verizon.

Details from AT&T.

Nokia showed off its N810 WiMax Edition, a mobile computing device with slide-out keyboard and 4.13" screen.  The new WiMax Edition will come equipped with web browsing, powered by Mozilla, and will even support a number of VoIP services, such as Skype.

 

I don't quite know how to react.  Sure, the N810 WiMax Edition can make calls using a VoIP (Voice over Internet Provider) client, but it doesn't seem to have a dedicated phone function in the same way that a BlackBerry or an iPhone does.  Also, if the screen is 4.13" that seems like it would make the N810 a little, well, large to be comfortably used as a phone on a day-to-day basis.  As we, and the washington Post, have commented before, does anyone really have room for another device to carry around with them?

 

Personally, I see WiMax like any other type of wireless data.  I think that the implementation would make a lot more sense if it was treated like EVDO or EDGE - just a faster connection to embed in high-end phones (and eventually not-so-high-end ones) and aircards.  I'm sort of thinking that anyone who would really be enticed by the N810 is probably taking their laptop with them everywhere, and the N810 can't compete with that kind of power.  A WiMax aircard, however, would let the user take their laptop online on the go, without the need for a stand-alone unit fo rmobile browsing.

WiMax has a huge potential to revolutionize the way we look at a wireless internet connection and has the power to allow people to replace their wired internet with it.  I feel like having a device whose comrades have floundered in the States (yes, i'm bringing up the Mylo again) as the flagship ambassador of WiMax is a bad idea.  Why not talk to RIM about bowing a WiMax BB8800 series?  Or preview a BB9000 with WiMax?

 

Currently, Sprint has a soft-launch WiMax network running in Chicago, DC and Baltimore.  They'r eexpecting nationwide rollout this year and are, in cooperation with Clearwire, looking for outside funds from Comcast, Time Warner and Google, to name a few.

 

Full press release at Nokia.

Left to Right:

I arrived late to this talk because I was finishing out an interview, but as I walked in Mr. Lynch is noting (correctly) that Verizon's mission is to be "at the forefront of customer demand." This, he says, is the reason behind Verizon's Open Access initiative. 

...by which I mean I'm ditching the DSL. I have a Sprint EvDO Rev A USB modem and a Personal HotSpot router on the way...which mean, I can carry my broadband wherever I go. Wireless. Cordless. I can give you live photostreams or even (good god!) streaming video if I decide to go that way. Maybe some audio. 

The NYT says it's getting there: 

Now, with 80 percent of passengers using these self-service options, the next step is electronic boarding passes, which essentially turn the hand-held devices and mobile phones of travelers into their boarding passes.

At least half a dozen airlines in the United States currently allow customers to check in using their mobile devices, including American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest and Alaska.

But so far, Continental is the only carrier in the United States to begin testing the electronic passes, allowing those travelers to pass through security and board the plane without handling a piece of paper. Their boarding pass is an image of an encrypted bar code displayed on the phone's screen, which can be scanned by gate agents and security personnel.'

Drew Clark reported for TechDaily for a long time. He also runs the Broadband Census. So, I pretty much take what he says about the Cable/Internet industry as gold, and I won't try to "reinvent the wheel" by saying something better than he does. I missed this story yesterday where he does a good job of explaining the hole a certain cable operator is in, both politically and technically.

After going into some background on Monday's FCC hearing which we both covered, Drew notes the back story:

Besides, Comcast is not a very good FOK, or Friend of Kevin -- as in Kevin Martin, the chairman of the agency. Martin has done nearly everything in his power to harm Comcast and the cable industry since he took over the FCC in March 2005.

 

That political battle with the cable industry is all about a la carte, or per-channel television programming.

So, the company that fought tooth-and-nail to keep Net Neutrality off the table last year has a guy who really, really doesn't like them. As we reported yesterday, the "family tiers" were the compromise to Martin's a la carte proposal. Martin is apparently still a bit miffed. It also didn't help that the Verizon VP who was at the hearing said that Verizon doesn't need to manage their network at all. Drew (who was at the hearing) even noticed the name tags:

 

Note even the pre-ordained and subtle digs, visible in this photograph: It is "The Honorable Tom Tauke" on the left, but merely "David L. Cohen" on the right. (Tauke received this honorific because he is a former Congressman, a Republican from Iowa.)

 So, when you walk in with a politically stacked deck, and the other guy says he doesn't even need to do what you're accused of doing...that's bad. But when you admit that your product has a technical limitation, and he manages to plug his products? Ouch. Quoth Mr. Clark:

 

The basic problem for Comcast is that users of P2P applications like BitTorrent do consume an extraordinary amount of bandwidth . But BitTorrent users aren't hogging the fat, downstream pipe that cable offers. It's the the scrawny upstream trickle that everyone is fighting over.

 

DSL service, in general, has the same "asymetrical" character, offering far greater downstream speeds than upstream speeds. But the cable modem service's shared network compounds this problem.

 

Contrast this with the message that Tauke imparted. Given the capacity of Verizon's fiber optic service (FiOS), "at the current time, we do not have the necessity of thwarting or curtailing traffic." Tauke even touted Verizon's 20/20 service, or 20 megabits downstream and 20 megabits upstream. The Bell company announced this symmetrical during the same week in which the revelations of Comcast's BitTorrent behavior surfaced last fall.

At this point, I'm going to stop keeping score. Thanks, Drew.

At his news conference, President Bush announced his "economic stimulus" refund checks would be mailed this May.

Can we figure out how to invest it back into some expanded broadband, considering it would provide $143 BILLION to the economy?

Bah.

Remember a few years back, when at the urging of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (R), Cable Television providers started offering "family tiers" of service? When certain groups complained about not being able to get rid of channels with content that offended them, they demanded the ability to "unsubscribe" from them, or purchase the ones they wanted "a la carte."

Obviously, the cable companies did not like this idea, so they compromised. Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox, the "big three" of cable television, started offering "family tiers," or packages without the channels that some considered too racy. In effect, they gave customers the option to "opt-in" to having the selection of channels they received be censored.

Yesterday, in this space, I wrote about a Utah legislator's proposal for "family-friendly" Internet service. I thought it was a good idea that parents, or anyone who wanted content-filtered service (schools, some businesses, etc) could have the option of paying for it instead of filtering software that is often questionable in effectiveness.

Just two days ago, the FCC held hearings on Comcast's alleged throttling of BitTorrent traffic. One of the issues raised was that of transparency, that when people buy what they think is "unlimited" service they are really agreeing to Terms of Service that let the ISP do certain things to manage the network.

Whether or not what Comcast did was proper is up to the FCC to decide. On the other hand, if the cable companies can offer "family tiers" and Utah can have "family" broadband, why can't the broadband providers offer a "tier" of service that is truly "all-you-can-eat" for the power user? Much was made of the need for "full disclosure" of restrictions on bandwidth by broadband providers. I agree that this is true. You should know what you are buying, and you should get what pay for. If a small percentage of users really does use such a large percentage of bandwidth, they should be offered the option of paying for the ability to truly use as much as they want.

Network management is reasonable. Full disclosure is reasonable. Paying a premium for guaranteed maximum bandwidth is totally reasonable. The market for "all you can eat" broadband exists.

If you build it, they will come.

Once again, I'm sorry to seem like we're picking on Comcast.  It's just that the recent bringing of net neutrality to the forefront of FCC hearings is thanks to them.  It started with their limiting of bandwidth for BitTorrent users.  We also remarked (with non-Comcast hypotheticals) how this bandwidth throttling could be seen as a way to promote Comcast's services (like VoD) over their competitors.  This is a sentiment echoed over at Portfolio.com in their coverage of the FCC's hearing on net neutrality yesterday.  The FCC is trying to determine the legality of "reasonable network management" and potentially remove an ISP's ability to favor one for of net access over another by way of limiting the bandwidth allocated to one activity versus another. 

I don't know if I agree with that.  Even FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that "Consumers need to know if and how network management practices distinguish between different applications, so they can configure their own applications and systems properly," which is something I've been saying for a while.  There really isn't any logical reason why Comcast shouldn't be able to determine how their network is used.  If they want to allow unfettered access to their proprietary content and services.  If they want to start limiting bandwidth hogs, then I guess that's their prerogative.  Where I, and apparently Chairman Martin, have a problem is when it isn't made clear to the consumers what actions could cause their access to be limited.  If they gave clear limits on bandwidth usage along with a simple way to monitor it or maybe gave some examples of practices that would or would not result in limitations.  Maybe something like "Casual e-mail and web surfing with a download the size of a movie once per day is ok, whereas downloading an entire season's worth of 'Friends' each day will probably result in bandwidth being reduced."


Now Edward Markey (D - MA) wants to make net neutrality law.  He feels that the internet needs to stay as open as possible.  Think about the other major means of mass communication:  Television.  TV programs can reach millions and millions of people, but only if licensed broadcasters deem your content important or profitable enough and can convince advertisers to agree.   The internet is totally different.  Right now, I am taking my view on a topic and submitting it for public ridicule and praise.  There's no one telling me what I can or cannot post.  I have to say that this paragraph has me feeling torn.  There's the first part of me who believes that the owner of a network should have a say over how it is used.  Then there's the other part of me who feels that the internet is a public space and that a company might not have the right to limit how I access that space and to what ends.

I think that if pressed to choose, I would have to side with Congressman Markey.  If Comcast, or any company, wants me to pick their content over someone else's just let the content speak for itself.  If your video or method of video delivery is better than another I'll pick you.  You shouldn't need to rely on limiting your competitors' access to consumers to boost your own sales. 

This isn't even something limited entirely to the internet.  Look at Wal-Mart.  They have their various "house" brands but they let those brands compete on the same shelf as brand name products.  They don't limit Coke and Pepsi to small shelves that are hard to reach while placing their Sam's Club brand front-and-center.  It's the same thing at grocery stores where the generics and brand names are side-by-side.  Do these retailers promote the benefits of their products versus the brands?  Of course they do.  They promote the benefits of their products and let you, the consumer decide which you'd rather purchase.

And then, to add insult to injury, Comcast actually paid people off the street to take up space at the FCC hearing in Cambridge.  Here they had an amazing opportunity to explain and exonerate themselves to the public and instead they just did more to damage their reputation.  Once again, Comcast is hiding when they should be embracing the opportunity to turn around their tarnished image.

Again, and I really can't stress this enough, I'm not out to kill Comcast or make them look bad.  When I rant about bad experiences with Sprint's customer service department I'm not trying to create some sort of mass exodus of Sprint customers.  Any "negative" post I write about a company's activities are made in the hopes of affecting change.  These are open challenges that I hope are accepted by these companies.  I'm not here to say "F*** this company" and "You should never buy anything from these guys again."  There are plenty of people who can do that.  That would be taking the easy way out.  Now if Comcast and Sprint and the others want to write off us, and our readers, like that then they're the ones taking the easy way out. 

Once again, please prove me wrong, guys.  Turn me around.  Offer awesome content and services.  Be up front about your policies and limitations.  Offer the best and you'll attract more customers than you'll know what to do with.

Connection Nation has a detailed report on what happens to an economy when more people have bigger tubes. Ars Technica has a good summary, as usual:

The new report attempts to quantify the economic benefits of the increase of broadband penetration. Using data from the Brookings Institute, they estimated that the increase in broadband boosted direct wages in Kentucky by over $1 billion. Surveys asked people to self-estimate the amount of health care, driving, and time saved through the use of broadband, which added up to roughly another half-billion dollars.

The report then extrapolated the data nationwide, generating figures for each state based on the relative populations in urban, suburban, and rural areas; the total economic boost came out to be $134 billion. The report notes that this would serve as a significant economic stimulus, and urges support for two bills: H.R. 3919, which would generate a national broadband census, and H.R. 3627, which would promote broadband adoption (Senate equivalents exist). Oddly, the legislation has been rolled into legislation on farming, and the contentious nature of that topic has stalled any progress.  This legislation is where an element of self-promotion comes in; the adoption of a national effort of this sort would clearly help Connected Nation, as they've moved several of the people involved in the Kentucky effort into the national organization in the hope of expanding the program to other states.

At today's FCC hearing in Cambridge, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) as well as several FCC Commissioners made a point of mentioning that they have a strong desire for more broadband competition and market penetration. Yet, at the same time, the Bush administration's NTIA says we're doing just fine and we don't need no stinkin' policy. On the other hand...$134 billion  is a lot of money.

Actually, it's almost the amount of money that the Bush administration wants to borrow from China and cut checks to us all for.

Save the paper and build some bigger tubes, Mr. Bush.

Sorry to open up with a title so lacking in originality, but it really best fits what I'm jumping into.  Also, I know it looks like we're bashing Comcast a lot, but it's really only because right now they're in the Net Neutrality spotlight (if Net Neutrality has a spotlight).

 

The fact of the matter is that what Comcast has done to BitTorrent could be done by other ISPs to other content providers and in turn their customers.  To summarize, Comcast restricted bandwidth when users of BitTorrent (a high-speed file transfer system) started to, allegedly, use enough bandwidth to slow down the connection speeds of other users.  Comcast was allowed to do this under the guise of "reasonable network management."  A big problem is that there aren't guidelines for what is or is not "reasonable."

 

Andrew has made this point repeatedly, but I'm going to make it here, and more publicly.  Also, with some non-Comcast examples. In an attempt to show that this isn't just Comcast bashing.  In addition, to make the peril a little more relatable for those of us who don't use Comcast.

 

The first example is Comcast and BitTorrent.  Comcast has already given the official reason for limiting BitTorrent bandwidth but here's the conspiracy theorist logic behind it:  BitTorrent is largely used to transfer video files at high speed.  Comcast has video-on-demand (VoD) services of their own.  Who can say that they won't start to limit bandwidth to and from any VoD source?  They could, under "reasonable network management", limit the accessibility of YouTube, AOL VoD offerings and even MySpace, which is riddled with videos. 

 

Number 2 is AOL.  Almost everyone uses or has used AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) regardless of who their ISP is.  What if AOL is your ISP but you prefer Windows Live Messenger.  Well, AOL could say that other IM clients are too much of a drain on bandwidth and thanks to good old "reasonable network management" could make your non-AIM IMs not-so-instant.

 

Number 3 is Sprint.  What if I decided to use my Sprint Mobile Broadband connection to use Skype (a service allowing for unlimited long-distance calling over the internet) so that I can save my precious anytime minutes?  Sprint could kill my bandwidth when I try and use Skype and force me into using the phone service that they provide.

 

Now, remember that the latter 2 examples have not occurred.  They are just possibilities that could stem form Comcast's actions.  Legally (remember that I am in no way a lawyer) it would seem that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent is ok thanks to the vaguery of "reasonable network management."  Whether or not it's "right" or potentially dishonest (seeing as I couldn't find any concrete policy on how much bandwidth you would have to consume before being restricted) is still to be determined.  Situations like this very real one and my 2 hypotheticals are why the tech industry and Silicon Valley cannot ignore the Beltway.  If the companies whose products are used and distributed online, at the mercy of ISPs, had banded together they could have, at the very least, gotten a firm definition of what constitutes "reasonable" when it comes to network management policies.  As it stands, thanks to the reactionary standpoint that so many of these companies take, we have to wait until after there's a problem in order to work with the FCC towards finding a solution.  In the meantime, customers are left with neutered service.

 

Are there plenty of non-Beltway concerns for businesses (and not just the 'Web 2.0" variety) to worry about?  Certainly.  We're all familiar with how dirty words like "lobbyist" and "special interest" have become, but a voice in Washington, who can potentially speak on behalf of an entire industry, can protect not only the companies who retain them but their customers as well.  And I don't think anyone reading needs to be reminded of what happens to a business without customers.

 

We wrote in this space at length previously about Comcast's zealous, if not a bit lengthly, hair-splitting and Clintonian defense of their "network management" techniques which they use to throttle (legitimate) Bittorrent traffic from reaching their cable customers by forging reset packets. 

Vuze, Inc. ("Vuze") hereby requests the Commission to commence a rulemaking 

proceeding to determine the parameters of "reasonable network management" by 

broadband network operators and to establish that such network management does not 

permit network operators to block, degrade, or unreasonably discriminate against 

lawful Internet applications, content or technologies. 

Sounds reasonable enough to me, right? If Comcast wants to use "reasonable network management," reasonable people can agree on what reasonable is, right? If I'm a network guy, I want my network to be stable and allow my users to "get things done." But, as always the devil is in the details. Comcast wants to decide what "things" should "get done" when online videos are concerned. When your company's "thing" is pretty unique and special, you tend to want people to get access to it. That's the point of the Internet, right? 

Vuze is one of the fastest growing platforms for delivery of high-resolution 

digital content over the Internet.  Consumers can use Vuze's desktop application to 

download and view licensed and self-published DVD-quality and High Definition 

("HD") content from a variety of sources, ranging from "traditional" networks such as 

A&E, The History Channel, National Geographic, BBC and PBS, to newer sources that, 

until now, have lacked an effective means of finding viewers and efficiently delivering 

content to them.  Vuze also provides access to a growing number of licensed video 

game software applications.  Put simply, Vuze delivers on the promise of the Internet to 

serve as an outlet for a richer and wider array of content than is available through 

traditional distribution mechanisms.  Vuze is powered by an award-winning peer-to- 

peer ("P2P") client that enables consumers to download large files conveniently and 

efficiently. 

As described in greater detail below, Vuze is aware that at least one major 

broadband network operator, Comcast, is attempting deliberately to degrade and, at 

times, block content from Vuze and other Internet companies that use similar P2P 

technology.  Vuze believes that other broadband network operators are engaging in 

similar tactics.  Such arbitrary discrimination against traffic carried on their networks 

runs counter to the Commission's policy of "preserv[ing] and promot[ing] the open and 

interconnected nature of the public Internet."1  The deliberate degrading and blocking 

of content also calls into question whether consumers are effectively able to "access the 

lawful Internet content of their choice," "run applications and use services of their 

choice," and benefit fully from "competition among network providers, application and 

service providers, and content providers," again as required by Commission policy.2

------

1 

 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Policy 

Statement, CC Docket No. 02-33, FCC 05-151, at 3 ("Broadband Policy Statement"). 

2 

 Id. 

Really, they're paraphrasing TV's Judge Judy, who famously wrote a book entitled Don't Piss on my Leg and Tell Me it's Raining. 

Comcast's actions starkly raise the issue of whether broadband network 

operators should be permitted the unfettered discretion to restrict or block traffic 

carried on their networks and to censor legal content or discriminate against 

applications and services that they may perceive as competing with their offerings. 

Even major copyright holders have embraced the utility of torrent technology for distributing large video and software files efficiently and rapidly. In addition to Vuze, other legal video sources that use torrent technology include companies that together distribute content from sources such as CBS, MTV, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, the Discovery Channel, BET, Dow Jones, Sony Pictures Television, Sports Illustrated, and sports leagues such as the NHL and 

MLB.  

You may have heard of those guys. They use it, too, and they're getting blocked while Comcast's Video on Demand service flies right on by. Does that make the picture any clearer?

While the Comcast example most vividly exemplifies the betrayal of the 

Commission's open Internet principles by a large network operator, there have been 

other recent actions by network operators that should give policymakers cause for 

concern.  Recently, it was reported that Verizon refused to allow opt-in text messages 

from NARAL, a large pro-choice advocacy group -- a decision which it quickly reversed following a story in the New York Times and subsequent outcry.14  Within the 

last few weeks, Rebtel, a VoIP company offering low-cost international calls on mobile 

phones, was denied access to wireless networks by Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and 

Alltel.15  A few months ago, AT&T was in the news for allegedly censoring comments 

critical of President Bush during a webcast of a concert by Pearl Jam.16  Finally, at least 

two major broadband network operators, Verizon and AT&T, include clauses in their 

Terms of Service that allow them to terminate the service contracts of subscribers who 

criticize the network operators or their business partners.

The common thread in the above examples is that network operators exert 

unfettered control over their users' ability to communicate (including engaging in 

political speech) and over providers of Internet applications, content and technologies 

that seek to reach their subscribers.  The public interest is harmed whenever network 

operators restrict innovation and access to content, censor political speech, or 

unreasonably discriminate against or frustrate the legitimate efforts of their 

competitors.

If you read the Communications Act of 1934 and the Communications Act of 1996, the FCC is given the responsibility of acting to protect the public interest. Vuze isn't even asking for some nanny-statish over-regulation. They even seal the deal with an appeal to let the market work:

Vuze and a growing number of content  distribution companies are distributing legal content using a particular lawful  technology -- a technology that it now finds is being discriminated against by at least  one of the major broadband network operators.  While network operators certainly  should have the ability to engage in reasonable network management, without clear 

rules and greater transparency, Vuze and other content distribution companies will 

have no assurance that a redesigned distribution mechanism will be acceptable to 

network operators.  While some uncertainty -- technical and otherwise -- is part of any 

Internet business, the uncertainty in this case stems from the whims of network 

operators rather than the effects of the free market.  

Not only that, but they'd like the FCC to keep the fox from guarding the henhouse.

Third, while Comcast asserts that its actions amount to nothing more than 

"reasonable network management," such characterizations must be met with a degree 

of skepticism when the content they are degrading is likely perceived as a threat to their 

dominance in the market for electronic distribution of video content.  As discussed

above, Vuze is a rapidly growing source of legal downloads of high quality video 

content from a variety of traditional and new sources. Distribution of such video 

content is no doubt looked upon with apprehension by network operators who would 

prefer to restrict their subscribers to content in which the network operator has a 

financial interest.   Indeed, by degrading the high-quality video content by which Vuze 

differentiates itself in the marketplace, network operators can seek a competitive edge.  

Network operators must not be allowed to undermine the promise of the Internet as a 

means for distributing diverse content and satisfying actual consumer demand for 

particular content.

Free markets? Consumer demand? Sounds good to me. 
In addition to Vuze,  Comcast and Free Press have also filed comments with the FCC, and they're joined by the Center for Democracy & Technology, the ITIF, and the Progress & Freedom Foundation. I don't have time for all of them now, but they should make for some interesting reading later. Watch this space.