Recently in comcast Category

Another filing deadline, another blast of press releases about the Comcast "network management" debacle.

To quote the great philosopher Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

No, really. This topic gets people in an uproar, whether it's the good and well-meaning people at Free Press and Public Knowledge, who brought the complaint, or the folks at Comcast and their NCTA brethren, who have made a valiant effort at reaching out to the Internet community and explaining themselves. They have a great blog. Seriously.

At first, I think there was some justified anger out there. I know there was some major ranting on this blog about what was, in hindsight was a poor P.R. response on the part of Comcast.

See, Network Neutrality was originally this fear that the owners of the big pipes were going to charge Google and others premiums to have their content carried, despite the fact that GOOG and their ilk already pay. This came out of some rather inartful comments by the CEO of what was then AT&T, who ranted about Internet companies making money using "his" infrastructure.

This whole "network management" issue is totally different, but the Network Neutrality debate shifted from the long-haul to the last mile. And Comcast, bless them, didn't react well. First they said there was nothing going on, then admitted it. Then back in March they announced an agreement to try and work out the technical issues that make Cable so difficult a platform to deliver consistant bandwidth on when P2P applications come into play.

Skip ahead to today. Free Press blasted out a release saying it's time for Comcast to "come clean" on their practices, when we know what they are doing, and have known for months.

"Last month, the FCC found Comcast guilty of violating users' online rights," Free Press said. But let's be honest here. Guilty? Last time I looked, not only was the FCC not a criminal court, but there is even dispute over whether or not the FCC can regulate broadband.

But a Free Press spokesperson said that guilty, which has a specific meaning in criminal law, was appropriate as a term of art, "given the amount of deception involved."

Ben Scott, FP's Policy Director even suggested that Comcast might go "AWOL," and not file. But a spokesperson for Comcast was quite adamant in assuring me that the "highly technical" filings would be in the commission's hands "by close of business." Comcast will also make them available at http://www.comcast.net/networkmanagement after filing them with the commission.

Let's cool off until we see what everyone's cards are, shall we?

In its ongoing dispute over "network management" practices, which some are calling the latest battle over so-called "net neutrality," Comcast filed its (expected) appeal today with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (which has jurisdiction over the FCC). They have also appealed the decision to the FCC itself.

Comcast Exec. Vice President David Cohen said of the appeal:

"Although we are seeking review and reversal of the Commission's network management order in federal court, we intend to comply fully with the requirements established in that order, which essentially codify the voluntary commitments that we have already announced, and to continue to act in accord with the Commission's Internet Policy Statement.  Thus, we intend to make the required filings and disclosures, and we will follow through on our longstanding commitment to transition to protocol-agnostic network congestion management practices by the end of this year.  We also remain committed to bringing our customers a superior Internet experience. 

We filed this appeal in order to protect our legal rights and to challenge the basis on which the Commission found that Comcast violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable standards or rules.  We continue to recognize that the Commission has jurisdiction over Internet service providers and may regulate them in appropriate circumstances and in accordance with appropriate procedures.  However, we are compelled to appeal because we strongly believe that, in this particular case, the Commission's action was legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record."

Some on the right are now calling for Net Neutrality as some sort of way to protect themselves against domination by "liberal media." I'm finding this more and more hilarious as the same people who want deregulation in everything else want regulation because they feel like they aren't as good at a medium, so they want a different one regulated because they think they're smart enough to get an advantage. *gag* More later.

Comcast responded to the FCC's order to revise and explain their network management practice.

It's simple, really. They're just going to cut you off at 250GB.

Now think about this. The original premise behind this issue was that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, and potentially cutting off a rival provider of video downloads. Now it's being turned into the more general issue of what is a fair amount of bandwidth.

But here are two points to consider when evaluating Comcast's announcement:

1. Comcast doesn't believe the FCC has the authority to tell them what to do on this. They may be right. The guys over at Technology Liberation Front have some good rationale behind it, and even Bill Kennard, former FCC chairman says that the Commission's K-Mart led majority (since when does Martin agree with Adelstein and Copps?) is probably overreaching.

2. Comcast doesn't care about downloads. They care about uploads. The big idea is that if you can create content, they are no longer the gatekeeper. Already discussion on FriendFeed is saying this. I'm not so sure it's true. Sure, Comcast has an interest in getting you to pay them for cable, etc, but how do they benefit from screwing their customers? Free Press says the real issue is one of monopoly. This might be true where Verizon and ATT haven't been able to roll out Fiber To The Home and where you can't get DBS or DSL, but Comcast doesn't have a monopoly on Internet access.

I would be more interested in discussing #1 than making emotional arguments about #2.

The good people at the NYT have given me more reason to get excited about next month's NCTA Cable Show in New Orleans: Watching the speculation, rumour and intrigue behind who might try and take over Time Warner's cable systems, which are about to become sort of "up for grabs" as they get spun off.

Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chief executive of Time Warner Inc., continued to trim what has for years been the world's largest media company by announcing Wednesday that it would completely spin off its cable company.

The news -- which was not unexpected and follows an earlier transaction in which a portion of the cable unit was spun off into a separate public company -- came as Time Warner reported quarterly earnings that were largely in line with Wall Street's expectations.

This is going to be fun to watch for a number of reasons. Last time there was a major group of systems up for sale was when AT&T sold off their Cable systems, leading to a "friendly" competition between Cox Communications, and the eventual winner Comcast. That victory gave Comcast a huge market advantage in the number of subscribers, but Comcast, which has a reputation for fighting like Rocky, the unofficial mascot of its' home city of Philadelpha, may not be able to benefit from going after TIme Warner without helping Cox, their old Atlanta-based foes. 

(this was originally dated 4/10 but I think it deserves another look at how a big, often maligned corporation is doing something right. Hopefully Frank and I will talk again soon.)