My God in Heaven! It’s been about four hours since the FCC announced its intention to add two more pillars to its idea of Net Neutrality: one, ISPs should not be allowed to wily nilly permit/disallow traffic on their networks (non-discrimination); and two, traffic management should be done is as transparent a manner as possible, so you don’t wind up with people discovering that their software is being tampered with, without their knowledge or consent, after the fact. I don’t know about yous guys (not a typo), but that seems pretty reasonable to me. And if you disagree, then you’re probably a high-ranking executive at Comcast.
One of Comcast’s executive vice-presidents, David L. Cohen, posted a message to the company’s Web site that, in so many words, attempts to throw cold water on the FCC’s proposals lest they become popular with its customers. The post, entitled “Does the Internet Need More Regulation? FCC to Decide,” is skeptical of the whole operation even before it begins. If not the FCC, then who should regulate the Internet? I’m certainly not Mr. The Government Solves Everything, but I’d much sooner trust the FCC to see to it that consumers don’t get screwed by this nation’s ISPs than the ISPs themselves.
So yes, the FCC should decide; that’s what it’s there for.
Then there’s a bit of a contradiction within two breaks:
There’s been a debate in Washington for the last six years over whether rules like these are necessary to promote an “open Internet” and an innovation economy. And before that, there was a debate that began more than a decade ago over whether Internet Service Providers should be required to let others resell their services.
But before we rush into a new regulatory environment for the Internet, let’s remember there can be no doubt that the Internet has enjoyed immense growth even as these debates have gone on.
How you can characterize six years of discussion as a “rush,” I’ll never know. In six years you have two congressional elections, and one general election. That hardly seems like “rushing” to me. And if what the FCC is true about Internet traffic doubling every two years, then six years is plenty of time to Figure Something Out™.
It’s not all negative, though, as Comcast says it’s “committed” to working with the FCC. So that’s good, and promising.
For the record, I’m not some scorned Comcast customer; I’ve never used it. I’ve used two ISPs since 2002 when I first got broadband: Cablevision’s Optimum Online, and Time Warner. So, really, what Comcast does isn’t any of my business.
“Comcast says it’s ‘committed’ to working with the FCC.”
Really? Committed? How about “legally obliged”? What, the FCC is going to publish a regulation, and then Comcast is going to ignore it and do things their own way? Who do they think they are, Apple?
* Full disclosure – I love my Mac and have Roadrunner through Time Warner. I just get peeved when I see this kind of PR nonsense. Committed. Pshaw. They’ll do everything they can to fight any regulation on neutrality, and then take several years to implement whatever rules do come out of their extended lobbying (and potentially civil) battles, calling it Structural Improvements and charging an extra leg, arm and tally-whacker to make it happen. All the while doing whatever they can to lower the FCC’s definition of broadband, and putting as few resources as possible into extending broadband infrastructure into rural areas. And they’ll probably give themselves raises and bonuses in the meantime.
good comment but what does loving your mac have anything to do with this?
The jab at Apple. I almost called myself a fanboy, but changed my mind and decided that I think the GV scandal is horrendous, and there is a certain pretension that the Apple Fanboy attains that I’d like to keep from tarnishing my lovely pate. So, just the somewhat off-topic comment that I love my Mac. Get it? FCC? Big companies being douchey? Laugh with me.
ah… i see now… my bad… thanks!
You’ll be indirectly affected by this relationship soon enough. Someone sets the pace, everyone follows.
“So, really, what Comcast does isn’t any of my business.” Exactly! So stop trying to make it your business by advocating that the government gets (even more) into Comcast’s business. If Comcast wants to throttle Vonage or Bit Torrent apps or whatever, let them. It’s their network. You can always switch providers. Cliche, I know, but true nonetheless.
Disclosure: I am a former Comcast customer. I used Comcast for 8 years, and I switched to one of their competitors who could offer similar service at a lower price. Oh, and I am also a long time Vonage customer.
That’s great if there are other viable options, but ofter their aren’t. Where I live I can have Comcast or DSL. That is not much in the way of choice. RCN services my city, but for some reason they won’t touch my street. Verizon wants to canvas the area within a year but not yet.
“You can always switch providers.”
Unfortunately, across most of the US, you can’t. I know in my area it’s Road Runner or bust, since it’s a government enforced monopoly. From what I’ve seen and heard, it’s the same most everywhere.
Monopoly + Lack of government oversight = death of capitalism
Problem is, not everybody has the luxury of being able to switch providers. There are plenty of places around the nation where one provider has a monopoly.
IE., Everywhere that Time Warner is attempting to “test” capped/metered services.
What about innovation? It’s bad enough that web developers have to worry about IE6 and Flash-incompatibilities, but what about when the “cloud” becomes more commonplace, and services like Skype and Vuze, which take advantage of distributed hosting, i.e. peer-to-peer, gain mainstream status and work alongside the classic single-host paradigm? As the web evolves, P2P will be about more than file-sharing and piracy, and innovation will work in that direction. If Comcast restricts bit torrent networks, developers will have to make multiple versions of their software that work in entirely different ways, and customer service will necessarily be hamstrung.
And that kills small businesses and independent developers who don’t have the resources of an Adobe or Microsoft, and can’t develop multiple versions side-by-side to reach all potential markets. It just creates markets that didn’t exist before, and limits those markets’ access to potentially game-changing software. The message consistently coming out of TC after TC50 is, “Swing for the fences.” If those fences are limited to areas where competition can exist, then innovation only reaches a small pool of customers, and failure for those innovators is imminent.
It’s the old construct of the Natural Monopoly. Whoever owns the infrastructure controls the neighborhood’s broadband access. I live in Brooklyn, and I can’t have Fios because the infrastructure isn’t in my neighborhood. And although Comcast and Cablevision are available in other parts of Brooklyn, they’re not accessible to me. I have Time Warner because they’re where I am. When you look at rural areas, which are still a decade behind in the broadband arena, they’re going to get their service from whomever provides the pipeline, and there will be no chance for the market to decide. It’s not McDonald’s or Burger King here. In the geographic majority of the country, there just aren’t, and won’t be, options. A governing body will have to provide for the consumer, when the ISP’s themselves have no other incentive to provide fair service. Enter the FCC with two simple fairness rules that it’s in Comcast’s interest to fight. Why not take underhanded special interest money, in addition to advertising and subscription money? I’m OK with a natural monopoly losing an invented revenue stream in the interest of keeping the entire internet working in the same way.
“How you can characterize six years of discussion as a ‘rush,’ I’ll never know.”
They are not saying that six years are a rush, exactly the opposite. They are saying that the debate is not new, it has been going on for six years, so there is not need to rush NOW into new regulations and ignoring the ongoing discussions.
If they are right of wrong about that is another discussion, but you should just make sure to understand their position without distorting it.
Yes, they are “right of wrong” as you so astutely put it.
With cellular providers all selling the same service for the same price, and jacking up their texting prices at the exact same time. And limiting the applications that can run on their network. And Time Warner testing extremely restrictive CAPs. And studies showing that American’s pay higher cell phone bills than almost anybody in the world. And our broadband speeds and penetration being one of the lowest in the world. AND…
Why are there so many apologists for these industries still running around? C’mon, I like Comcast as much as the next guy, but anybody who thinks they don’t need a little kick in the head once in a while is just not paying attention.
It was a typo, I meant “right or wrong” (notice how the F is just under the R on the keyboard). Sorry about that.
I’m not an apologist for any industry, I don’t care at all for Comcast, I don’t even live in the US. I just believe that going for straw-man fallacies is not the way to win any argument.
I can’t speak to the result this will have on the majority of ISPs, most I think are pretty decent in their business practices (I have used Time Warner, Charter and Knology with no problems ever.) Recently however, I have gotten Comcast because of a move, and, put simply, they are an evil company. They NEVER exist in a place with more than one provider, because they would never be able to compete. They throttle bandwidth more than is even remotely reasonable, their connectivity is horrendous, and god-forbid you ask their customer service to make things better. You have a better shot of getting yelled at than having things made right. My feelings, as a Comcast customer, are that Lucky is exactly right. They will “work with the FCC”, but it will take them a decade to do it.
Got a bit overly rant-y but Comcast will do that to you.
Amen Pacowek — COMCAST IS EVIL
Comcast is supposed to run at 8 mbps downstream. Because it ran slow and dropped connections, I used the CNET speed test, which showed a rate of 2581 kbps. How’s that for “blazing speed”? I’m looking into DSL, and wish there were some legitimate rating of connection speed prior to hiring the service.
I think the whole idea of remove net neutrality is wrong there only goal is about making money.