Da-Chief
05-16-2008, 14:10
http://i.dslr.net/urls/90/13090.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Lacks-Firepower-To-Tackle-Comcast-Traffic-Shaping-94468)
Comcast has been working overtime to get the FCC off their back for the company's throttling of P2P traffic. They first argued that the throttling was perfectly reasonable -- as per the definition of reasonable in the FCC's network neutrality policy statement (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf). That involved using the word reasonable a lot in a new terms of service (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/91656), and issuing an 80 page statement to the FCC that used the word reasonable forty times (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/91822). Once that didn't work, they began exploring the idea of a clear 250GB month cap and over-use fees, as I first reported earlier this month (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/Comcast-Considering-250GB-Cap-Overage-Fees-94185).
However, the cable giant has also been arguing that even if their traffic shaping does violate the FCC's policy statement, the FCC lacks the authority to do anything about it. They may be right. In a recent filing (http://www.corpsman.com/r0/download/1288578~d03306ba1f1e58b93cde1ab6985f73eb/Comcast.pdf) (pdf), Comcast Executive VP David Cohen hinted very strongly that they'll take legal action if the FCC attempts to fine the company."The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," Cohen says. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority."
I've been reminding you for years that the FCC's principles on network neutrality are not law, and a well-lobbied FCC has progressively deregulated this industry to the point where it's increasingly difficult to take a ruler to carrier knuckles. CNET reports (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9945418-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20) that panelists attending an FTC discussion this week would tend to agree.Although the agency subsequently adopted four broadband "principles" that say consumers have the right to access the lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing and connect devices as they please, those aren't hard-and-fast rules that can be enforced, said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.
Combine that with a series of recent court decisions that knocked the FCC for overstepping its boundaries--including the one over the broadcast flag--and "there's a very high risk that the commission would be not found to have the jurisdiction to go forward and do something that would constrain wireless companies, cable companies, phone companies from managing their traffic."
That's why if you read Martin's pontifications on the subject, he seems to be focusing primarily on Comcast's lack of transparency with users, not network neutrality. Comcast really can't be nailed for false advertising, because although they used to advertise their service as unlimited (http://www.corpsman.com/forum/h/r0/download/408236~c5157c5f2ecde8dae62b6b20c84644a3/UnlimitedUse.png), they stopped doing so several years ago. While the FCC may be able to mandate ISP transparency, Comcast's move to clear 250GB caps takes the wind out of that action as well.
So, as I predicted in January (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/90838?r=487) when the investigation was announced, you shouldn't expect many fireworks for your taxpayer dollar. If we're very lucky, we'll see a small fine and slightly more transparency in the industry. But that transparency may come at the cost of caps and overage fees (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/94240). If I didn't know the two organizations can't stand each other (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/89456), I might start to wonder if that was the plan all along.
More...
Comcast has been working overtime to get the FCC off their back for the company's throttling of P2P traffic. They first argued that the throttling was perfectly reasonable -- as per the definition of reasonable in the FCC's network neutrality policy statement (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf). That involved using the word reasonable a lot in a new terms of service (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/91656), and issuing an 80 page statement to the FCC that used the word reasonable forty times (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/91822). Once that didn't work, they began exploring the idea of a clear 250GB month cap and over-use fees, as I first reported earlier this month (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/Comcast-Considering-250GB-Cap-Overage-Fees-94185).
However, the cable giant has also been arguing that even if their traffic shaping does violate the FCC's policy statement, the FCC lacks the authority to do anything about it. They may be right. In a recent filing (http://www.corpsman.com/r0/download/1288578~d03306ba1f1e58b93cde1ab6985f73eb/Comcast.pdf) (pdf), Comcast Executive VP David Cohen hinted very strongly that they'll take legal action if the FCC attempts to fine the company."The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," Cohen says. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority."
I've been reminding you for years that the FCC's principles on network neutrality are not law, and a well-lobbied FCC has progressively deregulated this industry to the point where it's increasingly difficult to take a ruler to carrier knuckles. CNET reports (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9945418-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20) that panelists attending an FTC discussion this week would tend to agree.Although the agency subsequently adopted four broadband "principles" that say consumers have the right to access the lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing and connect devices as they please, those aren't hard-and-fast rules that can be enforced, said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.
Combine that with a series of recent court decisions that knocked the FCC for overstepping its boundaries--including the one over the broadcast flag--and "there's a very high risk that the commission would be not found to have the jurisdiction to go forward and do something that would constrain wireless companies, cable companies, phone companies from managing their traffic."
That's why if you read Martin's pontifications on the subject, he seems to be focusing primarily on Comcast's lack of transparency with users, not network neutrality. Comcast really can't be nailed for false advertising, because although they used to advertise their service as unlimited (http://www.corpsman.com/forum/h/r0/download/408236~c5157c5f2ecde8dae62b6b20c84644a3/UnlimitedUse.png), they stopped doing so several years ago. While the FCC may be able to mandate ISP transparency, Comcast's move to clear 250GB caps takes the wind out of that action as well.
So, as I predicted in January (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/90838?r=487) when the investigation was announced, you shouldn't expect many fireworks for your taxpayer dollar. If we're very lucky, we'll see a small fine and slightly more transparency in the industry. But that transparency may come at the cost of caps and overage fees (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/94240). If I didn't know the two organizations can't stand each other (http://www.corpsman.com/shownews/89456), I might start to wonder if that was the plan all along.
More...