NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC rules on Comcast (as expected)

Martin's press release - which is all we have absent the order, which hasn't been published - is inconsistent and incoherent. It says it's OK to prioritize VoIP, but not to de-prioritize seeding. It says you can't look inside David Reed's envelope, but how are you supposed to know whether a packet is VoIP if you don't look? It says BT is a "Disfavored Application" but Comcast doesn't disfavor all modes of BT, only pure seeding. In fact, they raise the priority of BT peering over BT seeding. Is that bad?

There are going to be so many holes in the order, it will be struck down by the courts faster than you can say "nipple."

RB

 [ I agree that the FCC is not handling this in a particularly
   coherent fashion, to say the least.  I look forward to seeing if
   the next Congress can do a better job, with the assistance
   of all interested stakeholders.  That's my personal view, only.

      -- Lauren Weinstein
         NNSquad Moderator ]



Brett Glass wrote: 
At 11:52 AM 8/1/2008, Lauren Weinstein wrote:


FCC rules on Comcast (as expected)

http://www.charlottesvillenewsplex.tv/news/headlines/26181059.html

The scary part of this is that the FCC did not just bypass its own rulemaking process and take action that was against the law -- it also patently false statements about the ruling. For example, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's public statement regarding the ruling said, "The specific practice Comcast was engaging in has been roundly criticized and not defended by a single other broadband provider."

Did he somehow not hear my tesimony -- which I delivered while looking him in the eye -- after I spent than $1,000 on a last minute trip to present it at the FCC's hearing at Stanford?

At that meeting, I did defend and explain the reasons for Comcast's network management practices and for P2P mitigation in general; see my testimony at http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html. I furthermore defended it in my filings with the FCC at

http://tinyurl.com/2wf6nd

http://tinyurl.com/5elsy5

http://tinyurl.com/5gfn6p

We can only hope that this arbitrary, capricious, and illegal action will be promptly overturned.

--Brett Glass
[ Ya' know, I disagree totally with the substance of Brett's
complaints of course, but it's certainly impossible to deny
that he has broadcast his point of view loudly enough, and
directly to all parties involved -- frequently and repeatedly. However, the "Godzilla vs. Bambi" effect explains the situation.
For reasons that mystify many observers, Brett insists on
supporting the very actions of the giant ISPs and their
brethren, who would as willingly crush small ISPs and WISPs like
bugs as to give them the time of day. Small ISP operations -- whether we agree with any particular
one's policies or not -- simply don't really count to the
commercial and governmental powers that be. To paraphrase from
"Casablanca" -- their issues end up not counting for a hill of
beans in the dysfunctional Internet access environment -- the
giant carriers have worked long and hard to make it so. And we
let the big boys get away with it.

    So really, there's no mystery involved at all.

    -- Lauren Weinstein
       NNSquad Moderator ]