Comcast Complaint Blog Entries

I just got back from a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of the Internet. Much was said on both sides of the panelist table, so I’ll just take a moment to hit some highlights: competition and innovation, media consolidation and content, and FCC authority. One disclaimer: this summary represents (of course) how I interpreted the statements at the hearing. Where I can, I’ve included timestamps into the video; if you want more detail, watch the hearing direct from the Senate’s web site. Also, check out our press release.

Yesterday, the FCC took a field trip to the campus of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. There it heard from two panels of experts and policy shapers on the issue of network management and more broadly net neutrality. If you didn’t see it, or listen to the FCC’s stream of it, thankfully, it’s been video recorded and put on the web…

Panel I: Network Management and Consumer Expectations

Professor Lessig presented one of his illustrative keynotes at the start, and apparently he recorded the live audio and dubbed it to the video later:

Today, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) conference that he is circulating an order at the FCC that would dismiss the petition (pdf) filed by Skype that sought an FCC ruling requiring a wireless network provider to allow the use of any non-harmful device and application on its network.

The rationale behind this decision is one we have heard many times over the past few months: Verizon announced that they are going to be open to third party devices and applications; the FCC already has required the C block of the 700 MHz spectrum recently auctioned to be open (again, controlled by Verizon); the wireless industry is headed in the direction of openness, etc. It’s done, so why do we need a ruling?

Comcast has sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin clarifying last week’s announcement that they were in discussions with BitTorrent, Inc. about how to improve Comcast’s network management. In short: Comcast has “admitted” nothing, they do not “block” applications or “discriminate,” and the old system they say they will be replacing is still completely legitimate. It seems that Comcast thinks that the FCC needs to keep on investigating the petition as much as we do.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. are now working together to “collaborate on ways to run BitTorrent’s technology more smoothly on Comcast’s broadband network, and allow Comcast to transport video files more effectively over its own network.” While we applaud application developers and network operators getting together to figure out how to improve the efficiency of the Internet, this changes nothing about the issues raised in the petitions on network management; the FCC must still act quickly to ensure that its four principles for broadband service have real meaning and that consumers are protected.

National Public Radio reporter Neda Ulaby yesterday did a nice story on the challenges of the FCC and the changes the agency will need to make to adapt to new technologies.

PK President Gigi Sohn and Board member Reed Hundt are quoted in the story, which you can hear here.

Gigi talks about concentration in the broadband market, while Reed comments on network operator control over speech.

Alright Net Neutrality fans, policy wonks, and children of all ages. Bring your quatloos and tune your internet radios to Von TV on March 11 at 2 p.m. to see THE ULTIMATE STEEL CAGE DEATHMATCH TAG-TEAM POLICY SMACKDOWN ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY!!!!

The first panel discussion during Monday’s FCC hearing in Cambridge provided a useful summary of the first stages of what will be/already is a much bigger battle.

I think it would be a good idea to raise the stakes in this discussion. Even the most pro-public interest of the five commissioners, Cmmr. Copps, talks only about a case-by-case adjudication by the FCC of the “rules of the road” for “reasonable network management.” But that won’t get us faster, more open high-speed internet access. Commr. Adelstein makes more headway - he’s suggesting that we need to explore a “comprehensive solution” for this issue. Commr. McDowell, by contrast, slides way way back, saying internet access is (to him) “new media” that is mostly made up of people passively watching video. Even Vuze asks only for better disclosures of network management practices.

I personally have been cheering in support of Viviane Reding’s proposed plans to set up a Europe-wide oversight body and mandate functional separation of telecommunications providers. But it looks as if national regulators in Europe are fiercely fighting back. This Reuters article suggests that Ofcom and others are opposed to a pan-Europe regulator on the ground that such a body would be a top-down, single-answer entity. Ofcom’s Ed Richards also points out that functional separation (well, for DSL, not fiber) has been achieved in the UK without a Europe-wide mandate.

Recently, Comcast responded to an FCC proceeding regarding it’s alleged blocking of bittorent traffic. In its discussion of how peer to peer uses the network, Comcast didn’t refer to a standards document, a software developer or even a network engineer, instead it referred to a member of Congress. Specifically, Representative Mary Bono Mack from California.

The part Comcast quoted from Representative Bono Mack was from a speech given at the State of the Net Conference held January 30, 2008, where she said: