During a hearing today addressing whether cable companies are improperly slowing down certain types of web traffic (P2P, video, etc.), FCC Chairman Kevin Martin suggested that the agency may have to take remedial actions to ensure that operators are behaving in a fair and transparent manner. The hearings, held at Harvard, were prompted by complaints earlier this month from certain online video distributors, including Vuze (disclosure: we share investors with Vuze), that cable giant Comcast (NSDQ: CMCSA) was engaging in traffic throttling because such video services compete with the operator’s own video offerings. Comcast, of course, denies its actions are anything more than reasonable network management. It’s not clear what, if any, actions the FCC is going to take on the matter, although the agency would at least like to bring about some transparency standards — making cable operators clearly spell out to customers what limitations they impose. Martin recently expressed his view on transparency during the NBA Tech Summit.
Not surprisingly, Martin’s viewpoint is shared by the commission’s Democratic members, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein (pdfs of their statements on the matter can be found here and here). One thing to watch for, as the FCC moves forward on its plans, is the extent to which its actions are viewed as going after cable companies specifically. The specific complaints here were directed at Comcast, but it’s not the only company for whom net neutrality is an issue. Martin has developed a reputation for attacking cable, though he insists that his issues with the cable industry are just an “analogy” for the bigger problem. What’s not clear is the extent to which the FCC can impose actual net neutrality regulations sans-legislative backing. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey has introduced anti-discrimination legislation, but the view is that it faces an uphill battle.
WSJ: “The hearing room at Harvard Law School was packed full, with dozens of people turned away at the door and protesters with placards in the hallways. ‘These are very significant issues and we don’t take those allegations lightly,’ said Mr. Martin in his opening remarks. ‘The commission is ready, willing and able to step in and correct any (unlawful) practices that are ongoing today.’”
NYT:
I really don't think there's a whole lot of long-term support for Net Neutrality, but it sure does make for some interesting dialog. As the Internet forms and transforms, so many people have so many views on what should be and what will be. These often conflicting and usually opposing views seem to miss the reality of what the Internet and Neutrality is all about.
The premise of neutrality is objectivity, or freedom from bias.
The premise of Net Neutrality is the absence of restrictions by those providing access on those for whom the access is provided.
If this sounds like the western expansion in the United States (and other countries before it), or if someone has burdened you with the metaphor of Internet expansion as space exploration, that's because we, as humans, have the need to relate new things to old paradigms. If we are looking for something to really relate this to, it's pretty simple . . . the Internet is like Utopia!
http://carterfsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/utopic-neutrality.html
Comcast was forging packets to make them appear as though they were coming from another internet user. This involved Comcast reading the *contents* of the customer's packet.
It is completely unacceptable for Comcast (or any provider) to be FORGING PACKETS.
——————————————————————————————————–
I use SKYPE over my internet connection. Recently, my phone call was reset three times within the same conversation. Has Comcast has been interfering with VOIP traffic because it is competitive with their digital voice offering?