Comcast Says FCC Powerless to Stop P2P Blocking

Nanoboy writes "Even if the FCC finds that Comcast has violated its Internet Policy Statement, it's utterly powerless to do anything about it, according to a recent filing by the cable giant. Comcast argues that Congress has not given the FCC the authority to act, that the Internet Policy Statement doesn't give it the right to deal with the issue, and that any FCC action would violate the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. '"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," concludes Comcast VP David L. Cohen's thinly-veiled warning to the FCC, filed on March 11. "Bearing these facts in mind should obviate the need for the Commission to test its legal authority."'"

Comments

Consumer Welfare or Comcast Welfare?

[outofoptions]

'"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," concludes Comcast VP David L. Cohen's thinly-veiled warning to the FCC, filed on March 11.

I must be reading this wrong. ;) Disrupting consumer's internet usage is the customer's welfare?

Re:Comcast

[casuist99]

While I agree that certainly Comcast was aware of the HFC upstream network limitations, it's also entirely possible that their policy decision was partially based upon the desire to charge for hosting services. If you want to use your connection as a server, they'd like it if you paid for some "hosting package".

The real issue is definitional as well as monetary. How does Comcast define "server" and what are their service package goals? While their ToS can answer the first question, monetary motivations are harder to assess to outsiders.