FCC Chief Clarifies His Statement On Comcast

netizenz writes "At a press conference yesterday, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has clarified his earlier statements on Comcast. According to the CircleID post by Richard Bennett, he 'will not seek a fine against Comcast. Rather, he will simply impose some reporting requirements on them and order them to do what they've already started to do, phase out the current traffic management system in favor of an application-agnostic one. This is second story in a row where the AP have got the facts backwards. Hence, both sides may now officially claim victory.'"

Comments

By "clarification" he means

[Anonymous Coward]

Retroactively revising his position on order of the big bosses, since they didn't like his first one.

Re:By "clarification" he means

[quonsar]

...they dropped off the check last evening.

Traffic shaping is ok

[kurt555gs]

As long as it is "application agnostic". Comcast or for that matter most large ISP's think the internet is theirs to do with what they want. Laws? phooey, we own it, we will decided who its used in our interest.

Never mind all our wires run on public right of ways.

this is truely getting out of hand.

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast or for that matter most large ISP's think the internet is theirs to do with what they want. Laws? phooey, we own it, we will decided who its used in our interest.

Except for the fact that these ISP's have spent tens of billions of their dollars building the internet. The internet doesn't belong to the government.

Never mind all our wires run on public right of ways.

So if you drive your car on a public road the car becomes public property?

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[Anonymous Coward]

The communication lines are on the public right of way like your car is on a public road. The government does not own your car, right?

Like it or not, the internet is a protocol, and the wires over which that protocol is applied belongs to many many entities, some of them assholes.

You as an individual have no say over the internet, except over the part of the internet which you actually own: your home computer and all associated network equipment.

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[McGuirk]

"So if you drive your car on a public road the car becomes public property?" No, but try putting up road blocks, and forcing people who drive certain kinds of vehicles to drive in lanes with much lower speed limits. You can't do things like that on a public roadway unless you're the government...or a contracted worker or prison inmate.

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[mysidia]

No. The communication lines are on the public right of way like the pavement is on public land.

Your car is not a permanent fixture. That changes the property.

Communication lines are a permanent fixture. And the property is changed.

For example, the government can no longer dig on that public property to build something, without risk of destroying your communication line.

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I think the dirty secret is that their previous strategy- deep pack inspection as a way to enforce non neutrality- doesn't work very well anyway.

The problem is you have to keep fiddling with it- which costs money, and your customers always outnumber you, and usually outsmart you.

Deep packet inspection works well if you're playing *with* the customers. So if it's a way for the customers to say- I value this packet particularly highly, and the ISP follows along- that's fine (and the ISP of course checks that you are only marking *some* of your packets high priority, according to some contractual agreement that the customer paid for, like so many hours VOIP high priority a month or whatever)

It's if the ISP is deliberately shaping one particular protocol or class of protocols. In that case the customer will come up with ever-more-creative ways for one packet stream to look like another enitrely.

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said the internet is public property, but just like you have to obey traffic laws, ISPs have to obey communications laws.

captcha's politics

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[bullypulpiteer]

The Supreme Court of the State of California says that when you register your vehicle the state has the right to take possession of it for none or any reason at any time. You can not legally drive on the public roads without having registered your vehicle, since it is also then subject to immediate confiscation.

Any bets he got a call from someone "important"?

[Opportunist]

Telling him that he should backpedal?

Re:Any bets he got a call from someone "important"

[falcon5768]

Honestly its the FCC, their about as neutered as it comes when talking about enforcing laws. Its very likely in this case the AP DID get it wrong, not that it matters since NO ONE fined by the FCC in the last 3-4 years has even paid theirs anyway.

typical

[Alibaba10100]

I've noticed that whenever I know the actual details of a story (say its a story on someone's remarks, which I heard, or a story on technology I've known about for years) AP, Reuters, BBC, FOX, CNN, or whoever else carries the story gets it completely ass backwards. Easy proliferation of actual information has made it possible for people like me to realize this. It just makes me wonder what is wrong with the news agencies.

Re:typical

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's having to create the greatest number of headlines with the best soundbytes in the shortest amount of time... which means no time or budget to have qualified people review anything for accuracy.

layers of fact checkers

[Trailer Trash]

Come, now, AP has layers of fact-checkers to make sure they don't get details wrong. They would never be duped by photoshopped missile launches, either, right?

Whew... am relieved.

[freedom_india]

Iam totally relieved. For a second i thought this corporation-friendly, people-robbing BushCongress combo was actually doing something AGAINST corporations.
Whew... i can sleep sound at night knowing well my investment in Comcast is not going to the poopers, that AT&T can recover the conversation i had with my wife 264 days ago.
FCC, please don't scare corporations like this.
Go back to what your real duty is: Screwing people around.
Atta boy!

Re:Whew... am relieved.

[jo42]

I for one welcome the money grubbing corporate overlords. Resistance Is Futile!

The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[wiredlogic]

This backpedaling is because the FCC doesn't have any authority over how a cable company manages its network. There are no requirements whatsoever for any ISP or backbone provider to provide neutrality or to faithfully implement internet standards. What we have today is just a continuation of the laissez faire approach that worked for the early internet.

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoretically the FCC doesn't have the authority to do a lot of things, but they still tried to force the broadcast flag down our throats.

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[Repossessed]

No, but the judge the FCC is asking to do this has plenty of authority.

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[Anonymous Coward]

Except what Comcast did was forge packets. Forgery has never been condoned on the internet or in real life.

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[Solandri]

Ultimately the government has the final say. All those cable TV, DSL, and fiber wires need to go through public utility easements for the system to be feasible. If the government really wanted to impose network neutrality it could simply say, "Either make it neutral, or in all future projects you'll have to buy access rights from every individual property owner in order to string up your cable, no more access to public easements."

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[Renraku]

Can't the FCC dictate how its advertised, then?

Filtering a network based on packets, content, etc, or cutting people off because they use to much..that doesn't sound very unlimited to me.

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[Luke O'Connell]

Agreed, they need to have the authority though. Like so much online law... it just needs to be written. Judges are pretty useful here, but lack the knowledge and have to rely too heavily on consults (which reduces their power).

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[drinkypoo]

I think you want the FTC.

Re:The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[MobyDisk]

According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they do. And there are four principles that all broadband providers must implement.

Looks like Corporate America had a talk with him.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Act tough against Corporations and some one higher up says "look dick bag, you're only here cause i put you here, so dont get fucking cocky you little peice of shit... You will do nothing."

So now comcast gets a blow job from the FCC rather than a strict ruling from our government.

Lovely. Did you really expect anything to ever happen to comcast? You do realize that these companies get away with murder... and you dont.

Re:Any bets he got a call from someone "important"

[antirelic]

Nah. The FCC will brutally and efficiently prosecute anyone who is not a big business with well placed lobbyists, and a constituency that relies on the jobs these big businesses provide. Open up a pirate radio station and watch what happens. You will find the FCC on your doorstep quickly, and they will have no mercy.

Now, if your a big company like Comcast, have no fear. You'll just have to do some "reporting" which is pretty stupid since elected officials and their supporting staff have no idea what those reports would even mean.

Re:Any bets he got a call from someone "important"

[hvm2hvm]

Nah, it's the whole fucking world. It's like this damn companies are above the law. Whenever some huge company makes something obviously malicious the worst it can happen they get a fine. A band of young guys are partying and run out of booze and they rob a store, they get 5years+. WTF?

For something as big as traffic shaping for millions of people therefore attacking their freedom (and maybe privacy) I would just put the fuckheads in charge in jail until someone with enough common sense runs it. The same with Sony's rootkit and whatever Microsoft has been doing :P

Re:Looks like Corporate America had a talk with hi

[Ninth Marion]

Hmm, FCC - Fellating Corrupt Corporations? It does have that certain ring of truth.

Kevin Martin is...

[andersen_hc]

LAME

Re:Any bets he got a call from someone "important"

[Ironchew]

That's not a free market sentiment. Heretics like yourself would be happier with a comforting re-education.

Hall Passes All Round!

[Luke O'Connell]

Will not seek a fine? Pretty poor; I guess they get a hall pass because they were the first to try and exploit people without permission. Its moves like this that people need to take notice of, and act appropriately towards Comcast. If I used their services it would certainly be a reason to stop.

Re:Looks like Corporate America had a talk with hi

[rlds]

How is Verizon getting treated on this issue?

Without a Significant Fine...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Without a significant fine in the 7-figures and above Comcast has no reason to change a single thing about what they're doing.

FCC, you're useless here.

The AP story was actually correct

[Richard Bennett]

I corrected my post on CircleID after learning that the false impression that the FCC was going to fine Comcast was snuck in by a headline writer at the New York Times and not by the AP reporter who covers the FCC beat. Martin was actually rather coy about his specific plan when he leaked the story, and the reporter was actually played a bit. It would be nice if you could update the quote from my CircleID post. Any or all of the first three paragraphs should do:

Note: this is an update on my earlier story, which incorrectly said that the AP reported that Chairman Martin was seeking to impose "fines" on Comcast. In fact, the story used the word "punish" rather than "fine," and a headline writer at the New York Times added "penalty" to it: "F.C.C. Chairman Favors Penalty on Comcast" (I won't quote the story because I'm a blogger and the AP is the AP, so click through.) Much of the initial reaction to the story was obviously colored by the headline.

Martin's concept of punishment is to order the company to do what it had already told the public it was doing, phasing out one system of traffic management in favor of another one. It's a non-penalty punishment, akin to forcing a misbehaving child to eat the candies she's already enjoying. Now back to our story.

At a press conference today, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he's not seeking to fine Comcast. Rather, he will simply impose some reporting requirements on them and order them to do what they've already started to do, phase out the current traffic management system in favor of an application-agnostic one.

Thanks.

Re:Any bets he got a call from someone "important"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nah, it's the whole fucking world. It's like this damn companies are above the law" - by hvm2hvm (1208954) on Saturday July 12, @12:31PM (#24164765) Homepage

-----

Agreed, 110% - & the WORST part is, we ALL KNOW IT... makes sense though, think about it: They, being "big money", basically either FUND the political puppets they want to be in office & generally win on that account, OR, they "coerce the ones in office presently" via SOME means (be it blackmail of some form, OR payoffs/kickbacks etc.).

In essence? They ARE "above the law", because they OWN THE DAMN LAW... thus, there really IS NO LAW - not for the wealthy & powerful, vs. the common-man, period.

(Makes me sick too, but, this has how it ALWAYS has been - just more & more of it coming out lately is all, & apparently, I am not the only person dead ill sick of it!)

I wonder what those that actually DO the enforcing of these "completely fair & unbiased laws" (b.s., & pure sarcasm) feel about being the 'hatchet man' for some scumbags that blatantly flaunt their abilities to do so, because that is EXACTLY what this appears to be, to myself & apparently yourself also (& doubtless, everyone else reading too) - heck, the gov't. agencies aren't any better (breaking their OWN RULES to do whatever it is they do, many times).

Why should Comcast get a fine?

[funchords]

Gee, seem innocent enough -- I don't know why Comcast should get a fine... hmmm, let's review, shall we???

1. For blocking P2P uploads
2. after telling the government the year before that network neutrality was not needed because they would never degrade traffic
3. then doing so, in secret
4. using forged packets
5. even when the network was not congested
6. 24-hours a day, 7-day a week
7. and when the content was public domain like the Holy Bible and barbershop quartet music
8. then lying/diffusing/deflecting about it
9. repeatedly
10. constantly
11. blaming the entire cable industry with their "they do it too" defense (later, only Cox was found to be doing it too)
12. or for breaking Lotus-Notes
13. while still expressing no limits on the types or amounts of usage
14. pitting user-vs-user in a campaign against "Bandwidth Hogs"
15. and as the investigation opened, they quietly changed the online TOS just days before an FCC filing that referred to it
16. and then lied about notifying millions of users about the TOS change with a story on Comcast.net
17. and then they packed the Harvard hearing with sleeping bums bussed from Boston
18. for telling the FCC that they had no authority
19. for making great-sounding hollow "deals" with BitTorrent (when the real complainant was Vuze)
20. or with Pando for P4P (which doesn't help Comcast's problem one bit)
21. or Pando (again, for the Broadband Bill of Rights)
22. or GridNetworks (another P2P company nobody heard of)
23. or for when it refused to attend the FCC hearing at Stanford
24. for berating Kevin Martin
25. or another non-Internet Standard "Protocol Agnostic" (whatever that means) congestion "management" regime

-- Robb Topolski
the guy who found Comcast blocking BitTorrent uploads