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 ]
