dslreports logo
 story category
FCC's McDowell: The Internet Will Stop If You Regulate Comcast
Guess we know which way he's going to vote on Friday...

With three of his colleagues likely to vote to "sanction" (whatever that means) but not fine Comcast on Friday for misleading consumers, FCC Commissioner and former telecom lobbyist Robert McDowell pens an editorial for the Washington Post. McDowell trots out the tired "Internet apocalypse" talking point favored by cable and phone lobbyists, while arguing that government should stay out of such debates about fairness and honesty -- because carriers have things all under control. McDowell goes so far as to suggest that having a functional regulatory authority would result in the end of the Internet:

quote:
Click for full size
If we choose regulation over collaboration, we will be setting a precedent by thrusting politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions. Another concern is that as an institution, the FCC is incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds that make up Internet time. And asking government to make these decisions could mean that every few years the ground rules would change based on election results. The Internet might grind to a halt in such a climate.
So according to McDowell, if he actually did his job and let issue-by-issue technical intellect dictate his positions instead of industry-fealty and partisan obedience, the Internet would fall down dead. However, just like when McDowell penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that pretended the United States has no broadband coverage gaps (also not-so coincidentally precisely mirroring cable and phone lobbyists), facts were apparently optional.

McDowell intentionally blurs the line between government interfering in responsible network management, and government stepping in to prevent consumers from being screwed. In this case, Comcast was forging TCP packets to erode P2P connectivity for all users (regardless of consumption), and then lying about it. Whether the FCC really has the authority to police Comcast on this matter or not, it was only the fear of regulation that resulted in Comcast announcing they'd adopt more transparent network management. Depending on how transparent Comcast's new throttling is, regulation, or at least the fear of it, was actually very useful here.

As for "thrusting politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions," that would be quickly fixed if the government started hiring non-partisan, independent engineers and technologists as FCC Commissioners, and stopped staffing the agency with lobbyists.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

A supporting commentary to McDowells

A commentary that supports McDowell somewhat:

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578 ··· 1_3-0-20

A good writeup over the limits of the FCC and the total hypocrisy of the groups claiming the FCC principles have the power of law. And their flip flop on their support of FCC powers.

And the commentator is not some anti-technologist. He has been involved with and writing about technology for years.
»www.mccullagh.org/declan/
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

1 edit

nasadude

Member

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

regardless of which "side" one is on, the fact seems to remain that the simplest way to solve bandwidth problems (if there really are bandwidth problems) is TO ADD MORE BANDWIDTH.

but that's not sexy

and it cost money

and when you buy the DPI equipment, it lets you do all sorts of other stuff!

oh, by the way, McDowell is either ignorant of the facts or he chose to misrepresent what was actually found by Robb and the AP, because his description of what happened appears to be straight from Comcast press releases (I know, what a shock).
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA

jaminus

Member

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

I, for one, would gladly download terabytes a month if my ISP allowed it. Do I need all that stuff? Not really. But if the bandwidth's there, I'll certainly use it. And so would many others as well.

Yes, capacity has got to increase, and that's why companies are investing in things like laying fiber, pair-bonding POTS lines, hybrid fiber-coax, DOCSIS 3.0, VDSL2, and the like.

Ultimately, though, there will ALWAYS be finite bandwidth and infinite demand for bandwidth. If you build it, they will come. That's why it's so important to manage a scarce resource in a manner that suits those who use the resource.

Is Sandvine the best way to manage a network? Probably not. But it's not entirely clear that "peak metering" is the best way, either -- after all, only 6% of Comcast's users were P2P users, and it's possible that far more users will be affected by the new metering system Comcast will soon implement.

Politicians should not be the ones who decide how ISPs deal with congestion. Competition among providers to give consumers the best possible service will benefit all of us in the long run. The fact that sometimes, some companies will make mistakes (i.e. Sandvine) is not a valid reason for abandoning the principles of freedom and private network ownership.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by jaminus:

Politicians should not be the ones who decide how ISPs deal with congestion. Competition among providers to give consumers the best possible service will benefit all of us in the long run.
Agreed, but politicians, unfortunately, are the only ones who ultimately make the decisions when it comes to the very competition that you refer to.

A_nano_mouse
@transbay.net

A_nano_mouse to jaminus

Anon

to jaminus
All we need is FIBER. Copper is obsolete and wireless is "stupid" until we can really reform the FCC and open the spectrum properly.

FIBER is the way to go. if 10 gbps adapters are commodified by the time you deploy, then you'll start offering your users 10 gigabit connections. Otherwise you'll have to do with a paltry ONE GIGABIT per second - aw darn.

WE (the citizens) build it - WE (the citizens hiring locally) run it - and that will be the future to live in.

See »communityfiber.org

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to nasadude

MVM

to nasadude
said by nasadude:

and when you buy the DPI equipment, it lets you do all sorts of other stuff!
I think it was Bob Briscoe who said at the IETF P2P Working Group that for every $1 dollar spent on DPI the ISP saved $10 in infrastructure increases.

I guess that's good, if the only thing you worry about is controlling your costs. It doesn't say anything for the fact that the other $9 is "access denied" to the applications, destinations, and content that the users want.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by funchords:

It doesn't say anything for the fact that the other $9 is "access denied" to the applications, destinations, and content that the users want.
Rewrite:
It doesn't say anything for the fact that the other $9 is "access denied" to the applications, destinations, and content that the users music & movie thieves want.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by FFH5:

.. and content that the users music & movie thieves want.
TK, you are so predictable.

copyright infringement isn't theft, so they can't be thieves. Sometimes I think you're a caricature of a real person.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by nasadude:
said by FFH5:

.. and content that the users music & movie thieves want.
Sometimes I think you're a caricature of a real person.
A recent photo:

TK Junk Mail at home :)
Expand your moderator at work

Jovi
Premium Member
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA

1 recommendation

Jovi to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Can we ever have a debate about bandwidth that does not involve being thieves?
Expand your moderator at work

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk to Jovi

Premium Member

to Jovi

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by Jovi:

Can we ever have a debate about bandwidth that does not involve being thieves?
Not as long as TK is still allowed to post.

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier to Jovi

Premium Member

to Jovi
Probably not. Since thievery seems to be one of the talking points some need to use to justify corporate decisions that would otherwise be difficult to justify to paying customers.

It's easier to claim high-bandwidth users must be doing something wrong--and thus additional bandwidth is only going to support unethical or illegal activities--than actually debating the merits of legitimate use and what alternatives there are to the ISPs to handle those higher bandwidth (LEGITIMATE) applications.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
The complaints about VPN or SSH being broken by DPI shoot a whole in your argument that DPI only affects "music & movie thieves".

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo to nasadude

MVM

to nasadude
said by nasadude:

regardless of which "side" one is on, the fact seems to remain that the simplest way to solve bandwidth problems (if there really are bandwidth problems) is TO ADD MORE BANDWIDTH.
That's like saying the solution to your debt problem is to acquire more money. Although technically correct, it ignores the constraints of reality that would stop you from doing so.

Case in point: name all of the full DOCSIS 3.0 (ie, not pre-cert) cable modems that are currently being mass produced today.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by SpaethCo:

Case in point: name all of the full DOCSIS 3.0 (ie, not pre-cert) cable modems that are currently being mass produced today.
Or 802.11N wi-fi gear (not DRAFT)

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by funchords:

said by SpaethCo:

Case in point: name all of the full DOCSIS 3.0 (ie, not pre-cert) cable modems that are currently being mass produced today.
Or 802.11N wi-fi gear (not DRAFT)
That's not quite the same argument. The 11N standard is baked out enough that equipment will, in all probability, be firmware upgradeable to the final standard. The worst case scenario is that you end up just like the Cisco customers who bought power over Ethernet hardware before the 802.3af standard was ratified -- you can still use the hardware, but you won't be able to purchase any new devices to attach to it. Considering 11N draft APs are going for sub-$100 and NICs are dirt cheap, the hardship is also minimal.

Right now the DOCSIS 3.0 trial hardware is spendy because it's being produced in limited production runs, and modems like the DPC2505 that Comcast is using here in MN only have multiple downstream tuners combined with a single upstream tuner. Once upstream channel bonding is fully adopted and product actually starts rolling off assembly lines, the DPC2505 will simply be a $600 piece of dumpster fodder. Not exactly the kind of hardware you want to start rolling en-mass.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

holy crap!

So what's the bet, that they're not really going to do upstream channel bonding RSN?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: A supporting commentary to McDowells

said by funchords:

So what's the bet, that they're not really going to do upstream channel bonding RSN?
They're certainly getting closer. If you look at the certification results here there were a bunch of CPE models that received D3.0 full certification in May & June. With any luck those should start turning into assembly line production runs soon.

The big issue right now is there is only one CMTS that has full D3 certification with upstream bonding support, and that's from Casa Systems. Unfortunately Cisco and Motorola seem to dominate the US cable modem head-end market...

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
I think that is a good point - what jurisdiction does the FCC have over Internet access?

It is too bad Congress has not had the will to develop a set of Network Neutrality guidelines. Social policy ought to be made by government and then private enterprise figures out how to play profitably in that arena.

Internet access will become more important over time. The rules governing access should be debated publicly. From past experience regulations that were often not in the best interest of short term profitability have turned out to be very positive for long term growth because they facilitate innovation whereas it is in a company's best interest to stifle competitive upstarts.

/tom

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

3 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

Here is a MUCH better look at what Martin is doing Re: Comcast & Net Neutrality.

»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· 145.html

And because not everyone can read WSJ columns, I have attached the full article here:
Martin&FCC_a···iots.pdf
56196 bytes

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 edit

funchords

MVM

Re: Wall St Journal has the right take on the controversy

said by FFH5:

And because not everyone can read WSJ columns, I have attached the full article here:
No irony whatsoever in that post!!

TK Junk Mail posts an unlicensed PDF copy of a WSJ article!



PS to all: If you search for the article via Google News, you can read the full article legally.

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

1 recommendation

Mike

Mod

engineers have always had this problem

If the world was full of engineers we'd be in spaceships flying around the galaxy by now.

Politicians like to get their hands on everything and dumb it up.

uid1307457
Premium Member
join:2005-12-30
Tempe, AZ

uid1307457

Premium Member

Re: engineers have always had this problem

said by Mike:

If the world was full of engineers we'd be in spaceships flying around the galaxy by now.

I completely agree.

Teehee
@tds.net

Teehee to Mike

Anon

to Mike
said by Mike:

If the world was full of engineers we'd be in spaceships flying around the galaxy by now.

Politicians like to get their hands on everything and dumb it up.
Don't forget about corporate talking heads and marketeers getting in the way of their company engineers. THAT is the real problem. The engineer says what the maketeer wants to say and comes up with tech justifications. That doesn't sound too goo either.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Re: engineers have always had this problem

Yup. Dave Haynie is a good friend of mine(Google is your friend here). It is quite entertaining to hear him get on a roll about marketing droids and clue-deprived management types. Most enlightening.

And no, the problem is not politicians. That's a common trope used by people who desperately want to believe corporations are their BFF.

jslik
That just happened
Premium Member
join:2006-03-17

jslik

Premium Member

Re: engineers have always had this problem

Yes, Dave Haynie is probably THE expert about clueless management killing superior technology...

I still fire up my old 2000 from time to time and wonder "what may have been..."

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather to Mike

Premium Member

to Mike
And if the spaceships were controlled by Comcast you would be paying overage fees if you passed 10,000 ft. But damn, you would get to 10K ft really quick.

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Mike

Mod

Re: engineers have always had this problem

If the engineers were controlled by Comcast... they would should video signal with their light beams into your head.

Instead the corporate talking drones shoot light beams up your ass.

SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA

SHABAZZ

Member

Expected

This is why idiots shouldn’t run the FCC. When politicians are in control of tech/communications stupid decisions will be made.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

geez Karl

"...that would be quickly fixed if the government started hiring non-partisan, independent engineers and technologists as FCC Commissioners, and stopped staffing the agency with lobbyists."

I guess you'll want some flying pigs along with that?
bjbrock9
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK

1 recommendation

bjbrock9

Member

Two things need to be done.

Start charging for the actual bandwidth used. And immediately start shoring up the broadband infrastructure.

Those who use more should pay more. All goods and services work this way.

At the same time, internet traffic is only going to get worse. If those in charge of the infrastructure don't start increasing it size these kind of problems will get out of hand. If they aren't already.

•••••••••

HFB1217
The Wizard Premium ExMod 2000-01

join:2000-06-26
Camelot SwFL

HFB1217

Money and Stupidity Reign

It has been a major fact of political life that money and the lack of education of our politicos influences the way we develop our laws and technology.

A sad state of being but some how we survive and move ahead even if slowly and imperfectly.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

McDowell uses what (usually) works: FEAR


one only look at the past decade to see how fear is incredibly powerful. the fear of new terrorist attacks couldn't stop citizens from offering up their freedoms and civil rights.

McDowell should be removed from his post at the FCC as he is clearly out of touch.

•••••
garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY

1 edit

garmst

Member

If Politicians ran the Internet

1. There would be minimum bandwidth allocations for minority use.

2. Black Internet users would have higher bandwidth caps to make up for past white people's rapacious usage.

3. All offensive speech would be banned.

4. Every web page has to have a non-smoking, non-sexist, non-gender, equal opportunity, decals.

5. Cigarette, Pharmaceutical and Oil companies will be banned from operating web sites.

6. NASCAR web sites will be put on probation.

7. All ISP's must have minority ownership and purchasing set asides.

8. All bits must be recycled!

•••••

Kylemaul
Lovin' My Firefox
Premium Member
join:2001-03-30
Puyallup, WA

Kylemaul

Premium Member

Scariest part of the 'talking point' is-

McDowell (a former telecom lobbyist):
..."Others contend that the FCC has no enforceable rules that apply to such situations and that the issue should be addressed through a rule-making proceeding, with an opportunity for public comment, or through congressional legislation. We have examined the arguments on both sides and are poised to decide the matter this week. But regardless of what that ruling stipulates, the issue of what constitutes appropriate Internet network management will be debated for some time."...
(emphasis added)
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

McDowell sees through lobbyists

One of McDowell's best traits is that, having once been a lobbyist, he recognizes their motivations and sees right through their falsehoods. While some of the other Commissioners seem to have been bamboozled by Free Press, Inc. and to have swallowed its lies hook, line and sinker, McDowell hasn't. He should be appointed Chairman.

Twilight23
@comcast.net

Twilight23

Anon

Re: McDowell sees through lobbyists

lol

I really hope you're joking. McDowell used to be a lobbyist and that is where his loyalties still clearly lie.

Do you honestly think Free Press is telling remotely as many or as massive a lies as the telcos?

meh37
@verizon.net

meh37

Anon

Makes me wonder...

regarding his "editorial"...

do lobbyists pay him by the word or by the vote?
radam
join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA

1 edit

radam

Member

FCC and cable regulations...

FCC should promote competition.. It straightened out Cox's attitude towards customers in Northern VA once Verison FIOS came into town! Perhaps it would correct Comcast's behavior as well.
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada

munky99999

Member

Comcast should be punished

Look... they spent loads of money to buy DPI tech... if they took that same money and put it into more bandwidth and more dslams or docsis... then the problem would be fixed.

They should punish comcast and others who do this.

However when it comes to throttling... fine let them throttle... but they have to throttle everything.

When grandma and grandpa call up to wonder why their internet is slow... they say that they are being throttled and their email is going to be slow unless they are awake during times that vampires are awake. While DSL or Cable company X has an offer saying that your internet isnt going to be throttled... then grandma and grandpa will go with that other company.

If bandwidth is their problem. Knock everyone down to 3mbps or slower. Not any 10mbps.

You cant offer 10mbps and then throttle them down to 1mbps the entire day... that's fraud.
Relic (banned)
join:2003-09-29

Relic (banned)

Member

Viva Apocalypse

Apocalypse sure as hell looks better than this.

Whatttever
@verizon.net

Whatttever

Anon

TK photo?

Even better. RECALL, the Mars inhabitants had to buy their air, and periodically, the corrupt politicians would cut it off. TOTALlly irrelevant story?

»walden5.com/files/images ··· stom.jpg

A_nano_mouse
@transbay.net

A_nano_mouse

Anon

Morons at the FCC

"Another concern is that as an institution, the FCC is incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds that make up Internet time."

The guy actually said that. And it means nothing whatsoever, and he's still an FCC commissioner.

We need to GET RID of all the people in all government agencies whose religion is MONEY. We need to get RID of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon and the way to do that can be found at »communityfiber.org.

Would you like a GIGABIT connection to your house for half what you pay AT&T/Comcast/Verizon? Of course you would, and you can have that - as soon as you begin to believe in yourselves and your COMMUNITY. We build it, we own it, and there'll be nothing the moneygrubbing jerks can do to interfere with it.

No compromises: let us build our own (modern) telecom infrastructure and put the telcos and cablecos in the dustbin of history where they belong.

If some jerk can't get rich off you after that, well tough. He or she will have to get a real job, like the rest of us have.