dslreports logo
Comcast: We'll Continue To Play Nice In Lieu of Court Ruling
Carrier insists more open, transparent practices won't change...

Earlier today we noted that the DC Court Of Appeals has ruled that the FCC lacked the authority, under Title 1 of the Communications Act, to sanction Comcast for fiddling with user BitTorrent traffic. While there's plenty of people lamenting this as the "death of net neutrality" or a victory for one side of the debate or the other, the reality is this is just the very first step in a very long fight over FCC authority over broadband providers. What happens next?

Well, the FCC could look to Congress to pass new laws giving the FCC additional authority. Of course given the degree of carrier lobbyist influence and Congress's general knack for dysfunction, such a law would very likely be an unwieldy, useless mutant if it ever got passed. A more likely next step for the FCC (assuming they have any fight in them), will be to try and classify broadband ISPs as common carriers, which would grant the FCC additional authority they gave away when they, in 2005, deregulated the sector by declaring that broadband providers were "information service" carriers.

Until the next legal battle, Comcast today issued a statement saying they'll play nice with the FCC:

quote:
We are gratified by the Court's decision today to vacate the previous FCC's order. Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want. Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet."
Of course the ruling didn't "clear Comcast's name and reputation," given the ruling doesn't change the fact that Comcast engaged in irresponsible network management, and then lied about what they were doing, in both government filings and in print. And while the FCC may have gone about the enforcement of network neutrality in the wrong way, what they did had very concrete results. Pressure from the press, the FCC, and (many people forget this one) Florida's Attorney General resulted in Comcast implementing much more intelligent and clear network management practices, something that benefited all consumers.

It also changed the way Comcast did business and interacted with consumers. We've repeatedly noted how post-FCC wrist slap, we've seen a far more open and transparent Comcast. The company now insists on clearly documenting everything they do on the network front, be it usage meters or DNS security upgrades. We've also seen a ramped up presence in our forum among actual engineers -- who've taken to having open and transparent conversations with our users. That includes employees like Comcast's Jason Livingood, who stopped by our forums today to insist this won't change:
quote:
What's not preventing (Comcast from reverting to old practices) it is that it'd be a huge business and PR problem for any company doing that sort of thing. This legal case aside, a pretty big market lesson was delivered a few years ago. There was a resulting shift that was very positive (having lived it myself day to day). Transparency wins the day - it's the better technical and business choice IMHO. And when you see a company make a technical error (such as the one you cited from a few days ago) that seemed to take all of a few hours to resolve itself, so it seems there's a pretty effective feedback loop that has developed on those sorts of issues.
It's pretty refreshing to hear a mega-provider acknowledge the benefits of simply being honest with -- and directly engaging -- your customers. Of course this is just one ISP of many, and hopefully this new Comcast push won't be the victim of budget cuts. Meanwhile, without a legitimate regulatory watchdog willing to actually take action against carriers who engage in bad behavior, (be it the FTC or FCC), you're essentially what's left standing between ISPs and really stupid ideas.
view:
topics flat nest 

Michael C
join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

1 edit

Michael C

Member

Oh really?

"Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."

Do they really think this court decision cleared their name? As if this somehow makes them less of an asshole for forging packets and then lying about doing it?

The real problem now is that this decision sets a very dangerous legal precedent. It basically says "Any other company, that doesn't mind a little consumer backlash, can do this and there will be no recourse...not even a wrist slap."

marcusj3000
Darkness Rising
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Memphis, TN

marcusj3000

Premium Member

Re: Oh really?

it also allows the FCC to tell congress it needs wide sweeping powers which it will probably get.

"We at the FCC thank Comcast for making all dreams possible"
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Oh really?

said by marcusj3000:

it also allows the FCC to tell congress it needs wide sweeping powers which it will probably get.

"We at the FCC thank Comcast for making all dreams possible"
Considering how much the cable companies and telcos give to Congress every year I doubt the FCC gets any REAL authority.

Michael C
join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

Michael C

Member

Re: Oh really?

Considering the political wad congress just blew in the health care fight, I doubt they're up for much of anything else....except maybe a cigarette and a nap.

The best bet is reclassification as a telecommunications service (which we all know it is) under Title II. Then if Congress doesn't like that, they can pass laws granting the FCC specific authority. I'd much rather have ISPs under tighter regulation and have Congress fight to justify relaxing them, rather than letting ISPs have free reign until Congess comes up with some feel-good yet ineffective law.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2 to Michael C

Premium Member

to Michael C
said by Michael C:

It basically says "Any other company, that doesn't mind a little consumer backlash, can do this and there will be no recourse...not even a wrist slap."
Consumer backlash? ... would that be from those "consumers" who had/have total disregard for the TOS/AUP agreement that they're bound to? From what I've read and see over the past years, those are the ones that scream the most. The rest - they don't care becuase it really never affected them.

Michael C
join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

Michael C

Member

Re: Oh really?

What part of the TOS/AUP agreement were the Comcast BitTorrent users disregarding? There wasn't an explicit threshold set at that time that constituted "excessive use". So basically they were punished for violating some moving threshold that they could never really know. That punishment also came in the form of Comcast subversively forging packets and then lying to those customers about it. Sounds to me like they had every right to be a little pissed off.

And when Windstream purposefully/accidentally hijacked Google toolbar, those consumers had every right to scream at them. We're going to see more and more of this. This is just the beginning. Consumers shouldn't have to go grab their pitchforks and riot every time ISPs pull stunts like this. That's what the FCC should be doing.

Just because it's only a minority of consumers who are getting screwed doesn't make it any less wrong.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Oh really?

What part of the TOS/AUP? Ummmm.. were you UPLOADING and running a server based application on a residential service?

.. there's your answer.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

a waiting game

We will see,they will sit back and wait to see which isp/telco starts to test the waters,traffic shaping,dpi based advertisements,the list goes on.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

kapil

Member

Dear JLivingood

You say a public backlash and a PR problem will prevent Comcast from returning to its old ways. Ahem, First, Comcast's ways never changed...and secondly, for a company that consistently ranks at the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys, a PR problem has never been an issue before, nor will it be a deterrent in the future.

But, I understand we all have to earn a living, so I shall allow you to keep on shilling for your company but don't be under any illusions....it remains a company that continues fucking its customers every single day. You will need many more Twitter trolls to polish up the turd that is your employer's reputation.

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

1 recommendation

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Dear JLivingood

said by kapil:

Ahem, First, Comcast's ways never changed
They went from a completely opaque organization implementing technology without notice to participating in the IETF and documenting their implementation strategies publicly at »networkmanagement.comcast.net/ That's pretty significant for having "never changed."

No company is perfect, but to argue that nothing has changed is just pure absurdity.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

kapil

Member

Re: Dear JLivingood

said by SpaethCo:

They went from a completely opaque organization implementing technology without notice to participating in the IETF and documenting their implementation strategies publicly at »networkmanagement.comcast.net/ That's pretty significant for having "never changed."

No company is perfect, but to argue that nothing has changed is just pure absurdity.
Smoke and mirrors. They knew the perfect storm of regulator ire, legislative nosiness and public backlash was brewing and made a few public relations changes....deep down inside, it's still the same old Comcast it always was.

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

1 recommendation

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Dear JLivingood

said by kapil:

Smoke and mirrors. They knew the perfect storm of regulator ire, legislative nosiness and public backlash was brewing and made a few public relations changes....deep down inside, it's still the same old Comcast it always was.
These are pretty significant changes. We're talking about participating in technical standards bodies and submitting technical documentation for open peer review.

You're writing this off like they just changed the font on their website and added more pictures of kittens. That's just hopelessly short sighted.

There are no shortage of reasons why large companies are evil, but you can occasionally put down the Hatorade and acknowledge when they do something right.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

kapil

Member

Re: Dear JLivingood

said by SpaethCo:

There are no shortage of reasons why large companies are evil, but you can occasionally put down the Hatorade and acknowledge when they do something right.
You are right. Your point is valid and I concede. No, I'm not being a jackass...I mean it, you made your point and I concur.

To the extent that Comcast has made a change in how it operates, those changes have been positive and geared towards being more open.

They still, however, blow. ...and they have much work to do ahead of them....and given their past performance, I am willing to give them no rope. I will believe it when I see it...they get none of my goodwill.

jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA

1 edit

jlivingood

Premium Member

Re: Dear JLivingood

Some day I'm going to have to write up some kind of a blog post or longer article about how much this affected everyday stuff. Many of you would be (pleasantly) surprised I suspect.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Dear JLivingood

said by jlivingood:

Some day I'm going to have to write up some kind of a blog post or longer article about how much this affected everyday stuff. Many of you would be (pleasantly) surprised I suspect.
I know that I would enjoy that. I'd like to know from someone that I respect (like you) that this episode resulted in actual positive change.

SlickEnW
Premium Member
join:2003-01-21
Seattle, WA

SlickEnW

Premium Member

Sigh

Comcast: "Let us know when you wanna dance again, chumps. "
FCC:

I'm all for limited government but can somebody give teh FCC some jaws please? A baseball bat? Any object will do really, as long as you can get something done with it.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Sigh

said by SlickEnW:

Comcast: "Let us know when you wanna dance again, chumps. "
FCC:

I'm all for limited government but can somebody give teh FCC some jaws please? A baseball bat? Any object will do really, as long as you can get something done with it.
Genachowski seems to want to take the bull by the horns. Congress should let him have at it.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Sigh

Just remember something, though.. just becuase congress, even, wants to "give" powers to another agency doesn't always mean that they have "constitutional authority" to do just as they want either.

The FCC isn't the correct place, in my opinion, for this kind of enforcement. The FCC has proven time and time again that they can't handle it.

I'm still not for an agency made up of so few people that control the flow of information of so many - not to mention, I never had a say in them representing me... but I did my representation that I voted on.

These quasi authority agencies need to be cleaned up or eliminated and the people who were hired to do these jobs in the first place need to actually start doing them.

xNPC
As Usual, Have Nice Day
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Errington, BC

xNPC

Premium Member

regulation...

evil, but necessary in this case. and long overdue i might add.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: regulation...

I dis-agree on this one.. they still remain "private networks"...

People are losing sight on what the "internet" is... the internet is an inter-connection of a bunch of private networks. Be careful what you ask for in regulation of these networks becuase there will ultimately be lawyers out there ready to use this unfounded regulation against other "private networks" at their pleasure.

Shiftlock
join:2002-03-22
Naples, FL

Shiftlock

Member

Re: regulation...

Oh, come on, that's like calling the national highway system "an inter-connection of a bunch of private properties". Maybe that's all the internet was in 1990, but it's become a lot more than that over the past two decades. The internet is now mission-critical to almost all public, private and government organizations, and the way it operates affects real people in real ways. Companies that control large pieces of the infrastructure have incredible power that needs some sort of oversight, lest it be abused in a way that is just not fair.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: regulation...

Ummm.. lol. No, the internet isn't necessarily "mission critical" when it comes to the personal user. That's still a matter of opinion. if it were as you say, it would have become a regulated utility and at this time, its not.

But, it's funny that you bring up how the internet has changed. What exactly changed the internet to make it, as you claim, "mission critical"....? Is it the fact that BUSINESSES have moved towards an internet model and charge people extra for services when they don't utilize it such as airlines and reservation fees? (There still isn't really anything you can't do over the phone that you can over the internet, and I'm sorry, a telephone "fee" doesn't validate the internet as "mission critical" between the end user and a business) But, the fact that people have turned to it for business.. that would mean that once again, "BUSINESS" has shaped policy in this country, and I thought that the majority of users on this site didn't like that - so fight it!! Fight the change that business is forcing on us... (I smell a double standard)

Outside of what I just said, business to business is still important as is government and those sectors are still operating just fine outside of all this outcry by end users.

But, the internet is still , be definition, a bunch of private networks connected together. Have you not noticed that there really is no one central point of failure in the internet? If a network drops off, you don't kill the whole thing. And, for the "internet" to work, you could technically pull the root servers for DNS down as well.. the "internet" would still function. The "internet" isn't domain names, it isn't FTP, it isn't email.. it's everything together "connected".. so you're right, the national highway system is an inter-connection of a bunch of private (and public) properties.. so thank you for acknowledging my point.

But as for how it affects people.. you're right - it does... but life, for the end user, would go on with out the internet so long as the telephone continues to function.

What I'm focusing on is the fact that those companies that "control large pieces of *the infrustructure*.." actually own it.. it's theirs to control...

I think your main focus is actually on internet access providers.. and not necessarily "the internet".. again, the internet is everything that is connected - period. That will never change.

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

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

All Play Nice - unless FCC tries "common carrier" ploy ....

..... and then the gloves will come off and the fight between broadband providers and the FCC will get VERY ugly.

»blogs.barrons.com/techtr ··· y-fight/
Moffett thinks the FCC has three choices on how to proceed:

* Ask Congress to pass legislation giving the FCC the needed authority.
* Ask Congress to pass Net Neutrality legislation.
* Reclassify broadband services to bring them under FCC jurisdiction.

The latter option is what Moffett describes as the “nuclear option,” and would involve the reclassification of broadband service to be what’s known as a Title II service, or a common carrier. Broadband is now designated as a Title 1 service, which carriers fewer regulatory restrictions.

He says designating broadband as a Title II service “would broadly throw into question capital investment plans for all broadband carriers, potentially for years, while the issue was adjudicated.:”

Moffett says telecom and cable operators have privately indicated that a Title II designation for broadband would head to a “radical downsizing of their broadband investment plans” due to the enormous regulatory uncertainty it would introduce.

In short, he says that a Title II designation for broadband services “would call into question virtually every assumption about the terminal value of networks, as they would be subject to enormous and unpredictable regulatory risk going forward.

Moffett notes that applying a Title II service to broadband “would have sweeping implications, far, far beyond net neutrality,” and would bring with it “a raft of regulatory obligations from the days of monopoly telecommunications regulation, potentially including price regulation.”

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

kapil

Member

Re: All Play Nice - unless FCC tries "common carrier" ploy ....

said by FFH5:

Moffett
In all fairness, this is like asking the pope if Jesus "died for our sins". This dude never saw a telco ass he didn't lick.

Milliwatt
join:2010-01-26
Hotchkiss, CO

Milliwatt

Member

Net Neutrality - Comcast

I've said it before, the only way to have a network for the people and not the greedy corporations is to build with public funds. Operations and management done on a for bid basis to the private sector. No different than other service structures like the Federal/State Highway Systems.

Bronnster
join:2007-12-05
Hazelton, ID

Bronnster

Member

Re: Net Neutrality - Comcast

said by Milliwatt:

I've said it before, the only way to have a network for the people and not the greedy corporations is to build with public funds.
Agreed. Anything that has Corp. in its title will pursue "for profit" solutions. In this case, the internet will become a big ball of advertisement and propaganda. The new infomercial mind control tool to influence and deaden the minds of the masses?

SlickEnW
Premium Member
join:2003-01-21
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

SlickEnW

Premium Member

Re: Net Neutrality - Comcast

said by Milliwatt:

In this case, the internet will become a big ball of advertisement and propaganda.
Too late.

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

1 recommendation

Somnambul33t to Bronnster

Premium Member

to Bronnster
said by Bronnster:

said by Milliwatt:

I've said it before, the only way to have a network for the people and not the greedy corporations is to build with public funds.
Agreed. Anything that has Corp. in its title will pursue "for profit" solutions. In this case, the internet will become a big ball of advertisement and propaganda. The new infomercial mind control tool to influence and deaden the minds of the masses?
the public sector is the most inefficient form of "business" out there. you can have your public internet; i'll stick to even the worst private ISPs.

im tired of people bashing big business b/c they dont conform to their idea of "just" or "fair"
IPV55
join:2005-08-19
Bryn Mawr, PA

IPV55

Member

Under Title 2

Would Google be a little like 411 services and regulated the same way?

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Under Title 2

said by IPV55:

Would Google be a little like 411 services and regulated the same way?
No, Google would be more like Moviephone and regulated the same way.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Under Title 2

So, are you two seeing what I was talking about a bit above this post yet?

The "internet" and "access to such" is going to be so gray that laws are going to be bound to cross into areas it was never intended.

This is speech. It's going to be VERY hard for the government, in my opinion, to get involved in speech issues. Further, as I was saying before, the internet is an interconnection of a bunch of private networks. There is going to be hell on earth when the U.S. government tries to, as always, "fix" something that quite honestly isn't broken anyway.

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

funchords

MVM

Re: Under Title 2

said by fiberguy2:

There is going to be hell on earth when the U.S. government tries to, as always, "fix" something that quite honestly isn't broken anyway.
Quite honestly, I think it's broken.

I also think that predicting "hell on earth" and "is going to be so gray" (or hard) are often used to discourage regulators from peeking into exactly the thing that they need to glimpse.

Michael C
join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

Michael C to funchords

Member

to funchords
Just because the FCC reclassifies broadband under Title II doesn't mean broadband will be subject to every regulation and remedy under Title II. The FCC has the authority to decide which of the Title II regulations apply to broadband, and how those regulations will be applied. It's not an all or nothing proposition,

monk
@rr.com

monk

Anon

dont use

don't use them any more that's how you beat them

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

I hope Comcast is sincere

Not every corporate giant is evil, but most of them are. However, I think Comcast has reaped rewards themselves both in the press and with happy users by becoming open and transparent. I honestly hope they keep this up. I won't hold my breath about others following suit, but having a good example wouldn't hurt, even if they were previously a bad example.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: I hope Comcast is sincere

"Evil" huh? really?

I'm not going to say every user here is an extremist in their views.. just most of them are though.