FCC Public Hearing On Traffic Shaping MondaySchedule, network expert panels announced 02:11PM Thursday Feb 21 2008 by Karltags: fcc · business · bandwidth · networking · net-neutrality · consumersOn Monday the FCC will be holding an open public hearing on traffic shaping at Harvard Law School, and today released their meeting agenda (pdf) and list of FCC-selected network experts. The panels will discuss network neutrality and traffic shaping. The agency is currently investigating Comcast's traffic shaping practices in response to requests by BitTorrent video delivery company Vuze, consumer advocates such as Free Press, and others. The FCC's selected panel seems balanced, and includes academics, networking engineers, policy lobbyists for major incumbents, consumer advocates, and some politicians. It's certainly an improvement on the FTC's network neutrality workshop held last year, which included just one consumer advocate on a panel largely comprised of industry lobbyists, hired PR gurus and think tankers (the latter two being indistinguishable, depending who you ask). Not too surprisingly, the end result of that meeting was a useless report that claimed the state of broadband competition was rosy, and a general regurgitation of the incumbent PR talking point that network neutrality is a "solution in search of a problem." The FCC hearing should offer a more balanced discussion, and folks familiar with network neutrality debate rhetoric will recognize names like Timothy Wu and Richard Bennett. Again it's open to the public, so if any of our readers are in the area please feel free to attend (Harvard Law School, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, 1515 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA -- 10AM-4PM), and drop us a line with your thoughts. For those interested, Vuze and the Free Press say they'll be outside of the hearing asking regular users their thoughts, then posting the discussions to Vuze.
Related:- The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project
- C-Block Spectrum Auction Hits Reserve Price
- Markey Added to FCC Meeting
- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- Remember How The Net Neutrality Fight Began
- University of Colorado Researchers Retract Claims
- New Buzz Phrase: 'Protocol Agnostic'
- Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
|
 
JokerCPoC
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA | I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over, Hopefully the FCC won't blow It like the FTC did.
--
(26.04GHz crunching for SETI with the PC Perspective Killer Frogs) | |
|  | 
pv8man999
@sbcglobal.net | Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over I have a feeling that we won't see much happen, the FCC just feels they need to blow smoke in public to make it appear they are doing their jobs. | |
| | | 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over said by pv8man999 :
I have a feeling that we won't see much happen, the FCC just feels they need to blow smoke in public to make it appear they are doing their jobs.
Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over said by roc5955  :Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy. Aren't Vuze, Google, and all the other companies jumping on the network neutrality bandwagon businesses too?
I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc. | |
| | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over said by MyDogHsFleas :said by roc5955 :Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy. Aren't Vuze, Google, and all the other companies jumping on the network neutrality bandwagon businesses too? I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc. Well, yup, it is all about a "business-to-business dispute" that is unfortunately going to do irreparable harm to the internet, internet commerce, internet users, distributors and consumers of information.
However, the issue is not "new businesses" tying down "old businesses". The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information. The "old businesses" wish to be gatekeepers and purveyors of content, as well as providers of connection services, and they want to charge both the "new businesses" and their customers for access to the internet, and then charge them again for delivery and receipt of information, while at the same time decrementing the quality of "new businesses" services/content in favor of the "old businesses" competing services/content. All of which you already know, but choose to conveniently ignore in favor of your position in support of incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.
If this were an issue of "free market" capitalism, the FCC would be enforcing the network neutrality generating competition envisioned in the Telecom Act of 1996, which, of course they are not, because Telco "owns" the FCC. | |
| | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over OK ross, let's compare what we just said.
Me:
quote:
I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc.
You:
quote:
incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.
I think we're saying exactly the same thing. I just said it in a more neutral statement-of-fact way. Network neutrality is about content/delivery companies trying to get the government to force the pipe/infrastructure companies to be "dumb pipes".
The difference is you are mixing up the statement of the situation with your POV on who's right. You assert:
quote:
The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information.
I'm wondering, when did those get to be "basic tenets"? I mean, obviously, from a technology point of view, the Internet is all about supporting multiple protocols on top of IP, and standards for interoperability of those protocols, and everything's just a packet. But, from a business point of view, I'm not so sure. | |
| | | | | | | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
| Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over said by MyDogHsFleas :Network neutrality is about content/delivery companies trying to get the government to force the pipe/infrastructure companies to be "dumb pipes". I realize that the post you are responding to says this exactly, but I have yet to hear Google, Amazon or any of the large NN proponents even insinuate this is their intent. There's a vast difference between forcing them to abandon all content creation, and forcing their delivery divisions to act independently of their content divisions. | |
| | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by ross :Well, yup, it is all about a "business-to-business dispute" that is unfortunately going to do irreparable harm to the internet, internet commerce, internet users, distributors and consumers of information. However, the issue is not "new businesses" tying down "old businesses". The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information. The "old businesses" wish to be gatekeepers and purveyors of content, as well as providers of connection services, and they want to charge both the "new businesses" and their customers for access to the internet, and then charge them again for delivery and receipt of information, while at the same time decrementing the quality of "new businesses" services/content in favor of the "old businesses" competing services/content. All of which you already know, but choose to conveniently ignore in favor of your position in support of incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.If this were an issue of "free market" capitalism, the FCC would be enforcing the network neutrality generating competition envisioned in the Telecom Act of 1996, which, of course they are not, because Telco "owns" the FCC. Outstanding analysis. | |
| | | | | | 
RadioDoc
Put Out The Cat
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Yup. Comcast should be prohibited from producing any of the content which flows through their systems just like the TV networks were for years.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | |
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Yes, it would be absolutely awful to see those pesky "innovators" reaping all the rewards. Better to install a few government approved protection fees into the mix to make sure their services don't just "disappear" someday. | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by roc5955 :Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy. Or they'll just punt the way the FTC did...reasonable network management indeed. Could they get anymore vague? | |
| 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | yeah this will go far I doubt this is anything more than formalities to get it out of the way.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
| |
kalupiano
@comcast.net | Traffic Shaping Trafic Shaping = FALSE ADVERTISING | |
| | | | |
|
|
Richard Bennett, alone? Where's George Ou?