dslreports logo
 story category
FCC's Martin: No Net Neutrality Laws Needed
But is bad press and a wrist-slap enough to keep ISPs honest?

FCC boss Kevin Martin spoke before Congress today in a hearing on network neutrality, with the primary topic of conversation being Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Martin repeated his belief that new laws weren't necessary to maintain neutral networks. However, with Comcast all but promising a lawsuit should the FCC punish them, Democratic Senators continue to wonder if tougher standards are necessary.

Consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing and any potential limitations associated with that service.
-FCC Boss Kevin Martin
For now, Martin insists he has it all under control. A lot depends on how Comcast follows through on their promise to employ "protocol agnostic" traffic management by the end of the year. Martin's statement (pdf) before Congress showed his primary focus remains on carriers being transparent with their customers about traffic management:
quote:
Consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing and any potential limitations associated with that service. For example, has the consumer been informed that certain applications used to watch video will not work properly when there is high congestion?
If the FCC acts against Comcast, it will likely be in the form of a small fine for the cable giant's failure to come clean about their network limitations. Since coming under investigation by the FCC, Comcast is doing everything in its power to derail any serious new laws, in the last few weeks promising to stop targeting BitTorent (which they're still doing), promoting their embrace of P4P technology (which accelerates non-pirated P2P), and proposing a "P2P bill of rights" (a generally empty gesture aimed at protecting their right to at least block pirated P2P transfers).

Thus far, most of this is empty posturing aimed at dodging regulation and countering bad press. Comcast technically is doing nothing different than they were when this debate began -- but you'll notice a general theme developing: they are trying to get approval to throttle P2P traffic if it's pirated (the not so secret growth engine of this industry). Martin even made the distinction in today's statement before Congress:
quote:
The Commission should consider whether the network management practices are intended to distinguish between legal and illegal activity. The Commission’s network principles only recognize and protect user’s access to legal content. The sharing of illegal content, such as child pornography or content that does not have the appropriate copyright, is not protected by our principles. Similarly, applications that are intended to harm the network are not protected.
While piracy filters don't work well yet and can often be bested by encryption -- it's not hard to envision a future where ISPs throttle only the transfer of unauthorized copyrighted content. As for throttling legitimate competing content, whether bad press and small FCC fines are enough to keep ISPs on their best behavior remains to be seen.

Most recommended from 73 comments



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

4 edits

2 recommendations

funchords

MVM

COMCAST is Regulating the Net

Hey, you "the only good regulation is no regulation" folks are missing the point. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE COMCAST IS REGULATING THE NET.

This argument is about whether or not the FCC should stop this behavior by enforcing a principle of non-discrimination that led to and throughout the growth of the Internet.

Comcast agreed to abide by this principle in 2005 and 2006.

This isn't just about Comcast managing its network -- we pay them to manage the network, to ensure that we get the subscription that we pay for.

This IS about managing by making value judgments about which data will get to the Internet, and which will get null-routed ... 24/7 ... based on protocol signatures alone ... in secret ... and in a network-abusive way. That's VERY different.

I don't want any kind of regulation, but for that to work, we have to have sufficient competition. Look at "dial up" -- no "network neutrality" rules, and hundreds or thousands of choices. In fact, non-neutral ISPs advertise their filtering as a FEATURE! Now that's awesome, and it's the way Broadband should be -- but isn't.

We have to deal with that reality, and deal with network discrimination with narrow - but necessary - regulation.

The Internet survived before Sandvine -- a technology so undeniably reasonable and necessary, Comcast had to keep it a secret. The Internet will survive long after it's ruled to be the scourge that it is!