Why ultimate FCC decision on Comcast network management is expected to be unanimous

(See end of this post for bottom line on why there will be a unanimous FCC decision on Comcast's network management practices.)  

It's obvious that there is much more that is uncertain than certain after listening to the five-hour FCC En Banc hearing at Harvard on the FreePress and Vuze petitions on Comcast's network management practices.

Professor Tim Wu, who coined the term net neutrality and who was a panelist framed the Harvard spectacle in CNET as a "...trial of the Internet." "Comcast is in the docket accused of crimes against the public interest."  

• Well if this was a trial, Wu/FreePress et al did not prove their case, and certainly did not prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
• Only in the "make-it-up-as-you-go-along world of net neutrality is it an alleged "crime against the public interest" for an ISP to protect the quality of service for many users by imperceptively delaying the packet delivery of non-time sensitive applications for a few users.  

FCC Commissioner Tate got all the first panelists to agree that there was a baseline need for "reasonable network management." Even Professor Wu conceded that there was "good discrimination and bad discrimination," just like there is "good cholestorol and bad cholestorol."

• Then the specific question before the FCC: was Comcast "reasonable" in its network management of p2p traffic in this instance?

The "reasonable doubt" surrounding Comcast's alleged "unreasonableness."  

• Is it a "reasonable" network management tradeoff for Comcast to side with the quality-of-service interests of the many over the bandwidth-intensive demands of the few? Yes, that is reasonable. 
• Is is "reasonable" for Comcast to "imperceptibly delay" the packets of the few so the many do not perceive a slowdown? Yes, that is reasonable.
• Is it reasonable for Comcast to favor live applications that generally run for an attendant user in front of the computer over download applications that are mostly run automatically without a user waiting for them? Yes, that is reasonable. 
• Is it reasonable for Comcast to narrowly target their network managment specifically to only:
  1. Times of congestion;
  2. Congested geographies; 
  3. Uploads and not downloads; and
  4. Uploads where there is not a simultaneous download? 
  •  
    • Yes, these highly targetted purposeful limitations are reasonable.
• Is it reasonable for Comcast to have developed the most detailed terms of acceptable network use in the industry in response to the controversy? Yes, that is reasonable and responsible.  

Bottom line: This is a very important precedent-setting case for Congress' bipartisan, free-market policy toward the Internet, the FCC's four unanimous (5-0) broadband as an information service rulemakings and the FCC's unanimous (5-0) net neutrality policy statement.

• The key political precedent to this enforcement case was the unanimous (5-0) FCC enforcement action against Madison River achieved swiftly in a few weeks by the Michael Powell FCC in February 2005.
  • That unanimous and non-political enforcement action set the table for FCC Chairman Martin to achieve unanimous bipartisan support of a (5-0) FCC net neutrality policy statement in August 2005, which then became the predicate and basis for the pending FreePress and Vuze petitions.
  • In June 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously approved (5-0) a 170 page report on net neutrality urging caution on net neutrality regulation.
  • In October 2007, the House was also unanimous (402-0) in passing the Internet Tax Moritorium for seven more years.  
• Given Washington's consistent ability to deliver bipartisan unanimity on important Internet issues over the last few years, conventional wisdom will expect FCC Chairman Martin to be able to craft a decision on Comcast's network management practices that can garner unanimous (5-0) FCC support -- yet again.