You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-01-09 11:01
It is telling that the AP reporter who originally manufactured the story on Comcast's network managment practices, (through his own unscientific test) is the only mainstream reporter resuscitating this non-story.
Peter Svensson's AP story: "FCC to probe Comcast data discrimination" isn't news but an advocacy piece cloaked as a news story (see earlier post).
It isn't "news" that the FCC investigates petitions.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-01-08 10:58
Comcast's announcement at CES to offer a quicker system for downloading movies and shows as reported by the New York Times is strong proof of why the FreePress petition asking the FCC to not allow Comcast to manage the p2p traffic on its network -- is unreasonable.
Comcast is innovating to enable its network to offer what it calls "wideband," which will enable Comcast customers to download HD movies on demand -- that previously took up to six hours to download -- to less than 4 minutes.
The point I am making here is that any network has relative bandwidth chokepoints where traffic must be managed in order to deliver expected quality of service to all customers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-12-21 12:45
Washington Internet Daily reported that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell told reporters yesterday:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-12-12 17:13
Larry Downes produced an outstanding analysis for ZDNet today which he entitled "Save Internet Freedom -- From Regulation."
I strongly recommend it as it is one of the most cogent and persuasive pieces I have read in a long time on the subject.
He does a great service by putting the issue into much clearer context -- vis-a-vis other industries and past attempts to regulate where the government shouldn't have.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-12-09 22:28
Three times a year the Internet Engineering Task Force meets to discuss and work through major Internet issues.
The paper and the article point out that users of "unattended" P2P applications use dramatically more bandwidth than users of "interactive" applications like web browsing -- and then poses the question of whether this excess usage is fair.
Van Beijnum points out that the paper's authors suggest that P2P users are using 500 times the bandwidth as average interactive users. Moreover, he points out that this assymetric bandwidth dynamic disincents an ISP from upgrading their network because the assymetry would make them even less competitive.
The fundamental point here is a question of fairness.
It's unreasonable for 1 "bandwidth hippo" out of every 10,000 users to gobble up everyone's bandwidth!Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-12-06 13:39
Another reason why the FreePress petition to block Comcast's reasonable network managment is so unreasonable is that it puts the bandwidth gluttony of a very few ahead of the needs of everyone else on the network.
The core premise and expectation behind the FreePress petition is outrageous and unreasonable.
Let's put Comcast's network management problem in perspective.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-12-06 12:51
I always enjoy learning about a new fresh take on an old issue.
Kudos to Dr. Daniel Ballon who wrote a great editorial on net neutrality for The Hill newspaper: "Net neutrality punishes everyone for Comcast's actions."
He recounts a great analogy about how "neutral" networks on Black Monday, the stock market crash of October 19, 1987, was made worse by a traffic jam of orders that couuld not be managed in an orderly fashion to keep the stock market functioning and open.
At its core, the policy of net neutrality, that all traffic is always treated equally no matter what is -- unreasonable, unwise, and irrational.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-29 18:32
It appears that AP/Moveon.org/FreePress are panicking and have called for reinforcements to try and shore up their unreasonable characterization of Comcast's reasonable network managment of P2P traffic -- as somehow a net neutrality violation.
One of the EFF's main claims in their report is supremely ironic and very telling:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-15 18:45
I doubt the court will waste much time on this lawsuit given that the normal avenue of recourse, in the appropriate governmental venue, is already being pursued by the petitioners at the FCC.
I guess that Mr. Hart and his lawyer are aware that this case will likely go nowhere, but viewed it as helpful to the "cause" -- since net neutrality pressure groups are in constant search of "news hooks" to push their net neutrality crusade.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-11-13 13:27
The Big Government advocates who try to paint the U.S. as falling behind in broadband so they can justify an activist National Broadband Policy -- have a huge and embarassing hole in their argument -- the U.S. lead in wireless/mobile broadband, including U.S. leadership in transitioning prime analog TV spectrum to mainstream digital broadband use.
This U.S. world leadership in transitioning prime spectrum to optimal consumer use is powerful evidence of the superiority of our broadband policy approach, which embraces market forces more than just about any other major country in the world.