[ My comments follow ...
-- Lauren ]
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:33:48 -0700
To: Lauren Weinstein <lau...@vortex.com>, nnsq...@brettglass.com
From: Brett Glass <nnsq...@brettglass.com>
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: Re: Comcast
This is absurd.
It's inappropriate for the FCC to be doing this before Comcast's
challenge to its previous ruling is settled. Comcast asserts (and I
believe it's 100% correct) that the FCC does not have the authority
to regulate the Internet. It's right there in the statute: it says
that the Internet shall be "unfettered by state or Federal
regulation." By going after Comcast again, the FCC is brazenly
defying due process as well as the law.
What's more, Comcast's VoIP offering is indeed "Voice over IP," but
it is not "Voice over Internet." The distinction is important. The
system uses IP, but doesn't connect calls over the public Internet.
It also does not consume Internet backbone bandwidth, which is a
scarce and expensive resource. Therefore, any claims that the
service constitutes some sort of discrimination vis-a-vis the
Internet is ridiculous. The FCC is confusing IP with the Internet.
Thirdly, the fact that VoIP might be impacted by Internet bandwidth
limits is actually a result of Comcast having done what the FCC
wanted. The FCC insisted that Comcast make it bandwidth management
non-protocol-specific. Thus, Comcast can no longer prioritize VoIP
over P2P. The FCC therefore has no right to complain; Comcast is
only doing what it asked.
Finally, if Comcast is doing something wrong by providing a
separate channel on its cable for telephone service, isn't the
telephone company equally culpable for providing analog voice
telephone calls over the same line as DSL service (where VoIP might
likewise be degraded if the user is maxing out his or her
bandwidth)? And if either a telco or a cable company provides video
over the same cable or fiber, while the Internet bandwidth provided
to the customer is limited, isn't that the same thing?
Carried to its logical conclusion, the FCC's initiative would
outlaw all systems in which the same physical medium is used for
both Internet access and other services.
[ Brett is rambling, but his message is worth some discussion.
It is perfectly ordinary for the FCC to proceed with new
actions while previous actions are under scrutiny. If later
decisions rule that the earlier FCC actions were inappropriate,
the earlier decisions can be revoked.
Comcast is not paying the same fees that telcos routinely have
paid related to non-Internet voice comm services. By trying to
have things both ways, they're not only putting consumers at a
disadvantage, but competing telcos as well who are paying those
fees.
In conventional configurations, analog phone service does not
routinely have a variable impact on associated DSL bandwidth
for any given line.
Again, with ISPs free to unilaterally determine how much of
total bandwidth will be unfettered for their own use vs.
tightly managed and capped for access to their competitors,
anticompetitive results shouldn't surprise anyone. And since
ISPs represent consumers' only paths to the Internet at large,
the current largely unregulated "last mile" Internet
environment is increasingly nonsensical.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
