FCC Chief Clarifies His Statement On Comcast

netizenz writes "At a press conference yesterday, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has clarified his earlier statements on Comcast. According to the CircleID post by Richard Bennett, he 'will not seek a fine against Comcast. Rather, he will simply impose some reporting requirements on them and order them to do what they've already started to do, phase out the current traffic management system in favor of an application-agnostic one. This is second story in a row where the AP have got the facts backwards. Hence, both sides may now officially claim victory.'"

By "clarification" he means

[by Anonymous Coward]

Retroactively revising his position on order of the big bosses, since they didn't like his first one.

Re:By "clarification" he means

[quonsar (61695)]

...they dropped off the check last evening.

Traffic shaping is ok

[kurt555gs (309278)]

As long as it is "application agnostic". Comcast or for that matter most large ISP's think the internet is theirs to do with what they want. Laws? phooey, we own it, we will decided who its used in our interest.

Never mind all our wires run on public right of ways.

this is truely getting out of hand.

Re:Traffic shaping is ok

[McGuirk (1189283)]

"So if you drive your car on a public road the car becomes public property?" No, but try putting up road blocks, and forcing people who drive certain kinds of vehicles to drive in lanes with much lower speed limits. You can't do things like that on a public roadway unless you're the government...or a contracted worker or prison inmate.

Re:

[bullypulpiteer (1316553)]

The Supreme Court of the State of California says that when you register your vehicle the state has the right to take possession of it for none or any reason at any time. You can not legally drive on the public roads without having registered your vehicle, since it is also then subject to immediate confiscation.

Re:

[mysidia (191772)]

No. The communication lines are on the public right of way like the pavement is on public land.

Your car is not a permanent fixture. That changes the property.

Communication lines are a permanent fixture. And the property is changed.

For example, the government can no longer dig on that public property to build something, without risk of destroying your communication line.

Re:

[WolfWithoutAClause (162946)]

I think the dirty secret is that their previous strategy- deep pack inspection as a way to enforce non neutrality- doesn't work very well anyway.

The problem is you have to keep fiddling with it- which costs money, and your customers always outnumber you, and usually outsmart you.

Deep packet inspection works well if you're playing *with* the customers. So if it's a way for the customers to say- I value this packet particularly highly, and the ISP follows along- that's fine (and the ISP of course checks that

Any bets he got a call from someone "important"?

[Opportunist (166417)]

Telling him that he should backpedal?

Re:Any bets he got a call from someone "important"

[falcon5768 (629591)]

Honestly its the FCC, their about as neutered as it comes when talking about enforcing laws. Its very likely in this case the AP DID get it wrong, not that it matters since NO ONE fined by the FCC in the last 3-4 years has even paid theirs anyway.

Re:

[antirelic (1030688)]

Nah. The FCC will brutally and efficiently prosecute anyone who is not a big business with well placed lobbyists, and a constituency that relies on the jobs these big businesses provide. Open up a pirate radio station and watch what happens. You will find the FCC on your doorstep quickly, and they will have no mercy.

Now, if your a big company like Comcast, have no fear. You'll just have to do some "reporting" which is pretty stupid since elected officials and their supporting staff have no idea what those r

Re:

[hvm2hvm (1208954)]

Nah, it's the whole fucking world. It's like this damn companies are above the law. Whenever some huge company makes something obviously malicious the worst it can happen they get a fine. A band of young guys are partying and run out of booze and they rob a store, they get 5years+. WTF?

For something as big as traffic shaping for millions of people therefore attacking their freedom (and maybe privacy) I would just put the fuckheads in charge in jail until someone with enough common sense runs it. The same

Re:

[Ironchew (1069966)]

That's not a free market sentiment. Heretics like yourself would be happier with a comforting re-education.

typical

[Alibaba10100 (1296289)]

I've noticed that whenever I know the actual details of a story (say its a story on someone's remarks, which I heard, or a story on technology I've known about for years) AP, Reuters, BBC, FOX, CNN, or whoever else carries the story gets it completely ass backwards. Easy proliferation of actual information has made it possible for people like me to realize this. It just makes me wonder what is wrong with the news agencies.

layers of fact checkers

[Trailer Trash (60756)]

Come, now, AP has layers of fact-checkers to make sure they don't get details wrong. They would never be duped by photoshopped missile launches, either, right?

Re:

[jo42 (227475)]

I for one welcome the money grubbing corporate overlords. Resistance Is Futile!

The FCC doesn't have any authority here

[wiredlogic (135348)]

This backpedaling is because the FCC doesn't have any authority over how a cable company manages its network. There are no requirements whatsoever for any ISP or backbone provider to provide neutrality or to faithfully implement internet standards. What we have today is just a continuation of the laissez faire approach that worked for the early internet.

Re:

[Repossessed (1117929)]

No, but the judge the FCC is asking to do this has plenty of authority.

Re:

[Solandri (704621)]

Ultimately the government has the final say. All those cable TV, DSL, and fiber wires need to go through public utility easements for the system to be feasible. If the government really wanted to impose network neutrality it could simply say, "Either make it neutral, or in all future projects you'll have to buy access rights from every individual property owner in order to string up your cable, no more access to public easements."

Re:

[Renraku (518261)]

Can't the FCC dictate how its advertised, then?

Filtering a network based on packets, content, etc, or cutting people off because they use to much..that doesn't sound very unlimited to me.

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

I think you want the FTC.

Re:

[Luke O'Connell (1046942)]

Agreed, they need to have the authority though. Like so much online law... it just needs to be written. Judges are pretty useful here, but lack the knowledge and have to rely too heavily on consults (which reduces their power).

Re:

[MobyDisk (75490)]

According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they do. And there are four principles [fcc.gov] that all broadband providers must implement.

Looks like Corporate America had a talk with him.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

Act tough against Corporations and some one higher up says "look dick bag, you're only here cause i put you here, so dont get fucking cocky you little peice of shit... You will do nothing."

So now comcast gets a blow job from the FCC rather than a strict ruling from our government.

Lovely. Did you really expect anything to ever happen to comcast? You do realize that these companies get away with murder... and you dont.

Re:

[Ninth Marion (1310141)]

Hmm, FCC - Fellating Corrupt Corporations? It does have that certain ring of truth.

Re:Looks like Corporate America had a talk with hi

[rlds (849683)]

How is Verizon getting treated on this issue?

Hall Passes All Round!

[Luke O'Connell (1046942)]

Will not seek a fine? Pretty poor; I guess they get a hall pass because they were the first to try and exploit people without permission. Its moves like this that people need to take notice of, and act appropriately towards Comcast. If I used their services it would certainly be a reason to stop.

Without a Significant Fine...

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Without a significant fine in the 7-figures and above Comcast has no reason to change a single thing about what they're doing.

FCC, you're useless here.

The AP story was actually correct

[Richard Bennett (318630)]

I corrected my post on CircleID after learning that the false impression that the FCC was going to fine Comcast was snuck in by a headline writer at the New York Times and not by the AP reporter who covers the FCC beat. Martin was actually rather coy about his specific plan when he leaked the story, and the reporter was actually played a bit. It would be nice if you could update the quote from my CircleID post. Any or all of the first three paragraphs should do:

Note: this is an update on my earlier story, w

Why should Comcast get a fine?

[funchords (937529)]

Gee, seem innocent enough -- I don't know why Comcast should get a fine... hmmm, let's review, shall we???

1. For blocking P2P uploads
2. after telling the government the year before that network neutrality was not needed because they would never degrade traffic
3. then doing so, in secret
4. using forged packets
5. even when the network was not congested
6. 24-hours a day, 7-day a week
7. and when the content was public domain like the Holy Bible and barbershop quartet music
8. then lying/diffusing/deflecting about it
9. repeatedly
10. constan