FCC chief says no need for new regulation of the Internet

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday his agency has all the authority it needs to prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against Web surfers and that new legislation is unnecessary.

"I do not believe any additional regulations are needed at this time," Martin said at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. "But I also believe that the commission has a responsibility to enforce the principles that it has already adopted."

The FCC has conducted two hearings on "network management" following admissions by Comcast Corp. that it sometimes delayed file-sharing traffic for subscribers as a way to keep Web traffic flowing.

The hearing was called at a time when the issue of "network neutrality" — the principle that people should be able to go where they choose on the Internet without interference from network owners — has heated up.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_hi_te/internet_regulation_13

[Pappy]

1. Probably not a good idea putting the FCC over it in the first place

I am wondering if the FCC really has enough technical understanding of the Internet to be able to make decisions that govern it in the first place?

[Robbien]

2. The FCC has been turned into an advocate for the telecos

They will take no action which will get in the way of Comcast, etc. profits.

[TheWraith]

4. Comcast isn't a telco. It's a cable company. nt

[woundedkarma]

7. Call it what you want...

comcast has as much money as a telco and people are easily bought.

[TheWraith]

8. Actually, Martin's FCC has a history of favoring telcos over cable companies...

Which the latter have complained about many times. Just because somebody's ethically dubious doesn't mean they're equally bought.

[crikkett]

9. it offers phone service and competes directly with ATT. Doesn't that make it a Telco?

[Uncle Joe]

3. Martin doesn't care about he people, that was obvious from his last

approval of further conglomeration totally ignoring the will of the people, the one town meeting they held at the last minute was totally against it. He's a tool of the corporations.

Here is an example of his latest inconsistency.

"Martin told the panel that the FCC's anti-discrimination "Internet Policy Statement," approved in 2005, is enforceable and gives the commission adequate authority to protect consumers.

When the policy was approved, Martin had a different opinion, however.

In his statement at the time, he noted "policy statements do not establish rules nor are they enforceable documents" but that the commission decision "does reflect core beliefs that each member of this Commission holds regarding how broadband Internet access should function."

Furthermore this paragraph is bullshit

"Large network owners like cable and telecommunications companies are opposed to network neutrality legislation, saying it would add a layer of regulation that will hurt consumers. They say it is unnecessary and amounts to a solution in search of a problem."

These people want to create a problem first and then fight the solution. I believe the mere reference of denigrating the American People's power of citizenship by referring to them as nothing but consumers is part of the problem. If protections for the people aren't enshrined, it will be the cable and telecommunications corporations that add layers that hurt citizens and ultimately our democratic republic.

The Congress needs to make up it's mind as to who they truly represent, are we a nation of the people for the people and by the people, or a nation of soulless corporations? I believe Mr. Martin has already shown his hand and it's not for the citizens of the United States.

[crimsonblue]

6. I couldn't agree more

The internet is no longer a service; it's a utility. The Telco's are legally obligated to provide bandwidth at whatever speed you signed up for. It's not my fault that ATT has sold too much bandwidth; they need to install more server farms and better transmission lines (get rid of those worthless copper lines). As a "consumer", I am entitled to exactly what I paid for. By slowing down my internet or or filtering what I may access, they are violating their contractual obligations. Not to mention that by filtering the internet, the Telcos may very well be destroying the immunity from prosecution they enjoy as carriers. Also, without net-neutrality, the Telcos have no incentive to increase bandwidth speeds and access-- if the deck is stacked against consumers, then the telcos are far more likely to peddle worthless products (such as calling 250kbps "Broadband", or throttling users that are simply utilizing the full extent of their bandwidth).

[Trillo]

5. It appears he's denying the truth

Can the FCC handle the truth

...

All day Thursday, the Commission was confronted with what, to some of the commissioners, were definitely uncomfortable, even inconvenient, truths about how networks are used and abused. These truths ran smack into the rhetoric about the “market” and the need for private sector solutions, even as speaker after speaker on two panels said that there was evidence Comcast continues to degrade peer-to-peer traffic, that Cox is doing it also and that the techniques used by the cable companies are not acceptable to the vast majority of Internet network engineers.

Robb Topolski, the network engineer whose love for barber shop quartet music led him to track the original Comcast throttling of peer-to-peer traffic at all hours of day and night, told the Commission that despite the headlines about Comcast and BitTorrent coming to an agreement, “the situation continues around the clock today. It has not stopped. It’s happening right now.” Comcast’s use of “reset flags” are “not a part of reasonable network management and “are not accepted by anyone in the standards community.” Topolski said he performed the same network analysis on the Cox cable network and found the same behavior. ( Topolski wasn’t the only one arguing that the Comcast throttling methods weren’t standard behavior, despite attempts to soften the testimony. Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick told FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate the same thing during the second panel.)

It is very clear that “this is blocking,” Carnegie Mellon University Professor Jon Peha told FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, in response to Martin’s question whether Comcast was correct to characterize its activities only as delaying traffic.

read more @ http://freepress.net/node/38692