<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear All<br>
<br>
See a new item about
Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below <br>
(
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss</a>
)<br>
<br>
to quote "</font>Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is
routed over
a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected
by its new network management practices."<br>
<br>
This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this
discussion a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri<br>
<br>
"a 'content
provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not
be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the
basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special,
and more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services,
subject to a different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding
private IP based services. But just don't name them Internet, this is
the 'global public' claim on the Internet - that we all know in a
particular way, and cherish." <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP
based
services should have a different regulatory regime.<br>
<br>
</font>>The FCC said that if
Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband network, the phone
service could be classified as a telecommunications service subject to
>regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies currently pay.<br>
<br>
Extending the above argument it is possible to have <br>
<br>
(1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality
(NN) that is guided by democratic media principles - this means
absolutely no content
discrimination - ie no fast lanes for different content, no tiered
Internet etc<br>
<br>
(2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial
applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on
a non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to
anti-trust based NN principles, which will be especially stringent
because telecom is a oligopolistic business. These networks may also be
required to keep a tier/channel free to application providers to use,
which is paid for only by consumers on bandwidth cost basis. <br>
<br>
The above is a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the
NN issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and
complications here that will need to be further worked on in this
respect.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<h1>FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices
</h1>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org"
title="More information about Comcast Corp">Comcast Corp.</a>, the
nation's biggest cable TV operator, is being investigated by the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org"
title="More articles about the Federal Communications Commission.">Federal
Communications Commission</a>
over concerns that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone
service at the expense of similar services from competitors.</p>
<p>In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify
this ''disparate treatment.''</p>
<p>Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It
has until Jan. 30 to respond.</p>
<p>Comcast
last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the FCC
cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, an
issue that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is the
idea that Internet service providers should not give certain types of
online data better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing down
traffic for heavy users if there is Internet congestion in their area,
regardless of what type of data they are consuming.</p>
<p>Comcast
indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call placed
when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC noted
that Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over
a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected
by its new network management practices.</p>
<p>The FCC said that if
Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband network, the phone
service could be classified as a telecommunications service subject to
regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies currently pay.</p>
<p>Ben
Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said his
group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its
network management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''</p>
<p>Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.</p>
Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>></font>Telecoms
are
absolutely barred from charging content providers for <br>
> any special treatment of their content<br>
<br>
>I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.<br>
<br>
Avri,<br>
<br>
Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I
may mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content
provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not
be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the
basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special,
and more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services,
subject to a different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding
private IP based services. But just don't name them Internet, this is
the 'global public' claim on the Internet - that we all know in a
particular way, and cherish.<br>
<br>
Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To
foster "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media
can hardly be fostered on an Internet with
pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models. It requires a fully open
and public Internet as described above, with an equal treatment of all
content and traffic on it. <br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it
may be useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in
his paper on 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my
using even the relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet)
which is deliberately more nuanced, and should therefore have been more
acceptable. <br>
<br>
<br>
Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org"
type="cite"><br>
On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">> <br>
> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content
providers for <br>
> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a
tiered <br>
> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content
as per <br>
> different charges. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
</blockquote>
I have gotten a little confused in this discussion. So this email is
as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small
point based on my possibl flawed understanding <br>
<br>
If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to
content providers. <br>
<br>
Not included is doing this to other service providers and no
prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream
downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it maps
perfectly). I.e. Access providers can provide different service levels
for those who are happy with best effort for their email and occasional
surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with ultra low latency
for playing massive online distributed games. <br>
<br>
Is that correct? <br>
<br>
I think that is unavoidable. One complexity with that is if the
premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes. I am not
sure how that fits into the puzzle. <br>
<br>
Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides
a small amount of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a
trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos
are using large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth. Should they
be given the same access and be charged the same? <br>
<br>
It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating
because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a
content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of
bandwidth used (something else). <br>
<br>
And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an
activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable
price (or even free), they are not the same struggles. <br>
<br>
<br>
a. <br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________ <br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> <br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>