CircleID

The Commission noted that the record contained substantial evidence that customers, among other things, were unable to share music, watch video, or download software due to Comcast's misconduct.

In fact, no such thing is happening on the Comcast network and it never has. Comcast does not interfere with BitTorrent downloads on its network; in fact, they prevent BitTorrent seeding from interfering with BitTorrent downloading and actually improve the performance of the application the Commission says it's "disfavoring."

No. As the Commission write, customers were unable to share, i.e. upload, and this is a disfavoring limitation.

but there's no "freedom to run a file server from your home."

Why not? It sure should be free for anyone to provide content to the Internet, this is one of the fundamental principles used when creating Internet, end-to-end conectivity.

Joakim,

The reasons are simple.  One is technical, that is, the upstream is typically more constrained in bandwidth than the downstream (towards the subscriber) in broadband platforms, and the very assymetric nature of Internet traffic where (typically, at least for now) more data is pulled down than sent upstream, forces restrictions on what types of systems are allowed at the home (e.g., thus no web servers).

Second, the business model for broadband is based on heavy oversubscription.  It is the only way to keep the prices low, in the $40/month price point range.  If you allow web servers at homes, or P2P like BitTorrent, the business model blows up.  The ISPs may be able to upgrade a bit and suck up some of the cost, but ultimately it would get passed through to the consumer.  The more broadband traffic patterns shift (because of BitTorrent, etc.) towards symmetric patterns or heavy uploads as the norm, the more broadband will have to resemble leased lines to the home.  And that means you will pay more until the last (first?) mile is worked out, which it may never be - it's always been the tough part and that hasn't changed for 100 years.  Hopefully one day we'll all have fiber to the home with GigE running over it, or maybe WiMax, but I've been wishing that for years and I still can't get Verizon FiOS to my home despite living just outside of DC.

I'm not trying to be funny, but if you need to run commercial services from home such as a web site or ecommerce site, you should consider a leased line and the associated cost.  (A T1, if you can even get one delivered to your home, averages about $450/month for the local loop, plus whatever ISP charges you pay on top.  The further you get from the CO, the more the local loop costs.) Broadband is meant for the masses, where the statistical averages play out and allow for a reasonably good service to be deployed for a reasonable price.  I have Comcast and have had Verizon and Starpower DSL in the past.  All are reasonably priced and perform well.  I hope neither price nor performance changes for the worse because of P2P and the FCC's ruling.  This could easily force ISPs to usage-based models.  I've seen such models in the past, and in my opinion it will be unfavorable to many subscribers.  My monthly cost will probably go up (and I don't share music).

The questionable decision-making and procedural practices that Richard spotlighted are, unfortunately, characteristic of this particular iteration of the FCC. Since 2004, the commission's activities and operations have become highly politicized. The politics and procedural game-playing under the Martin administration are the antithesis of open, democratic decision-making. This is a significant change from the FCC I have covered as a reporter for nearly 20 years.

The current chair, Kevin Martin, has ties to traditional telcos, but that's not the issue. So have others in his position. What is unprecedented, however, is the lengths to which he will go to push that industry's interests to the detriment of others.

Martin makes a big show of concern for the consumer. But only VoIP and cable companies, both significant rivals to telcos, are singled out for criticism on the grounds that they have not been sufficiently attentive to consumers.

Martin has focused his most alarming political efforts on VoIP. So great is Martin's apparent antipathy toward the new technology that, since he took office early in 2005, FCC staff have been unable to attend public events, such as the VON and Internet Telephony conferences, that have to do with VoIP.

Worse, he has used 911 as a cudgel to attack VoIP rather than trying to resolve the incompatibilities between the old and new technologies. Who can forget his dog-and-pony show of VoIP 911 "victims" at an FCC meeting in 2005. But what has he done to advance much-needed updates, including migration to IP, for the 911 system? Nothing, despite the efforts of several groups in the emergency services community, which have developed detailed plans for that upgrade.

When a consumer issue threatened telcos, Martin played a different tune. The FCC recently considered a pro-consumer action against telcos--namely the decision prohibiting telcos from leaning heavily on customers who want to switch service to competitors. Only Martin opposed it.

The current situation with regard to Comcast and network traffic is typical of how Martin's FCC has bungled tough decisions. The issue is a difficult one, and it needs careful negotiation. Consumers are rightly concerned about the possibility that their access to competitive services on the Internet might be restricted. On the other hand, network operators have to make sure that the network continues to function smoothly. The FCC's response has been to slam Comcast without getting even the basic facts correct.

The network-traffic issue needs an even-handed, nonpolitical approach that can meet the needs of both consumers and network operators. Unfortunately, this FCC doesn't have a prayer of doing that. It long ago lost all ability to deal with the tough questions effectively.

At this point one can only hope that commission members will delay major actions until the Bush administration is over and this FCC is gone. Some of its decisions are likely to be overturned anyway. Fortunately, we have the model of past FCCs, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, that did not make heavy-handed politics the centerpiece of every decision. Let's hope that FCC reappears after the next election.