Link to ArsTechnica: Comcast Sues FCC, wants p2p throttling order overturned
Link to ArsTechnica: FCC responds to Comcast lawsuit: we still want answers
Ever since the FCC handed down its 3-2 decision against cable operator Comcast’s network management techniques, Comcast has been expected to sue the FCC. Today, the cable giant made good on those predictions, filing an appeal of the FCC ruling in the DC Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over FCC decisions.
The appeal itself is brief: a two-page document, a cover letter, and a $450 check. But the fight that it spawns will no doubt drag on for quite some time, centering on one major question: can the FCC rule against Comcast based on a policy statement that the FCC said was not enforceable at the time?
In a statement today, however, Comcast did admit that the FCC does have the authority to regulate ISPs “in appropriate circumstances and in accordance with appropriate procedures.”
As the legal process plays itself out, Comcast has pledged to abide by the order and continue its work to move towards a protocol-agnostic throttling system that could slow “heavy users” down to DSL levels for 20 minutes at a time (another piece of the bandwidth management puzzle, hard bandwidth caps, were also announced last month).
“Although we are seeking review and reversal of the Commission’s network management order in federal court, we intend to comply fully with the requirements established in that order, which essentially codify the voluntary commitments that we have already announced, and to continue to act in accord with the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement,” said David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president.
“Thus, we intend to make the required filings and disclosures, and we will follow through on our longstanding commitment to transition to protocol-agnostic network congestion management practices by the end of this year.”
With Comcast pledging to abide by the FCC’s decision, what’s the point of the lawsuit? The FCC’s finding and order are precedent setting, in that the Commission has rendered a decision on how far ISPs can go in managing their networks for the first time. That’s a precedent Comcast and its cable and telecom brethren would rather not have, as they would prefer to manage their networks in any manner they see fit without directives from the FCC covering what kinds of management techniques are over the line.
Comcast to FCC: WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEE WAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNTTTTTT ITTTTTTTTTTTTTT OUUUUUUUURRRRRRR WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin said today that he was “disappointed” by Comcast’s decision to sue the FCC over its move to sanction the company for P2P throttling. But Martin said he’s glad that the cable giant says it will still comply with the Commission’s Order requiring the company to reveal its Internet management policies, because the agency has lots of questions.
“Given Comcast’s past failure to disclose its network management practices to its customers, it is important Comcast respond to the many still-unanswered questions about its new management techniques,” Martin warned in a statement released this afternoon. Most notably, what exactly does Comcast mean when it says it will have a “protocol agnostic” management system in place by the end of the year?
And as for the bandwidth limits that Comcast has now announced: “How will consumers know if they are close to a limit?” Martin asked. “If a consumer exceeds a limit, is his traffic slowed? Is it terminated? Is his service turned off?”
Anticipating Comcast’s arguments that the FCC has no jurisdiction to sanction its behavior, Martin reminded the company that when the FCC approved it and Time-Warners’ acquisition of Adelphia Communications in July of 2006, the FCC “put Comcast on notice” that it would act on complaints of degraded Internet content. “Comcast nonetheless chose to close on that deal,” Martin noted.
The FCC still wants answers, Martin’s statement concludes. “Perhaps more importantly, Comcast’s subscribers deserve to know the answers.”
Other critics of Comcast’s traffic-management practices responded to the news with varying degrees of bravado and anxiety.
Gig Sohn of Public Knowledge said that PK expected Comcast to appeal the FCC’s decision. “The company opposed it every step of the way, even as they failed to disclose their throttling of Internet traffic,” Sohn stated. “We believe the Commission will prevail and the rights of Internet users will be protected.”
The question, of course, is whether they will prevail in this particular court case. The Open Internet Coalition’s (OIC) press release warns that Comcast’s appeal may “roll back” the progress that the FCC made in its Order. The move also raises questions “whether the Commission’s Broadband Policy Statement, guaranteeing consumers the right to access content and applications of their choice over the ‘Net, has the force of law.” The OIC statement calls on Congress to provide leadership on the issue.
While Free Press’s Ben Scott also calls Comcast’s actions “predictable,” his comments concur that Capitol Hill has to address the problem. “The future of the Internet is too important to let Comcast tie it up in legal limbo,” Scott said. “Congress should act now to pass net neutrality laws that clear up any uncertainty once and for all.”
This case will now go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has a long history of dealing with FCC controversies, in some instances siding with the Commission.
In June of 2006 the DC Circuit famously upheld the FCC on the constitutionality of its enforcement of the Communications Assistance Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires private ISPs to open their networks to the cops. In May of this year the DC Circuit yet again backed the FCC, this time rejecting Sprint’s bid to delay a plan to reorganize the 800MHz spectrum band’s public safety region.
Both times the court upheld the FCC’s statutory right to enforce its rules, the big question that Comcast will doubtless raise when the matter comes to the bench.
The FCC still wants answers, Martin’s statement concludes. “Perhaps more importantly, Comcast’s subscribers deserve to know the answers.”Really, I really really really hope FCC wins this case. Even though I don’t use Comcast, I would hate to see Comcast win, and give Time Warner, Verizon, or any other cable companies ideas about actually doing this. It’s bad enough Time Warner started a trial of doing so in Texas!
To the FCC: We also want answers, you cover a few of them, but we really need Net Neutrality.
Filed under: Uncategorized
