Share

FCC Chief Says Comcast Violated Internet Rules

by: John Dunbar  |  The Associated Press

photo
(Illustration: Jared Power)

FCC chairman to recommend sanctions against Comcast for blocking Internet traffic.

    Washington - The head of the Federal Communications Commission said Thursday he will recommend that the nation's largest cable company be punished for violating agency principles that guarantee customers open access to the Internet.

    The potentially precedent-setting move stems from a complaint against Comcast Corp. that the company had blocked Internet traffic among users of a certain type of "file sharing" software that allows them to exchange large amounts of data.

    "The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The Associated Press late Thursday. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

    Martin said Comcast has "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access, regardless of the level of traffic, and failed to disclose to consumers that it was doing so.

    Company spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice on Thursday denied that Comcast blocks Internet content or services and that the "carefully limited measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network are a reasonable part" of the company's strategy to ensure all customers receive quality service.

    Martin will circulate an order recommending enforcement action against the company on Friday among his fellow commissioners, who will vote on the measure at an open meeting on Aug. 1.

    The action was in response to a complaint filed by Free Press and Public Knowledge, nonprofit groups that advocate for "network neutrality," the idea that all Internet content should be treated equally.

    Martin's order would require Comcast to stop its practice of blocking; provide details to the commission on the extent and manner in which the practice has been used; and to disclose to consumers details on future plans for managing its network going forward.

    The FCC approved a policy statement in September 2005 that outlined a set of principles meant to ensure that broadband networks are "widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers."

    The principles, however, are "subject to reasonable network management."

    Comcast argues that the agency's policy statement is not enforceable and that the commission has "never before provided any guidance on what it means by 'reasonable network management.'"

    If a majority of commissioners side with Martin, it will be the first test of the agency's network neutrality principles. Members of both the House and Senate have sponsored network neutrality bills, but they have never come close to becoming law.

    Large Internet service providers have fought against such regulation, arguing that it is a solution in search of a problem and that companies that spend billions on their networks must be free to manage traffic.

    Ben Scott, federal policy chief for Free Press said Thursday night the FCC's action may have consequences for other Internet providers going forward.

    "This is going to be a bellwether," he said.

    Martin, a Republican, will likely get support from the two Democrats on the commission, who are both proponents of the network neutrality concept. Those three votes would be enough for a majority on the five-member commission.

    --------

    Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov/

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The irony! The internet was

The irony! The internet was created to prevent an enemy (Soviet Union) from controlling communications in the US were they to invade. The US government has now orchestrated control over the internet communications medium to do precisely what it was created to defeat. This may be what GHWBush called "the new world order."

Ah, how sweet it is. The

Ah, how sweet it is. The "gun nuts" were all called crazy when those fateful words -- "reasonable regulation" -- were evil. Oh, they're just paranoid, that no one was out to hurt them, that it was just "common sense". But the shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it, when the same words are being used to strangle *speech and communications*. When "reasonable network management", like "reasonable regulation" is used as a choke-chain to take away what should be a guaranteed and uninfringed right. Yes, there is always responsibility for one's acts, with speech as there is with firearms. That is why it is Freedom OF Speech, not Free Speech. The former implies no payment, the latter, no accountability. The right to keep and bear arms does not relieve one of the accountability for what is done with those arms, either. But accountability for those acts is always AFTERWARD -- after one has spoken, and after one has fired the shot. Comcast seeks to prevent one from acting before the fact, on the belief they are "protecting" against those who *might* act. This is not only unreasonable, it is unconscionable. DL

The internet is our

The internet is our lifeline; we have yet to master its full potential; but it is clear that we will have to fight to defend it. There is no technological obstacle to their shutting this tool off on us, only political and legal obstacles. Speaking of which, another major story that the media barons blocked and we need to get out: "The United Steelworkers signed a merger agreement with the largest labor organization in Britain and Ireland to create what union leaders said would be the world's first global union. The new union ... will represent more than 2.8 million workers ... [and] plans to hold trans-Atlantic negotiations ...." (NY Times 7/2). None of the networks or wire services and only a few other papers carried this story! We NEED to find ways to catch stories like this and get them to the people!