
Comcast Comments on FCC's Proposed Rules - schnable
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-comments-on-fccs-proposed-rules-to-protect-and-promote-the-open-internet
======
mkautzm
"We do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications
service under Title II for at least four reasons: ... reclassification of
broadband under Title II will create a huge cloud of uncertainty over the
entire broadband industry, thereby retarding investment and innovation."

I would be willing to buy this if there was actually reasonable investment to
begin with.

I'm from ND, and we have about 15~ rural cooperative telecom companies. If you
take a look at this map:
[http://www.dakotacarrier.com/network.asp](http://www.dakotacarrier.com/network.asp)

You can see their respective boundaries. The white area is the major cities.
Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, etc. Guess who has fiber? Not the major cities!
BEK is offering 200Mb fiber AND cable TV for 65 dollars a month in a lot of
their coop zone, and it continues to expand. Fargo, the largest metro area has
Cable One, which offers 50/10 connections for 70 dollars a month and has a
bandwidth cap of 50GB.

Now, a lot of that infrastructure has come on the back of free money from the
federal government, but major ISPs got that too.

If major ISPs actually used their pools of cash to build out infrastructure
instead of actively trying to remove fiber from their competition, then I'd be
more inclined to believe this.

As I see it, major ISPs have completely mismanaged their position in the
market and instead of making a reasonable best effort to keep people happy,
they've done the bare minimum and have abused the technical ignorance of most
residential customers for their benefit. It's for reasons like that that I
support Title II reclassification.

~~~
schnable
In the major metros Comcast has increased speeds regularly and also offers
hundreds of wifi hotspots that customers can use. In many of these areas they
also compete with Fios of course.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>In the major metros Comcast has increased speeds

They've certainly added higher tiers. I saw their 105mbps product was
available in my neighborhood and called. The non-promotional price just for
internet floats around $180 a month. That's a far cry from these municipal
fiber shops that deliver that speed or higher AND television for less cost.

This is an easy way for ISPs to say to regulators, "Look we offered it but no
one ordered it." Of course, no one wants to pay $180 for internet, especially
when google fiber goes for $70 or so. I think their 400mbps product is around
$400, which is insane.

~~~
res0nat0r
I've been paying $99/month 105Mb for about 1.5 years now.

------
mwsherman
Comcast is supporting having _their competitors_ being bound by net
neutrality. Comcast already is, due to the terms of the NBC merger. So they
want their competitors to “suffer” similarly.

And they don’t want mobile to impinge on the fixed-line market, so they
support NN in mobile, too.

A good analogy is WalMart supporting a minimum wage. They support it because
it hurts their competitors (local Mom & Pops) more. [1]

Remember regulation isn’t “rules of the road”. It’s an input into a complex
system.

[1] [http://clipperhouse.com/2010/02/22/net-neutrality-and-
preser...](http://clipperhouse.com/2010/02/22/net-neutrality-and-preserving-
the-dinosaurs/)

------
bdb
Comcast simultaneously claims that some of their own VoD services -- services
delivered via your cable modem, through your router and home wifi network --
don't count, because they're part of your cable service, not the internet, so
they're allowed to treat them differently.

[http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/the-facts-
about-...](http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/the-facts-about-
xfinity-tv-and-xbox-360-comcast-is-not-prioritizing)

~~~
SnacksOnAPlane
I thought the VoD services were implemented by having a bunch of HD channels
reserved as VoD stations. Then when you order something, the system tells your
cable box to change to X channel, where the VoD stream plays. So it's not
actually using the same system as your internet service.

I could be totally wrong on this, though.

------
cordite
They support an open internet and the ideals of innovation.

They do not like the solution proposed (Title II reclassification)

Here's an abbreviated list that they pose at the bottom

> We do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications
> service under Title II for at least four reasons:

> 1\. Title II is unnecessary

> 2\. Title II poses significant legal risks

> 3\. Title II has proved to be a failure

> 4\. reclassification .. will create a huge cloud of uncertainty over the
> entire broadband industry, thereby retarding investment and innovation.

~~~
schnable
Title II is not "the solution proposed," it is one possible way to implement
net neutrality.

~~~
diafygi
Can you elaborate on other possible plans?

~~~
otterley
The problem is that the FCC is bounded by the authority given to it by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act was passed about 5 years before the
Internet became a ubiquitous service unto itself (as opposed to a healthy
selection of cheap dialup providers) and wasn't written with today's realities
in mind.

What really needs to happen IMO is "none of the above" \- Congress needs to
get its act together and pass a revised Telecommunications Act that reflects
reality, so that the FCC has more flexibility to regulate beyond choosing a
regulatory box to fit ISPs in ("information service" and the weak regulation
that entails, vs. "telecommunications service" and the common carrier overhead
that entails).

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Congress needs to get its act together and pass a revised Telecommunications
Act that reflects reality

That's a more proper solution, but it is pretty clear that this Congress isn't
able to do anything of the sort, and IMO we can't wait for another one to come
along.

------
rayiner
> Our support of the 2010 Open Internet Order was so strong that we
> voluntarily agreed in our NBCUniversal transaction to be bound by those
> rules even if they were struck down by the courts. As a result of the DC
> Circuit decision and our commitment, we are now the only ISP in the country
> legally bound by the entire set of Open Internet rules.

Interesting fact I wasn't aware of.

~~~
hgsigala
It wasn't so "voluntary" when you are doing it to get FCC/ Justice Department
approval for a 6 billion dollar merger.

~~~
chimeracoder
I think the interesting point is that they are now bound by it, one way or
another.

Given that, it makes sense that they'd support the notion that all other
competitors be required to do the same. I don't think this is particularly
altruistic in that light.

~~~
hgsigala
I would agree if it were not for the fact that they are only bound to the Open
Internet Order until 2018.

They also did this while fighting it in court. The Verizon suit which struck
down the Open Internet Rules only came as a result of a previous Comcast suit.

------
pessimizer
This is pretty easy to say for Comcast because their television services won't
be bound by net neutrality, but competing television services from other ISPs
delivered over IP wouldn't be able to make quality of service guarantees for
their own offerings. Am I reading this wrong?

~~~
bdb
No, you are not.

------
Picard
Is it phone carriers that are really on board with making fast lanes? I'm
pretty sure Verizon paints it's red signs with the blood of innocent children.

------
th3iedkid
any comments from netflix on this?

------
aridiculous
Gosh I love that 2/3 of this post is legalese. This is blogging in 2014.

~~~
fu9ar
The reclassification of broadband services is primarily a legal issue. The
activists promoted this Title II "common carrier" classification and many
people just parroted that without asking what that really meant. Nothing is
simple when it comes down to USA spanning policy. The scope creep has
introduced a number of bugs in the system over the years.

