In the latest desperate attempt by net neutrality proponents to find something, anything, that will galvanize their supporters in Congress to do something on net neutrality to show the issue is not on life support -- FreePress put out a press release that has desperately leaps on an AP story that alleges that "Comcast blocks some Internet traffic" -- in hopes to revive their call for net neutrality hearings and legislation.
Before the net neutrality movement hyper-ventilates themselves in the usual frenzy that these type of one-sided pro-net neutrality stories generate, its important to go and read what the FCC's bipartisan net neutrality policy statement actually says in the final words of its official statement: that the net neutrality "principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management."
"Reasonable network management." The FCC and others that are "reasonable" about this issue realize that the net neutrality radical's insistence that every bit be treated equally is simply not the way the Internet has ever been run, nor has it ever been required for cable companies, nor does it make any real world sense!
First, I have a one-pager that point-by-point debunks "The Net is Neutral Myth." This "neutral" perception is manufactured and not based on fact but a radical political agenda.
Second, Cable modems have never been subject to net neutrality common carrier obligations. Period full stop.
Third, the insistence that all bits be treated equally makes no sense at all.
- Is it "reasonable" to expect the network to be managed as all bits are equal? And not have a wide diversity of competitive choices for consumers to choose from like: free Wifi, cheap dial-up, or a wide variety of broadband speeds, prices, or mobility offerings?
- Is it reasonable to expect a network to treat all bits equally when consumers have different needs, wants and means demanding a diversity of consumer offerings?
- Is it reasonable to expect a network manager to treat real-time voice traffic that can't have any speed latency to maintain expected quality no differently from an email, a file transfer where microsecond or multisecond delays are not going to affect the expected quality of service?
To understand how silly the allegation is against Comcast -- that it shouldn't be able to apply common sense and sound management principle to its private network -- think about how silly this expectation would be if applied to the delivery of mail or packages.
- Under the logic of the AP Comcast story and the radical no network managment view:
- Fedex could not deliver a 1 oz letter any different than a five hundred pound box of equipment.
- Wouldn't it make sense for Fedex to use a forklift or a dolly for a heavy box and just one person for the letter? and to use a different truck and a different building entrance for the bigger box than for the letter?
- This is analogous to the difference it is to manage the traffic of an email (1 oz letter) and a video file (a five hundred pound box.)
- Moreover, is it not reasonable for Fedex to charge more for managing the delivery of a five hundred pound box than a 1 oz letter?
Bottom line: The demands and expectations of the activists in the net neutrality movement are completely unreasonable and divorced from the reality of what it takes to manage a broadband network with the quality of service that the public expects and has paid for.
- This type of "gotcha" activism is getting old.
- This must be the umpteenth time these activists have leapt on a supposedly "smoking-gun incident" without knowing the facts and assuming only the worst of intentions of broadband providers.
- This boy has cried wolf! too many times...
- It seems like these activists are desperate to prove themselves right and to regulate the internet.
- They should care more about maintaining a highly-functioning Internet managed for the expected quality of the vast majority of Internet users and not for the few bandwidth hogs ruining the utility and responsiveness of the Internet for everyone else.
