Comcast: Death Star 3.0?
UPDATED: Sorry, it’s simply impossible to cast mild-mannered Brian Roberts as an evil Sith overlord, drumming lacquered fingernails on a console in his dark space-tower of doom, hell-bent on stopping hapless customers from sharing public-domain show tunes and anime.
Wired’s piece on Roberts in the February issue (”The Dark Lord of Broadband Tries to Fix Comcast’s Image”) is packaged like a clever bit of anti-corporate truth-telling, but the truth is less sensational.
The article’s narrative arc pits heroic file-sharing rebels and academics — who just want the ‘Net to be free, man! – against Roberts and the nefarious Comcastic Forces of Network Management.
The story line is forced, of course. And confusingly, after implying that Comcast is just blocking BitTorrent trafic to be mean and throw its weight around (thereby allowing Roberts to be “painted as power-mad, unable to restrain himself,” according to Wired) the article later quotes Roberts explaining that managing P2P traffic is a necessary step that all ISPs must take or watch their networks be swamped.
The Wired piece also is oblivious to the fact that departing FCC chairman Martin — in trying to inflate Comcast’s P2P throttling into a federal crime — has had a king-size axe to grind against Comcast in particular and cable in general. When the FCC issued its order slapping Comcast on the wrist for the P2P transgressions, Republican commissioner Robert McDowell released a dissenting statement pointing out that Martin had no procedural leg to stand on to enforce the agency’s Internet policy statement.
Indeed, Martin on Sunday opened a new probe into Comcast’s management of VoIP applications over its network just two days before he’s supposed to hit the bricks. Who again was “unable to restrain himself”?
Ultimately, the conclusion of the Wired article is that Comcast has had some tone-deaf PR, observing that Roberts and Comcast never thought the issue would erupt into such a public-relations fiasco. The lesson is that a few squeaky wheels and a public-policy lobbying apparatus that earns a living championing the “open” Internet are forces to be reckoned with.
But dressing up Brian Roberts as a fire-breathing evil “dark lord” is an absurd frame on which to hang the story. Here’s a catch-22: It’s the kind of press treatment that has made the PR team at Comcast HQ defensive, and that defensiveness is the fault the article finds with Roberts & Co.
Note: An earlier version of this post said the Wired article doesn’t discuss Comcast’s rationale for peer-to-peer throttling. In fact, the article does. My apologies for the oversight.
jhenry commented:
freenet: I\’m wondering how much of YOUR capital you have invested in the Internet, vs. how much Comcast has? The Internet is not free and for the most part is private property.
freenet commented:
Although the wired article makes some rather humorous comparisons (in my opinion, the focus is a bit biased), I think you\’re missing the point. It starts with throttling in the name of stopping P2P traffic, then the real anti-competitive spirit of this company is shown through throttling or other networks carrying comcast\’s own services while ACTIVELY and PURPOSEFULLY degrading the quality of service for their competitors. This is the real problem, don\’t overlook the importance of net neutrality. Let\’s say for instance, one of your website\’s competitors paid comcast to give them preference over your site. Or even worse, perhaps they could attempt to hijack DNS traffic and redirect users away from your site. This is a VERY dangerous thing, it gives the ISP the ability to censor, or otherwise hinder the free spread of ideas, media, and communications between ALL people. Ever heard of the \”Great Firewall of China\”? That\’s why it\’s necessary to send the market a message by attacking Comcast so furiously for their anti-competitive tendencies. Sure, other ISPs have been doing network management to handle the large amount of traffic caused by P2P applications, but the real need from consumers is to have greater network capacity! Comcast is avoiding the need to expand their network through very radical methods.
This IS a very real problem, and you sir seem to be perfectly happy to stand idly by and let them get away with taking away our freedom, bit by bit, packet by packet.


















