[RTC List] Eureka Reporter editorial criticizes FCC 'net-neutrality' decision

[William Van Hefner]

Quite an odd twist of words, indeed. While I am usually against government
interference in public commerce, the Comcast case is one that doubtlessly
would have ended-up in the courts anyway, regardless of the whole "net
neutrality" issue.

Specifically, Comcast was (IMHO) committing fraud by not giving people
what it was that they advertised. The company boasts about fast downloads
in it's commercials. Nowhere in its advertising does it disclose that it
secretly decides how much you can download, how fast you can download,
what protocols you can use to download, etc. Their advertising is flat-out
deceptive and misleading. The FCC is simply forcing them to deliver the
goods that customers have already paid for.

Honestly, it seems more like a matter that the Federal Trade Commission
should be involved in, but the FCC will take any opportunity it can to
grandstand and assert authority. After all, the more "relevant" they
appear to be, the more public funding they will expect. :-)


-- 
William Van Hefner
President

Vantek Communications, Inc.
Eureka, CA
e-mail: van at humboldtonline.com


On Sun, August 3, 2008 8:12 am, Aaron Antrim wrote:
> In an interesting twist of words, the E-R says the recent FCC decision
> violated the principal of net-neutrality by interfering with the free
> market.
>> A 2005 FCC policy statement outlined a set of principles meant to
>> make sure that broadband networks are “widely deployed, open, affordable
>> and accessible to all customers.”
>>
>> This sounds fine, so long as the FCC adheres to the “net neutrality”
>> principle (no government interference), which is widely accepted by users
>> and many policy-makers.