ReasonedResponse.com

I've largely ignored the flap about Comcast and its "network management" policies.  It sent the crazies in the "network neutrality" movement off howling for blood, but you have to expect that -- it's been more than two years with no evidence that any consumer has ever been harmed by a real neutrality violation, and they're getting pretty desperate.

Now, though, the FCC has decided to take a look at the issue.  On November 14, 2007, Vuze, Inc. filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to clarify what constitutes "'reasonable network management,' by broadband network operators and to establish that such network management does not permit network operators to block, degrade or unreasonably discriminate against lawful Internet applications, content or technologies" as used in the Commission's Internet Policy Statement.  Comments are due at the FCC in February, and I expect to file along with others.

That's a good thing.  WIth the FCC and the US Department of Justice already on record as saying new regulations are not needed, it's time for the FCC to help differentiate between what is helpful to consumers and what is harmful.

To understand what the fuss is all about, you have to look at the entrance ramps on Interstate 395, one of the major arteries feeding traffic into and out of Washington, DC.  Along I-395 are ramps that allow residents to feed onto the highway getting to our from the city, and on some of the major ramps there are traffic lights.  These lights flash red or green, allowing one care or truck at a time to proceed into the flow.  That way, traffic already on I-395 has room to move into the right-hand lane to exit, with entering traffic not clogging the system and creating gridlock.  The lights are only used during peak traffic periods -- mid-days and nights they are not needed.

That's pretty much the way Comcast's network management system operates.  Traffic is allowed to exit the network (download) without interruption, but new entrants (uploads) are spaced slightly so they do not jam up the system.  None are blocked.  None are substantially degraded.  They are just appropriately spaced so that everyone can reach their destination safely and on time.

I don't know if that constitutes a network neutrality violation, but it does seem uncommon good sense in an era in which networks are uncertain, network traffic is growing and civil discourse on the issue has been cast to the winds.

And I do know that it's time to bring to a fitting end the wrangling and whining over network neutrality and figure out how we are going to manage the global networks we call the Internet in a manner that allows them to play well together.  The final result is unlikely to be the "I get all the bandwidth I want for next to nothing and get to do anything I want with it" solution that the crazies are demanding, but neither will it allow discrimination in content, devices or applications.

The FCC is the right place for this to happen.  Just as they set the foundation for the discussion by adopting the first core principles of consumer and network rights a few years ago, they are the ones best equipped to help shape a rational discussion of how best to balance the needs of all consumers while simultaneously addressing the need for network growth.  They alone, of the federal entities, have the ability to do this.

It is the right time, the right place, and the right discussion.  Kudos to the FCC for stepping up to the plate.