Sidecut Reports

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell leaped into the opinion-making fray in the net neutrality debate today, with an editorial in the Washington Post that some have called a sober assessment of the debate, while others have deemed it just more talking points from a former lobbyist.

I actually agree this time that McDowell’s essay is more sensible than most from the GOP side of things, even with a few slips into “regulations will kill the Internet” territory of tired telco BS. Generally it’s not a bad read and it does well to note that in previous instances of Internet pipe-clogging, it was engineers, not lawyers and lobbyists, who solved the problem. A good thing to remember.

What is interesting is to see McDowell say that technical and business solutions are the only way to fix net neutrality problems, at one point claiming the FCC itself simply can’t move fast enough to deliver sensible regulations in Internet time. (So maybe, it’s best we don’t rely on Bob and his co-workers!) But you have to wonder how such “collaborations” might occur in a real world, where typically one party has market power and the other doesn’t. McDowell says the government can step in if needed, but if there are no rules or no clear jurisdiction, then how and when will the government decide to act?

McDowell says, “Sometimes shining sunlight on issues produces amazingly beneficial effects, and the public interest groups that raised the BitTorrent matter should be praised for doing so… Let’s stick with what works and encourage collaboration over regulation.”

A great idea, but would Madison River have stopped blocking Vonage, if not for the FCC’s actions? Would Comcast have listened to the Free Press complaint, or would it have just gone on denying there was a problem, if not for the threat of potential regulator penalties?

For every Comcast-BitTorrent agreement, there is an Ed Whitacre, ready to say you can’t ride his pipes for free. Ed is retired now, but many who would argue with him remember… and perhaps aren’t as willing to trust in collaboration as McDowell is.

There’s really no need to get confused about the coming FCC condemnation of Comcast’s anti-BitTorrent practices. In fact, it’s pretty simple to figure out when you understand that it’s just Kevin being Kevin, albeit in a much more understated fashion than the man who made that phrase famous.

If you understand that A) Martin has always been a friend of the telcos first, then you understand that any chance to slap at the cablecos is fair game, even if it means crossing traditional GOP voting lines to side with the FCC’s two Democrats. If you further understand that B) at the current point in the net neutrality debate, the telcos don’t want any new regulations or laws, then you also understand that it behooves them to have it shown that the FCC’s 2005 Internet policy statement — previously called not enforceable by Martin himself — is all the authority the FCC needs to police such infractions.

So yes, Kevin, go ahead and call Comcast out for practices it has probably already stopped using, and won’t ever use again. And then don’t say anything about metered services, or paying for QoS or traffic prioritization. Save that for the next chairman!

While we are waiting for the actual order to come out this Friday, we suspect there won’t be much beyond a prosaic hand-slap, and certainly not the hammer some have called the pending order. The real action won’t come until there’s a new President, a new FCC and a new Congress. Look for more from us about “Phase II” of the network neutrality debate, as soon as we can after the FCC commissioners cast their votes on Friday.

When I was managing editor at GigaOM last year, I used to look forward to the P2P posts from Janko Roettgers for the NewTeeVee site, because they were always interesting and offered a nuanced take not found in many other places. Today Janko scores again with a post about how BitTorrent isn’t just for blockbuster movies, a fact that may escape those who only scratch the surface of the P2P world.

Janko’s post is a bit of a reply to Tim Wu’s recent article for Slate, where the esteemed legal scholar came up empty-handed after searching popular P2P sites for Sundance-type films. Wu’s following hypothesis — that pirates are interested mainly in big-money films — is partially on, but as Janko points out it is possible to find artsy and niche material, but you have to look a bit harder. Maybe it’s the online equivalent of finding a cool record store that specializes in quirky stuff, as opposed to scanning the bins at Best Buy. Good thing we NewTeeVee fans have Janko around to peer down those dark alleys and find what others miss.