RSS
Twitter
Why Is Kevin Martin's Opinion On Net Neutrality Different When It's Comcast Than AT&T?
from the just-wondering dept
FCC chair Kevin Martin is well-known as a good friend to telco companies -- but that friendship has never extended to cable companies. That's why it's rather amusing to see him try to act tough against Comcast, suggesting last Friday that the FCC doesn't look kindly on Comcast's traffic shaping practices while just a year ago, he was telling AT&T that the FCC wouldn't stop them from doing the same thing, if AT&T decided it was necessary "for business reasons." Can anyone give a reasonable explanation (other than outright favoritism) for why Martin would hold cable companies to a different standard than telcos?
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Maybe he had a change of heart.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Errr... Follow the money?
(Just guessing)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I think his nose is just a little brown too...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Because he's a spineless money-grubbing little sock-puppet of a man, that's why.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A la carte
Because high on the Chairman's agenda was A LA CARTE which cable refused to give him - and he has had a vendetta ever since. Next would be the question of where A LA CARTE came from? Was this a rel right issue of a community getting sick of paying for Sex in the Siddy when what they really wanted to watch was the 24 hr Tammy Fay Baker channel.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Looking for his next Job?
It will be interesting to see what his next job is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
He's a politician for all intents and purposes. It's just expected...
I guess AT&T is paying them more?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No surprises
Kevin has only 10 months to find a new job. He is universally hated by many (with the exception of Telcos). He is just trying to line up either a direct job with them, or a job with a firm (law firm) wanting a close relationship with AT&T.
He is the worst FCC head in decades, and deserves nothing but foodstamps when his time is up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obviously...
It's because AT&T bribed Kevin Martin, while Comcast did not.
Oh wait, did I say bribed? What I really meant to say was that AT&T made some political contributions. Yeah, that's it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm going to go with "Because he's a hypocrite" for the win.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: 9
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: 9
Considering he does not hold an elected office, it would be difficult for Martin to acquire any "legal" campaign contributions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Is Martin from texas?
Is he? Is he? Martin must have helped out Bush somehow. Yee-haw! Business texas-style!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I believe Martin is from South Carolina.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
> I believe Martin is from South Carolina.
Wikipedia says he "served as the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney 2000, on the Bush-Cheney recount team in Florida."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
AT&T typically doesn't compete with other telecoms, they do with cable companies.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm guessing a big factor is that Comcast wasn't using traffic shaping. They were forging TCP packets, not telling anyone they were doing it and denying they were doing it when asked about it. It's a little different than up front traffic shaping and is arguable illegal under several laws. They even tried lying to congress claiming this was common practice.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why is it a Kevin Martin decision to make ?
I thought what Comcast is doing is illegal and that the DA or the FBI should be involved.
I dont think it is up to the FCC to decide when to prosecute and when to look the other way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's because the cable companies are so entrenched (read monopolies). In the NE I'm paying over $115 for basic cable and VOIP. We need new players in the market, like att, to drive down the costs. It's a kind of telecom affirmative action.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment