Why Is Kevin Martin's Opinion On Net Neutrality Different When It's Comcast Than AT&T?

from the just-wondering dept

Mon, Mar 10th 2008 1:08am — Mike Masnick

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?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fcc, kevin martin, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, comcast

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rob, 10 Mar 2008 @ 3:19am

Maybe he had a change of heart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A. L. Flanagan, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:01am

Errr... Follow the money?

(Just guessing)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:15am

Because he's a spineless money-grubbing little sock-puppet of a man, that's why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Genny Pershing, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:22am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liquid, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:38am

Re:
I think his nose is just a little brown too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James (profile), 10 Mar 2008 @ 5:06am

Looking for his next Job?
It will be interesting to see what his next job is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:33am

He's a politician for all intents and purposes. It's just expected...

I guess AT&T is paying them more?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KnowTheDude, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:38am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hans, 10 Mar 2008 @ 7:13am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 10 Mar 2008 @ 7:43am

I'm going to go with "Because he's a hypocrite" for the win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh H, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:45am

re: 9
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh H, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:46am

re: 9
Considering he does not hold an elected office, it would be difficult for Martin to acquire any "legal" campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:51am

Is Martin from texas?

Is he? Is he? Martin must have helped out Bush somehow. Yee-haw! Business texas-style!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:54am

AT&T typically doesn't compete with other telecoms, they do with cable companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 12:34pm

Re:
I believe Martin is from South Carolina.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 12:41pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:29pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 7:51pm

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."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
USWESTguy, 11 Mar 2008 @ 5:03am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]