[discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Mar 22 17:00:13 UTC 2014

I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".


It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars of
multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US
Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as a
replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long histories
of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely
understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in
undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own narrow
economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the Internet).




InfoWorld Home <http://www.infoworld.com/>  / Notes from the Field
<http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
distortion, control: Comcast's... 

 <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely

March 21, 2014

Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'

The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details of
Comcast's power-hungry moves

By Robert X. Cringely
<http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld

Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in his
forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net neutrality
air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the FCC
even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers instead of
the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete double-talk seems
to the standard for the Internet provider business these days.

Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking, slavering,
rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this consumer-crippling
legislation to topple our competitive choices like Godzilla strolling
through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure, there are tinfoil hats
preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but maybe the wingnuts are on to
something, even if they're starting out from pothead premises.

The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move to
devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be superhappy
about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the Deutsche Bank Media,
Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier this month in the highly
industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and enthused that the $45 billion
merger will put all of us in happy-happy land.

Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set to
service about two-thirds of the American population with both Internet and
entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have an actual,
practical choice?

Comcast spreads it tentacles
Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two months, and
recently leaked information on his compensation package shows that he stands
to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to the tune of
about $80 million
<http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How could
he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it loony to
suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this guy a key to the
executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have to write a
resignation letter right this minute with ink made from rectal blood and
salty tears.

The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With Net laws
castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to bully content
providers and control what you can and can't access on what amounts to its
Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sounds like he's
complaining about this trend -- never mind he's already validated it.
Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a month
ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! Its service
quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint this as a big win
for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as dumb as a bag of

Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.


And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly funded with
appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and with clear
boundaries between public interests and private interests guarded with
varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts of interest and
suborning of public officials and public policy processes.  What isn't made
clear in the overwhelming forces and banshee howling of support for MSism is
that at its heart it is an attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as
corrupted US telecom policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the


And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this what
you want for Global Internet Governance?




From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of McTim
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
To: Michel Gauthier
Cc: 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?




On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:

If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then quoting a
page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do better than that, as
one is related to research and the Comcast partnership is about IETF
meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself doesn't do research in the way
that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  ISOC does surveys mainly and
recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.

If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please state
that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.


I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting real,
tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent lists or fora
where real infuencing strategies are observable. 



So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support of
the other MGs snide insinuations.



To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club 



This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they do
research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.



of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: "On
August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will
release additional details about these poisoning attacks. "



another tangental red-herring.


CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and corporations
interested in their market, what is my focussed area. 



This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet issues"


My question to you still stands.



How would you like the IETF to be funded??







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140322/eef43305/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140322/eef43305/image001-0001.jpg>

More information about the discuss mailing list