In a little covered court decision last week, Judge James Zagel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sided with Comcast in a case brought by e360Insight, saying the cable company acted in good faith in trying to block what it deemed was spam from reaching subscribers.

We’re struck by the similarities between the arguments made by the plaintiff (characterized as a “spammer” in the judges ruling) and the folks over at Save the Internet. What with all those nasty words like, “manage,” “block,” and “filter” you’d think Save the Internet would be laying siege to the courthouse…but alas, all is quiet.

This episode has us here at Hands Off wondering, since Save the Internet believes all bits are equal, when will they launch their campaign to defend the “rights” of spammers?

In case you missed it, The Wall Street Journal just weighed in on the Comcast-BitTorrent resolution. You can read the whole thing here but this line is the clincher:

Government’s role here, properly understood, is not to tell Comcast how to manage its network. Rather, it is to make sure consumers have alternatives to Comcast if they are unhappy with their Internet service.

Think of what you’re saying.
You can get it wrong and still you think that it’s alright.
Think of what I’m saying,
We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night.
We can work it out,
We can work it out.
The Beatles, 1965

The Wall Street Journal reports that BitTorrent and Comcast are discussing greater use of “smart” networking techniques to speed data, including BitTorrent data, across Comcast’s network.

Over at PaidContent, the news is even more interesting, as BitTorrent claims the cable company has agreed to network management that “will be protocol agnostic & disclosed to consumers….”

This is good news:

First, it’s more evidence that the best way to keep the Internet open and affordable for all is through consumer demand, the public spotlight and a watchful FCC.

Second, BitTorrent’s explicit recognition about the need for smart networks totally undercuts the manufactured hue and cry by the Net Neutrality folks. And it discredits the idea that the “solution” for the surging increase in online data is merely to expand bandwidth.

Remember, Japanese consumers may have 100 mps pipes but P2P still clogs their networks. Under the “dumb pipe” system of Net Neutrality, who’d wind up paying for the largest online users? Answer: Everyone else.

Below is the letter sent to the FCC today by the Hands Off the Internet coalition:

November 7, 2007

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
The Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Request for FCC Review of Comcast actions involving BitTorrent

Dear Mr. Chairman:

During your tenure as FCC chairman, you have supported the free market over government regulation as the best way to preserve free expression and speech while also bringing new benefits to Internet users.

The Hands Off the Internet coalition has supported this view, as we believe it is consistent with America’s traditional “light regulatory touch” Internet policies that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for more than a decade.

As you know, the cornerstones of today’s open Internet are the four principles embedded in the FCC’s August 2005 net neutrality policy statement:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

These principles are the necessary safety net to protect consumers and the openness and freedom of the Internet.
(more…)