Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIt's the 11th hour for Comcast at the Federal Communications Commission. They were caught secretly blocking legal Internet traffic. They lied about it. On Friday, a bipartisan majority at the FCC is expected to finally hold them accountable.Let's review Comcast's strategy so far:
When a network expert and barbershop quartet enthusiast figured out his legal file-sharing was being disrupted, Comcast denied it.
When the Associated Press, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Germany's prestigious Max Planck Institute backed up his claims, Comcast stonewalled.
When the FCC held a public hearing on blocking, Comcast hired seat-fillers off the street to pack the room and applaud on cue. When the FCC held another hearing, they refused to show up.
None of that worked. So now they're hounding the press with specious legal arguments and personal attacks on those who would dare challenge the cable giant.
Most responsible reporters see right through this bunk. But the cable flacks know there's one place that always welcomes corporate spin: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Where else?
All Bark But Not Right
On cue, the Journal unleashed the chihuahuas on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin on Wednesday. Yip! Yip!
The irony is that Martin is normally the Journal's type: A conservative Republican committed to "deregulation" taking action in the name of free market competition. But to understand that, you'd have to actually look at the evidence.
The Journal's bogus arguments -- which come straight out of the cableco hymnal -- will be familiar to anyone who has followed the Net Neutrality debate (or readers of Monday's Washington Post). But since Journal editorials are appended to the business paper of record, I suppose they merit a response.
Here are a few of the more egregious myths and misperceptions included in the Journal's latest screed:
Myth: "Martin is forcing a solution in search of a problem."
Reality: This canard is an old favorite of the phone and cable crowd. But the problem is clear: Comcast was secretly blocking Internet users from accessing and distributing legal content. It got caught. It must be held responsible.
Myth: "By all appearances, the company's policies were motivated by nothing more than making sure a tiny percentage of bandwidth hogs didn't slow down Internet traffic for everyone else on the network."
Reality: Simply untrue. All of the independent tests clearly show that Comcast wasn't just aiming for a few high-bandwidth users at peak moments; they were secretly blocking peer-to-peer protocols all day and night regardless of the size of files being transferred or how often those customers used the Internet.
Myth: "Earlier this year, the cable company reached an agreement with BitTorrent, the popular file-sharing service being used on Comcast's network, and settled the matter."
Reality: In the face of intense government and public scrutiny, Comcast issued a press release touting a side deal with the company named BitTorrent. But other firms using the same technology, like Vuze and Miro, weren't consulted. This paper-thin pact won't prevent other cable and phone companies from blocking traffic on their networks. And it doesn't apply to the next whiz-bang technology that some kid destined for the cover of Wired is cooking up in her basement right now.
Myth: "The chairman is taking a huge step toward putting in place a regulatory regime that would give the FCC ... unprecedented control over how consumers use the Web."
Reality: The Wall Street Journal loves nothing more than breaking out the bogeyman of "regulation." But the Internet we have today wouldn't exist without rules, and there will be rules going forward. What really matters is whether those rules will serve only the interest of a few big companies or benefit the rest of us who actually use the Internet everyday.
Myth: "It's also not clear that the FCC even has the authority to enforce net neutrality, because Congress has never passed a law establishing such a policy."
Reality: The FCC's authority to act on a complaint here is clearly established under the Communications Act and backed up by the Supreme Court. But that of course shouldn't stop Congress from passing a law like the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 5353). We need strong safeguards on all the networks of the 21st century.
Myth: "If Comcast customers don't like the company's network management policies, they're free to take their business to Verizon, or AT&T, or some other Internet service provider."
Reality: If only that were true. Unfortunately, the phone and cable companies dominate nearly 99 percent of the market for Internet access. Americans are lucky if they have two choices, and many of us have just a single broadband option (and an unfortunate few have no service at all). If all the major carriers want to discriminate, as they've indicated they will, there's nowhere else for consumers to turn. That's why Congress and the FCC must step in.
Comcast can howl all it wants, but the FCC shouldn't listen.
As they say in Texas, that dog won't hunt.
Craig Aaron is the communications director of Free Press, the national, non partisan media reform group. He works in the Washington office on issues related to media ownership, public media and the future of the Internet. He writes and speaks regularly on media and journalism issues and blogs at both SavetheInternet.com and StopBigMedia.com.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
17 Comments so far
Show AllI only have an old TV with rabbit-ear antennas permanently tuned to PBS, mostly for the grandkids, but it's good to be able to watch Bill Moyers and a few other PBS programs.
yep- already found freespeech tv.. and from freespeech.org to common dreams.. it's a small world-loop:)
yes it is a tool, something inanimate.. but yet, slightly not-quite inanimate.. bear in mind that it is a tool of the corporate spin machine as well. most people aren't even aware enough to know they aren't aware.. let alone being spun...
I just wish there were more options like freespeech tv, or the sundance channel/ network.. ( which, i wonder, will that remain as independent as it was under redford's hand?)...
ugh.. i wonder if orwell would be thrilled at how absolutely right he was.. or depressed at how right he was in his vision for his future ( our present).
brave new world quote, 1931: the question of the next generation will not be one of liberating the masses, but rather, how to make them love their servitude.
now there's a pretty loaded statement that hits the bull's eye dead on.
Comcast's conduct is a preview of the corporate "vision" of the Internet; where entities like them are the gatekeepers. If this comes to pass, the Internet will become as vacant a zone as commercial television and radio is now. Adding to their desperation is the fate of the now dead music industry, where the gatekeeper status of the record companies was overthrown by the Internet and their corporate logos are about to become public domain like Pan Am because they are well on their way to being bankrupt. Considering all their malign work and influence (like their pre-9/11 wiretapping at Dubya, Cheney, & Co. command), it would be a just fate to see corporate entities like Comcast brought to heel.
Oh, but now we are back to the typical lefty bull that "TV is bad".
Actually, its quite good. But, as you can tell from the comment above, I use it to watch Free Speech TV. I use it to watch Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! almost every day. I use it to watch World Link TV. I use it to catch Bill Moyers on PBS.
So, I get lots of good information I wouldn't otherwise get if I didn't turn on my TV.
Its a friggin tool. Its an inanimate object. There's nothing good or bad about a TV set. Its all in how YOU use it.
Get Dish TV and watch Free Speech TV and other channels Comcast won't show you.
addendum-
agreed on pulling the plug on the tele. this is the first time in 20 years that I have had television. I got it while my mother was staying long term visit. Granted there is some very good television.. but within a year or so.. the novelty has worn off.
I am a sci-fi junkie.. but then good sci-fi can be very political... making better social statements than the "real" programs..
but yes- i find that I would be better informed and my time better spent.. without the tele.. amazing how quickly my life shifted back around the what is on the tele, mindset...
CV-
I agree on the FAP. I think that satellite users should get together and rewrite what would honestly look like a FAP. with wildblue- it is a 30 day rolling usage. My take- is if I don't use all of my " usage".. it should roll-over to the next month ( billing cycle). Additionally, I think that if you do get choked down for exceeding, there should be 2 options offered. 1, a temp cache overdraft? for an additional 10 dollar " fine" that you up your bandwidth... buying more space time ( that is of course... if you have exceeded your time with the added roll-over space allotment. but if you do exceed it.. there should be a minimum speed that they are cutting you back to. If they can determine what bandwidth you get, then they can determine the minimum. When I was choked back.. during the prime hours.. i couldn't even check my mail online.. it kept timing out. that's pathetic! and to have that for 21 days till I went back below ( not 100 percent of usage).. but under 70 percent of usage!!!
Also- is there a reason, meaning technical genuine, for the lag factor?
I am not a big gamer anymore.. but i appreciate that there are a lot of gamers ( who are also going to be bandwidth hogs, yesno?) is the lag a way to discourage game usage?
For most users, I would guess that the gaming lag factor isn't what determines which service they use- does it? how many people are using their high speed connection for a gaming port?
I still think that it is preferable to cable ( which I couldn't get in my area until recently anyway). and the cost is about 55.00, not 75. ( my package is lumped with television as well, and i forget which is which.
Especially with what i read about the cable giant comcast..
i'll take the trade-off, use a satellite, and hope that the policy improves. there are alternatives.. and if there were enough satellite users, and they all made the same " demand".. then the companies would have to listen.. there are choices.. and we're voting with our dollars...
TeriD, I was on Hughes Satelite for a couple years since there was no other choice in my location. That Fair Access Policy you speak of is a real problem. First of all, they reduced to trigger volume to 300mb download/24 hrs (right after selling me a new, more expensive service) and they then clamp down to copper speed for 24 hrs, extended indefinitely unless you actually shut off your connection completely. This doesn't allow streaming media or file sharing, so how is that broadband? Also, the lag of as much as a half second as the packets transit, means that online gaming is out (Counterstrike, you dead!) and that's when it's clear sky outside. The first hint of overcast and the satelite goes blind.
Little as I like AT&T, they were a massive improvement over HughesNet when we finally figured out how to get a DSL line up my driveway.
Fuddgate makes a good suggestion, pull the plug. Dump Cable Tv out of your life, it wastes your time and distracts and misinforms you on a continous basis. In fact, I'd bet half the commenters on this site don't watch the idiot box, evidence? They can think!
The theme song for the Wall Street Journal editorial page should be "Send In The Clowns".
Is there a reason satellite connection is not an equal and viable alternative to comcast? I've been using wild blue and aside from the 30 day rolling FAP ( which I think is an Unfair UP:).. it isn't a bad deal. Cost: about 75.00/month I think.
So, does this explain why watching online movies from Netflix would suddenly stop and inform me that my internet connection had slowed down?
People who only steal what they need to survive we call criminals.
People who only steal as much as they can we call corporations.
Corporations have only one amoral reason for their existence: Maximum short term profits by any means necessary. That means they only exist to knock you down and rape you till you die. Which is pretty much SOP....by law. Corporations are the mandibles of the spider of Oligarchy. Can't blame the scorpion for being a scorpion, can you? But then, you don't put down a rabid dog because he's guilty, do you.
I pulled the plug on Comcast years ago. I don't care if I don't get much of anything "off air". The whole corporate shill soul of Comcast is exposed for what it is- EVIL! Everyone with any alternative to CC should pull the plug on those bastards and never look back.
This article accurately demonstrates one significant aspect of the defective Corporatism of America---a blind adherence to deregulation that is actually making us less competitive. Most of Europe and much of Asia have far faster access to the Internet, and at lower cost to customers, than we citizens of the United States.
At home, for example, I have a Verizon land-line modem using a Mac G-4. At work we have the very heavily advertised Roadrunner "business class" from Time-Warner using an ethernet network and Mac G-4s, costing around $130 a month. For MANY Internet purposes, my home phone modem is actually considerably faster! Situationally, because I live in Podunk, the ONLY alternative I have to the Verizon land line is Roadrunner, at at least twice the current price of Verizon. Effectively, these are unregulated non-competitive monopolies.
(As an aside, Verizon has a nasty habit of sneaking in billing charges for phone calls I never made, requiring hours on the phone talking to anthropomorphized robots..., and this is the same corporate behemoth that illegally cooperated with NSA illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens.)
This is a very profitable racket (a la Smedley Butler on War) and it is getting worse, not better. Contribute to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU, or any other institution you think will help protect the little guy from the depradations of the Oligarchs.
-30-
FCC needs to fine Comcast in the neighborhood of 50$million, anything less is a slap on the wrist and will have no effect on that corporations monopolistic practices.