Net Neutrality Advocates Hit Back at Comcast
November 1st, 2007 by tkarrCable giant Comcast has become the poster child for Net Neutrality with blatant actions to block Internet traffic that make the case for user protections.
On Thursday, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition joined legal scholars to take this case to the Federal Communications Commission. We filed an official action urging the agency to stop the cable giant from meddling with your ability to connect and share information.
 |
The company recently gave us a glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality.
In the “most drastic example yet of data discrimination,” the Associated Press exposed that Comcast was actively interfering with its users’ ability to access popular and legal video, photo and music sharing applications.
Despite mounting evidence that Comcast is crippling peer-to-peer communication, the company’s spokespeople have thumbed their noses at the public and the press — refusing to admit that the blocking of connections is underhanded or in any way threatens the free flow of information that’s become the hallmark of an open Internet.
The High Price of Violating a Neutral Net
Comcast’s defense is flimsy. The company’s blatant and deceptive blocking is exactly the type of problem Net Neutrality supporters warned would occur without proper open Internet protections. It’s now time for the FCC to do something about it.
In the complaint, Free Press and Public Knowledge are asking the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber. Comcast is the nation’s largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider, with 12.9 million subscribers. If the FCC honors the complaint, the size of the fine for violating Net Neutrality could be astronomical.
The action puts the FCC on notice. The agency has policies that partially defend against discrimination but these have yet to be tested against a real violation such as what Comcast is doing.
It’s About Video
The not-so-hidden secret behind all of this is video. Network owners are waging a quiet campaign to control how video gets distributed via the Web. In their view, the Internet should only be used for e-mail and surfing. Internet video should be distributed via ISPs. It’s a model that treats the Internet like cable TV — where companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon get to pick the channels you get to see.
The popular trend in video, however, is streaming in the opposite direction. More and more people are becoming their own creators and distributors of homespun video content. For proof that people like to watch videos created by others, go no further than YouTube, which boasts more than 100 million “views” each day.
YouTube is just the beginning of this revolution. It’s heart and soul, though, beats elsewhere — with the use of peer-to-peer applications. Peer-to-peer traffic is spreading via popular technologies like Bit Torrent and Gnutella, which allow users to upload and share videos, music and other rich media without a middleman. It’s follows a non-discriminatory Web model that encourages innovation without permission.
The phone and cable companies are desperate to shut this down. In the case of Comcast, they’re doing it by spying on traffic and stifling the free exchange of ideas that will continue to make the Internet so remarkable.
Comcast: A Problem Found
Phone and cable lobbyists have called Net Neutrality “a solution in search of a problem.” Well, here’s the problem. In the past three months, incidents of censorship and blocking by Verizon, AT&T and now Comcast have made headlines around the world. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The Commission now faces a clear choice. It can either side with the interests of consumers and for an Internet unfettered by corporate gatekeepers, or it can let companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T erect “walled gardens” and destroy the most democratic communications tool in history.
You can help convince the agency to do the right thing.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
[…] Original post by tkarr […]
November 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
[…] Read full story at Save the Internet […]
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
SaveTheInternet Goes Against Comcast to maintain Net Neutrality…
On Thursday, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition joined legal scholars to take this case to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They filed an official action urging the agency to stop the cable giant from meddling with your ability to connect an…
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
After reading about Comcast I found an Obama for President link:
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/
Senator Obama discusses Senators Snowe and Dorgan’s legislation to protect network neutrality on the internet.
quote:
“It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes.”
November 4th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Pa Joe said, “Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes.”
This is the way it will be. I wonder sometimes if the average person understands what freedom of speech is all about. I never hear this subject on the news. Gosh, do I have to hear more goofy stories about Hollywood nabobs going on about, who care. Access to the internet, the most dynamic communication innovation in our time, is one of the most important topic today. Sorry for ranting. Take care.
November 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
[…] Original post by tstanley626@charter.net […]
November 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
COMCAST FAILS THE LAUGH TEST ON NET NEUTRALITY
by Barry Payne, Economist, Ph.D. ex-FCC staff bbpayne@earthlink.net
Controlling BitTorrent to “improve” network flow?
The way electric utilities interrupt customers on an “interruptible rate” to prevent an outage to customers on the “firm rate”?
If electric utilities did what Comcast is doing, they’d be cutting off or delaying the flow of electricity to FIRM customers BY TYPE OF USE, i.e., lighting, electric motors, computers and hair dryers, not by the NEUTRAL use of kilowatts and kilowatt-hours the way they do now, independent of how the electricity is used.
Comcast is controlling network flow through SELECTIVE, IDENTIFIABLE CONTENT. If Comcast were NEUTRALLY controlling PEAK NETWORK USE to avoid outages or slowdowns to other customers, it would be controlling KILO-BYTES AND KILO-BYTE SECONDS, not SPECIFIC CONTENT.
For example, the use of BitTorrent during peak periods could equal 10,000 emails, 3,000 web page connections or 4 digital movies in terms of IDENTICAL peak use imposed on the network. Each source could be equally (neutrally) responsible for the peak congestion.
Picking and choosing among those sources for delay or cutoff by Comcast based on CONTENT is non-neutral discrimination. For example, a traffic jam could be alleviated by preventing entry of say 200 buses, 200 trucks or 600 cars, where any of the three take up the same amount of road space to cause the same amount of congestion.
Comcast should not be making these choices among internet use content any more than a traffic cop should be deciding whether one bus or one truck causes more congestion than three cars - if there was a “congestion fee”, the bus and the truck should be assessed three times that of a car as a “neutral” control of traffic.
Instead, Comcast and other facility-based broadband providers are posturing to force customers into a newly created “fast-lane everything” package with much higher prices, perhaps double or triple the price for what customers get now. Degraded quality at lower speeds would be used to force customers into the high-price package.
Achieving such market power outcomes requires that the current conditions of net neutrality, in place by default, be undermined and abandoned to whatever degree necessary. That’s why this case is important - it will tend to set a standard for net neutrality going forward absent any hard laws or FCC rules on the issue.
Comcast should be required to show its peak network capacity cannot be met. It should be forced to cease overselling network capacity along with vague language designed to allow it to control delays, cutoffs, pricing and content at will.
If Comcast threatens that it will not maintain maintenance or buildout of the network or to impose discriminatory pricing unless net neutrality is abandoned, its monopoly franchises should be suspended and considered for competitive buyout and takeover by a new provider under conditions of net neutrality.
If Comcast insists that a “fast-lane” is necessary to alleviate congestion, it should be allowed to provide one under the condition that existing broadband capacity and access remains undisturbed and overhauled with clear pricing and capacity maximums available to end users.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
[…] Original post by barry payne-economist […]
November 6th, 2007 at 2:18 am
[…] hope he’ll address the recent revelation about Comcast interfering with its customers BitTorrent traffic and how that might be affecting his company’s business model. I can’t imagine he can […]
November 6th, 2007 at 2:22 am
[…] to distribute legal audio and video content. I hope he’ll address the recent revelation about Comcast interfering with its customers BitTorrent traffic and how that might be affecting his company’s business model. I can’t imagine he can ignore the […]
November 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
[…] AT&T. According to investigations by the Associated Press and Electronic Frontier Foundation, Comcast has been “secretly crippling users’ ability to share information with one another […]
November 12th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I can see China is laughing at us. Guys, we are moving backward. Instead of progressing towards free internet, we are restricting who can access which content. It’s ironic that we’re prosecuting yahoo for complying with Chinese Gov’t and telling them (china) to stop controlling the internet, because we soon will follow their footsteps if we don’t solve this grave problem.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I am a strong supporter of net neutrality and a long time fan of Google. However, I fear that Google might be acting out of self interest; there is evidence that Google has no plans for wireless net neutrality legislation, and would violate net neutrality in their new wireless ISP.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1148
So I ask Google: are you still not evil?
A statement of support for wireless net neutrality, or even your reasons for opposing it, would be appreciated.
To the Net Neutrality Coalition: Be ready for a potential disappointment from Google, and more importantly be ready to move on without them, into the wireless frontier.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:28 am
[…] the MPAA or the Feds. Let us not stand by while our privacy slowly evaporates. Oh yeah and drop Comcast if you got […]