Thanks!

Something may have been lost in this week’s brief media frenzy over "seat-gate" — the much discussed incident where Comcast hired people off the street to keep out the public from Monday’s FCC hearing in Boston.

But while Comcast’s seat-warmers slept, a collection of Cambridge scholars, Internet advocates, industry leaders, engineers and policymakers nearly all agreed that Internet blocking has serious consequences for each and every one of us.

Comcast’s Sleeper Cell

I say "nearly" because Comcast remains defiant; its executive vice president, David Cohen, continues to insist that "Comcast does not block any Web site, application or Web protocol including peer-to-peer services."

Cohen sets a high bar with that denial, especially since extensive testing has shown exactly the opposite to be true.

"There a single fact here that [Comcast] cannot deny," explained Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu during Monday’s hearing. "Users of the Internet sought to use an application in a certain way, and they were blocked."

This view was supported by David Reed of MIT’s Media Lab, who had also experimented with popular file-sharing applications and found that Comcast was duping users with forged network transmissions that cut off user connections. "Comcast’s secretive attempt to apply non-standard management practices creates serious problems," he said before the FCC.

What Problem?

Comcast’s Cohen said that these were probably just minor glitches at the engineering level and then declared that his engineers just ran a test of the BitTorrent file-sharing application and found there to be no blocking, "no problem."

This sounds familiar. For several years now, big phone and cable have claimed that Net Neutrality was "a solution in search of a problem."

But the problem is clear. The phone and cable companies are telling us they want to discriminate.

The top executives of major telecom companies have stated clearly in the pages of BusinessWeek, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post that they would like to favor certain content over others.

And they’re already doing it. In just the past few months, in addition to Comcast’s assault on competing file-sharing applications, Verizon has blocked text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its own members, and AT&T is hatching plans to filter and inspect all Web traffic for perceived copyright infringements.

Against this backdrop, the Boston hearing will be seen as a call to arms in the struggle over the freedom of the Internet.

It’s what my colleague Ben Scott often calls a "clash of civilizations." At stake is whether the Internet will be open, neutral and accessible to all — or a closed network controlled by a handful of gatekeepers with dreams of monopoly power.

Getting Gatekeepers Out of Our Way

In Boston it became clear to everyone that companies like Comcast seek ultimate control over this most democratic of media and the new economies it will foster.

"Let’s bear in mind that the Internet is the communications network that is quickly becoming the backbone for all the other communications networks that Americans use," FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in Boston. "In other words, how all of this turns out is a very, very big deal for each and every one of us."

Put into those terms it’s probably easier to understand why Net Neutrality is so critical. People need to control their ability to speak out, innovate and spread new ideas without the fear that a company like Comcast, Verizon or AT&T will yank the chord.

In Boston, Harvard Law professor and network guru Yochai Benkler put it best: "Once you stop looking through the blinders of people trained in 20th Century business models, the Internet is about people connecting to each other, to chat about the silly and the profound, to create together and to organize, to transact and to tell each other stories about who we are, and how are lives might become."

Professor Benkler added that ISPs must understand that this open, user-driven model is the future of the Internet, "or else get out of the way."

We’re the Deciders

That the Boston hearing was marred by Comcast’s efforts to stack the crowd in its favor — leaving concerned citizens out in the cold — demonstrates again why we can’t trust these types of companies with an Internet that is vital to our democracy and prosperity.

Those who should ultimately decide the Internet’s future are people like you and me — everyone who uses the Internet every day and in every way. That’s why every citizen needs to get involved right now.

On Capitol Hill, Congressmen Ed Markey and Chip Pickering have introduced the bipartisan "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353) that would establish Net Neutrality protections for the next generation of Internet networks. Supporting this bill is a good place to start.

I can’t believe I actually need to explain this.

Suppose Comcast made the following offer: If you vote “yes” on a ballot initiative we like (and agree to take a pocket recording device into the voting booth with you so we can have proof), we will pay you $50.

Guest Post from Harold Feld of Media Access Project

Most of us would not only say that this is wrong, we would have no problem understanding why that’s a crime. We would not be persuaded by Comcast defending itself by saying “well, Free Press and other organizations have campaigned in support of the bill and are calling people to ask them to go out and vote. That’s just like paying people directly to vote the way we want.”

Comcast’s Democracy Delay

In general, we recognize a difference between organizing ad trying to persuade people to vote the way you want and actually paying people for their vote (and wanting a receipt).

Which brings us to Comcast’s exercise in seat packing at Monday’s FCC Hearing in Boston.

There is something so poetic about Comcast “delaying” members of the public from actually getting into the FCC hearing on Monday. But it is the claim that this is somehow the same as Free Press organizing folks to attend that just boggles my mind.

So for those just tuning in. In theory, the thing that makes democracy work as a system of government is that it provides a way for citizens to get together and discuss issues and come to a livable consensus (implemented through elected representatives and other mechanisms).

When people can’t have that level of healthy discussion — either among themselves or between themselves and the people charged with implementing the consensus through the mechanisms of government — then democracy becomes dysfunctional and starts breaking down.

Take a look at Kenya if you want an idea of what happens when people en masse stop believing that the government reflects the genuine political consensus and start believing that the only way to have impact is by money, influence, or violence.

Banana Republic

So we in functioning democracies care a lot about making sure our citizens have real conversations with each other rather than simply reflect whoever has enough money to buy more people. Yes, its balance and gradation. The freedom to talk also means that those with more money can spread their message more effectively.

They can buy ads, hire people to argue their case, etc. etc. But even here we place limits — or try to. Most importantly, we do not let people pay people to vote a particular way.

Which brings us back to Comcast. This isn’t some gray area of giving local employees the day off with pay and a free ride while others had to take time off and make their own way.

This is just hiring warm bodies to block others and — if they stay awake long enough — to applaud on cue. The notion that this is in any way comparable to the kind of civic conversation that democracies depend on and the sort of organizing that Free Press engages in — citizens persuading other citizens and urging them to make their voices heard — is worse than ignorant and beyond Orwellian. It is downright insulting.

It takes our most fundamental right and responsibility as free citizens and transforms it into a mockery. It is literally to defend the practice of placing democracy up for sale, and to reduce our democracy to the level of a banana republic.

Let’s Have a Real Debate

Again, if it had been some other group like Progress and Freedom Foundation organizing their supporters, I’d say “would that all the Children of Israel could prophesy.” (Num 11:29)

That kind of debate is healthy and what our democracy needs. Even Comcast giving its employees paid time off to go to the hearing would be at least a gray area. But just paying people to show up and applaud on cue — like outright lying to your customers or buying votes — isn’t even a question.

The fact that Comcast can even try to defend its conduct by comparing it to Free Press urging genuine civic engagement shows how out of touch with really they have become.

Stay tuned . . . .

I want to take a moment and step back from all the news about the Boston FCC hearing that has emerged over the past 24 hours. In cases such as these, the rhetoric can get pretty heated and accusations, assertions and interpretations can get recast, reframed, and re-imagined as the story spreads across the Web. I’ll admit, as one of the people who sat for hours at the bottom of the stairs that led up to the FCC hearing, that it’s exciting to see the coverage of Comcast’s underhanded techniques. But in the back-and-forth, it’s easy to fixate on some minor detail of the story, picking apart Comcast’s statement or over-analyzing on-the-ground accounts.

One Citizen Waits to Get In

Details are important, but let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. What happened on Monday at Harvard was a simple case of one big corporation using its financial resources to marginalize the public from the policymaking process. When Comcast notes in their public statement that in the week leading up to the hearing “Free Press has engaged in a much more extensive campaign to lobby people to attend the hearing on its behalf,” they acknowledge that their efforts to fill the room were designed to push the public out of the picture.

It’s true, we worked tirelessly over the past week to educate Boston area residents about the hearing, the issues, and their rights – and we encouraged people from around New England to attend – but not on our behalf. We didn’t pay anyone to be there. We didn’t drive them there. We just asked them to show up and speak out. Working hard to engage local communities in the policymaking process is the exact opposite of paying people to fill seats on the day of the event.

We worked with local youth organizations, consumer groups, bloggers, student clubs, and community TV stations to explain the importance of this issue and ask for their support. Journalism professors sent their students to cover the event, but the students couldn’t get in the door. Working people took time off just to come watch the hearing, but got shut out. Again, none of these people were being paid to be there – they were there because they care about this issue, because they wanted to learn more, because they wanted a place at the table.

Citizens crowd around public computers in the basement of Ames Hall

As the room filled and the doors closed, I gave up my seat so that others could be in the room. Unlike Comcast, a few other Free Press staff and I sat in the hallway with many concerned citizens for hours hoping to be let in. Some of us convened down in the basement of the building, huddling around a public computer listening to the FCC webcast of the event going on just three stories above us.

Regardless of how they spin it or what justifications they offer, Comcast’s actions were simply wrong. They owe the people of Boston an apology.

There was huge turnout at today’s public hearing in Boston on the future of the Internet. Hundreds of concerned citizens arrived to speak out on the importance of an open Internet. Many took the day off from work — standing outside in the Boston cold — to see the FCC Commissioners. But when they reach the door, they’re told they couldn’t come in.

The size of the crowd is evidence that many Americans don’t want giant corporations like Comcast and Verzion to decide what we can do and where we can go on the Internet.

But will the FCC hear these voices? For many people who showed up on time for the hearing, apparently not.

Comcast — or someone who really, really likes Comcast — evidently bused in its own crowd. These seat-warmers, were paid to fill the room, a move that kept others from taking part.

[Update: Comcast admits to paying people to stack the room in their favor. Read the report.]

They arrived en masse some 90 minutes before the hearing began and occupied almost every available seat, upon which many promptly fell asleep (picture above).

Comcast’s sleeper cell

One told us that he was “just getting paid to hold someone’s seat.”

>> Listen to the audio

He added that he had no idea what the meeting was about.

If he was holding someone else’s seat, he never gave it up.

Many of this early crowd had mysteriously matching yellow highlighters stuck in their lapels.

Comcast payoff

We also photographed them outside the venue being handed papers by an organizer who had been seen earlier talking with several of the Comcast people at the hearing.

Here’s why this is a problem. Comcast clearly paid disinterested people to fill seats. This barred interested citizens from entering.

More than 100 people who arrived at the appointed time for the hearing were turned away by campus police because the room was already full.

Barred: The interested public

The Cambridge hearing is part of the FCC’s ongoing investigation into Comcast’s blocking of Internet traffic. But there’s much more at stake. We are at a critical juncture, where it will be decided whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it.

Comcast wants the former — to dictate which Web sites and services go fast, slow or don’t load at all. And they’re backed by the other would-be gatekeepers at AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner.

Tell the FCC to stop Comcast from blocking Internet traffic and to permanently protect Net Neutrality: http://www.savetheinternet.com/comcast.php

The official deadline for comments is Feb. 28.

The FCC is providing a live audio stream of today’s hearing in Cambridge, Mass. To listen in, go to http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/#feb25

UPDATE: The FCC just posted the video, too

Decisions made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in the next few years — if not sooner — will determine whether we protect free speech online, close the digital divide, and bring a greater diversity of voices to this transformative medium.

The world of technology is rapidly changing. Pretty soon, you’ll get all your media — TV, phone, radio and the Web — from the same high-speed Internet connection. The potential democratic, economic, public safety and educational benefits of the Internet are almost limitless. Wiring our nation with a high-speed Internet connection is now a public necessity, just like water, gas or electricity.

Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn’t value the Internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it. Their plans could have dire consequences for those whose voices are often marginalized by our nation’s media system.

For communities of color, the Internet offers a critical opportunity to build a more equitable media system. It provides all Americans with the potential to speak for themselves without having to convince large media conglomerates that their voices are worthy of being heard.

Net Neutrality Is Internet Freedom

Our Internet freedom is protected by a fundamental principle called “Network Neutrality,” which allows the public to access any Web site or any Web application of their choice without discrimination. Net Neutrality has been the guiding principle of the Internet since its inception — but now it’s in danger.

Big phone and cable companies want to decide for you which Web sites and services go fast or slow. While the big corporate sites, especially the ones owned by these companies, get a spot in the fast lane on the information superhighway, everyone else — small businesses, independent publications, community groups — will be stuck on the slow road to irrelevance.

These companies spend a lot of money spreading misinformation about their plans. They’ve said there’s no evidence that they’re going to interfere with the Internet and that they can trusted to do the right thing. But actions speak louder than words.

Comcast Blocks Innovation

In the most glaring example, last October the Associated Press found that cable giant Comcast was crippling a popular way of sharing large files called BitTorrent — which allows people to quickly download large files such as videos, movies, and music without using a lot of bandwidth.

BitTorrent is perfectly legal. Hollywood studios and music companies use BitTorrent to distribute high quality films, TV shows and music. Even NASA has started using it to send high-resolution photos from outer space. Bit Torrent also provides Internet users with an online version of video-on-demand, allowing them to easily download content of their choosing. It is an ideal application for independent artists and individuals seeking an inexpensive distribution system.

Comcast claims BitTorrent users are hogging the network. But they don’t just cut off high-volume users trying to download 20 movies at a time. They block everybody. AP reporters weren’t even able to share a copy of the Bible.

Here’s what Comcast really doesn’t like about BitTorrent: It’s competition for their own video business. If we can pick and choose what we want to see for ourselves, we might be less inclined to keep paying Comcast an arm and a leg for all the channels we don’t watch.

Comcast is abusing its power. And their actions clearly violate FCC rules that say the Internet can be accessed by users without restrictions. After public interest groups led by Free Press filed a complaint — and thousands of angry Internet users flooded their in-boxes — the FCC launched an official investigation.

This investigation may well determine whether the Internet will remain open and free. After claiming they would never discriminate, Comcast is now trying to undermine the guiding principles of Network Neutrality by blocking whatever they want. The other big Internet providers — like AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner — filed in support of Comcast’s right to discriminate because they want to do the same thing.

A History of Discrimination

Communities of color and other under-represented groups have long fought for a more diverse and inclusive media system. Discrimination and segregation prevented people of color from obtaining radio or TV licenses when these mediums were first created. During the 1970s, cable promised to be a real alternative to TV for communities of color seeking diverse programming; it didn’t happen. Yet, many of these very same companies now want to prevent Internet users, including people of color, from accessing diverse online content of their choice.

While our nation must overcome the digital divide so everyone will have high-speed broadband access, the principles of Network Neutrality are important to ensure the Internet provides a real opportunity for all Americans to speak with their own voices.

The FCC’s investigation of Comcast — and passage of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 5353), bipartisan legislation now pending in Congress to protect Net Neutrality — will go a long way toward determining whether the Internet will protect the First Amendment rights of all Internet users and whether people of color will finally have unfettered access to a equitable media system.

Make your voices heard. The stakes couldn’t be any higher.

This post was written by Mark Lloyd, author of Prologue to a Farce, and Joseph Torres of Free Press. It originally appeared here.

OK, that may sound like an exaggeration. But next week the Federal Communications Commission is coming to the Boston area — Cambridge, to be exact — for an important public hearing on what the next generation of the Internet will look like.

The hearing is part of the FCC’s ongoing investigation into Comcast’s blocking of Internet traffic. But there’s much more at stake. We are at a critical juncture where it will be decided whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it.

Comcast wants the former — to dictate which Web sites and services go fast or slow or don’t load at all. And they’re backed by the other would-be gatekeepers at AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner.

Boston, We Have a (Broadband) Problem

In recent months, these cable and phone companies have repeatedly been caught blocking, filtering, and spying on consumers’ Internet activities. If we let them get away with this, these powerful companies will continue to roll back our freedoms whenever we go online.

That’s why it so important for those of us who want the free and open Internet to stay that way — especially if you live in New England — to show up at Harvard on Monday. Here are the details we know so far:

WHAT: A Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet
WHEN: Monday, Feb 25, 2008
TIME: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
WHERE: Harvard Law School, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall
1515 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138

We’ve set up a Web site at www.savetheinternet.com/=boston where you can find directions, sign up for more information, and use our automated system to tell your friends about this event.

We’ll update that page — and the blog — with more details about speakers and public involvement as soon as we have them. But since we can’t count on the FCC to publicize this event, we’ll have to start spreading the word ourselves.

Show up. Speak up. And let’s hope this important hearing in Massachusetts is just the beginning of a national conversation that spreads to every town and city across the country.

During a Friday briefing in the chambers of the House Commerce Committee Tim Wu, Ben Scott, Marvin Ammori, Jef Pearlman and Markham Erickson laid out the central struggle in our campaign to save a free-flowing Internet.

At stake is whether the Internet will be open, neutral and accessible to all or a closed network — controlled by a handful of gatekeepers with monopoly tendencies.

The speakers laid out this conflict in clear, concise and often chilling terms. Their comments are drawn into relief against a backdrop of abuses by network giants Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

The stage was also set by Reps. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering, who earlier in the week introduced the “Internet Freedom and Preservation Act” a forward-thinking piece of legislation that would write baseline Net Neutrality protections into the Communications Act, and give the FCC the teeth to stop incidents of discriminatory blocking and censorship over the Internet.

The Clash of Civilizations

Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, often calls this conflict a “clash of civilizations.”

It’s a time in our immediate history when traditional media powers are facing off against a new form of communications — that is more grassroots and decentralized — and attempting to re-assert their control as they did in the past when the “disruptive technologies” of the broadcast era were being adopted by mass audiences.

“Behind every great and abusive monopoly almost always lies a network … a network that has been co-opted, which has been turned into a discriminatory network, and which has been then used to carry out and further the power of the monopoly.” Said Wu.

“So when we are talking about these complicated issues of Comcast blocking and what’s going on with NARAL what we are really talking about is whether we will allow these networks to become the seeds of a new generation of dangerous and abusive monopolies.”

A Moment in History

Scott asked why we are engaged in this fight over an open verses closed Internet right now.

Through a combination of forces — including remarkable innovations in technology, surging consumer demand, industry consolidation and policy mistakes — the U.S. Internet has arrived at a volatile moment.

Decisions we make about our right to communicate right now will have an impact on our economic and civic life and social health for generations to come.

In the videos embedded here, Wu, Scott, Ammori, Pearlman and Erickson help set the stage for this struggle.

With their legislation this week, Markey and Pickering give us hope that we can send a strong and clear message that heavy-handed telco and cable control will no longer be tolerated.

The FCC investigation of Comcast’s violations of Net Neutrality is in full swing. Thousands of activists have weighed in, and on Wednesday Free Press and its allies in the SavetheInternet.com Coalition filed extensive research and a lengthy legal analysis of what Comcast is doing (if you have been following the issue closely, you should enjoy all 100 pages).

Comcast is now playing defense.

Employing 10 lawyers and countless minions, Comcast claimed in its filing with the FCC that the crippling of innovative online video competitors such as BitTorrent, Vuze and Miro is no big deal. They claim to be only targeting the miniscule .01 percent of users who actually use the bandwidth they pay for every month. But this is completely false — even their army of high priced lawyers couldn’t mask their true aims.

What Comcast Is Really Doing

Let’s review what we know about Comcast’s actions:

1. It is crippling the content-delivery systems that have emerged as real threat to its $17 billion video business — and it’s own plans to dominate online video.

2. The company is limiting access for everyone — not just the mythical “bandwidth hogs.” Comcast isn’t just blocking the .01 percent from using these programs. They’re are also cutting off the other 99.99% — regardless of the size of the files being transferred. (The AP couldn’t even download a copy of the Bible.)

3. Comcast promised the public and the FCC over and over again that it has no reason to limit people’s connection and would never do so. Let’s review the history:

• Comcast, December 2000: We will value an open Internet.
• Comcast, May 2003: We don’t prevent our customers from doing anything.
• Comcast, August 2007: We do not mess with your connection.
• Comcast, October 2007: We (only slightly) mess with your connection, but it is “reasonable network management.”
• Comcast, February 2008: We mess with your connection and you can’t do anything about it.

That’s right. Now the Comcast lawyer army claims that the company can do whatever it wants with its network — and the FCC can’t do anything about it.

Why the change of heart? What they said in 2000 and 2003 was before innovative new peer-to-peer companies offered viable alternatives to Comcast customers. It’s no stretch to envision a future where these customers are free of the cable cartel and going online where they only pay for what they want. (Note: Comcast just reported a 14 percent increase in revenue plus a 54 percent increase in net income. That equals undervalued and angry Comcast customers).

Lies, Damn Lies, and ‘Reasonable Network Management’

The company’s claim that this is a fair way to manage the network is bogus. Comcast has many other options that do not discriminate. For example:

1. Comcast could put a cap on how much bandwidth each customer can use (This is the cheap, lazy and unpopular option)

2. Comcast could deal with the infamous .01 percent on a case-by-case basis (The company’s stated method in years past).

3. Or Comcast could listen to consumers and perform the badly needed upgrades to their network (That would be smart and quite feasible given its financial health. Did I mention that 54% increase?)

But instead, they’ve decided to censor your Internet traffic and declare war on consumers.

Here’s the bottom line: Comcast is violating Net Neutrality and threatening the future of online video. The FCC needs to stop them and stand up for the 99.9 percent of us who pay the commissioners’ salaries.

And Congress needs to make sure the law prevents discrimination so that the free and open Internet stays that way. So call up your Reps and get them on the new Net Neutrality bill. – Adam Lynn

Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) today launched the latest salvo in the struggle to keep the Internet free from gatekeepers with the introduction of the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008” (HR 5353).

The bipartisan bill protects Net Neutrality under the Communications Act and calls for a nationwide conversation to set policy about the future of the Internet.

Rep. Ed Markey

The legislation gives hope to the millions of Americans who have called for action to ensure that the public — not phone and cable companies — control the fate of the Internet.

Taking it Public

The new bill calls on the FCC to convene at least eight “broadband summits” to collect public input on a variety of policies “that will promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.”

Taking the issue outside the Beltway — and beyond the corrosive influence of telecom lobbyists — is an encouraging sign for communities across the country that stand to benefit from the enormous economic and social benefits of an open Internet.

Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have padded the pockets of Washington lawyers, lobbyists and shills to kill Net Neutrality and pave the way for “network management” practices that allow blocking of certain content in favor of Web sites and services the companies prefer.

Rep. Chip Pickering

Barring Discrimination

The new bill makes it the policy of the US government to actively protect the free-flowing Internet from gatekeepers, establishing principles for consumer protections that “guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.”

These protections would be amended into the Communications Act, according to the new legislation.

The FCC recently launched an investigation — spurred by a complaint from members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition and thousands of letters from concerned citizens — into blocking of Internet services by cable and phone companies.

A Growing Coalition

“Americans need to ask themselves: What good is free speech if a handful of powerful corporations have the ability to shut off or slow viewpoints they find objectionable?” said International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. “I applaud Congressman Markey and encourage other union members to stand with the 1.4 million-member strong International Brotherhood of Teamsters.”

“Gamers, the majority of whom are in the coveted 18-45 demographic, increasingly use the Internet to communicate, mobilize and play the increasingly complex games they enjoy,” said Hal Halpin, president of the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), a national nonprofit membership organization established to serve the needs of the millions of Americans who play computer and video games. “We look forward to participating in the discussion fostered by this important legislation.”

Markey and Pickering’s bill will reignite the grassroots campaign to restore meaningful and lasting Net Neutrality protections. Access to an open Internet connection is no longer a luxury; it’s a right that should be afforded every American.

The public now has a new chance to speak out against would-be gatekeepers that seek to distort the Internet in their favor.