Help Spread the Word about Stanford
April 11th, 2008 by Ben ByrneAs we increasingly turn our attention the the April 17 hearing at Stanford, we’ve gotten a few requests to produce some art for folks to display on their blogs, facebook profiles, etc. to get the word out.
Ask and you shall receive! We’ve overlaid information regarding the hearing on the “shouting man” (not be confused with Burning Man) graphic we’re using to identify hearings (see it at right).
Please take a minute to stick this code somewhere on your web presence to promote the hearing:
April 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Trying to pack the seats at the hearing?
April 11th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Comcast violated Free Press’ copyright on seat-packing at the Berkman Center hearing, and we can’t have that happening again. The ends always justify the means in Free Press’ book.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Nice try, Richard. These people are coming on their own time, because they’re interested in the issue. Not because they’re being paid to fill seats.
I can’t believe that I have to explain this to you, but a democracy is built upon people volunteering their time to participate. Comcast doesn’t follow those rules. We do.
But don’t believe us. One of Comcast’s own stooges said that he was “just getting paid to hold someone’s seat,” adding that he had no idea what the Harvard meeting was about. Listen for yourself:
http://www.freepress.net/files/paid_to_hold_seat.mp3
Many of these people cozily dozed off soon after they were planted in their chairs.
http://www2.freepress.net/docs/comcastsleepersadjust_2.jpg
As a result more than 100 legitimately interested people, were prevented from participating at Harvard.
That’s not the way a democracy should work. (Paying people to vote is a crime in fact) To participate legitimately people have to take time off to learn about an issue, go to a polling station and vote. Those are the means, Richard.
As usual Richard, you seem over-eager to smear genuine public involvement in policymaking, and are doing your best to paint as a charade any process that doesn’t simply ape Comcast’s view.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Hey, my good friend Dick Bennett,
Please explain what you mean by “The ends always justify the means in Free Press’ book.”
Are the “ends” having people who care about this issue show up? Are the “means” letting people know about it here?
Are you really saying that using the internet to inform people who care about an issue as to the an event taking place on that issue is worse than a company paying people who don’t care about the issue to fill space and shut down democratic participation?
Dude, you seem so much more reasonable in person. But yet online you say crap like this, and you say things like the authors of the Free Press petition should be put in jail by the DOJ.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Interesting remarks, Tim. Let me ask you a question about the Berkman Center hearing. You and I were both there, right? One of us was there at this own expense, and another of us was paid to be there. So one of us is an example of grass-roots participation in the democratic process and one isn’t. Which is which?
(Answer: I paid my own expenses to testify at the FCC hearing at the Berkman Center, and Tim Karr was paid to be there.)
Speaker after speaker at the hearing agreed that it’s reasonable to prioritize traffic on the Internet. Even Marvin Ammori, Free Press’ paid lawyer said prioritizing is fine, contradicting the position that Ben Scott of Free Press and others in the organization had previously staked out to the effect that all packets must be treated the same. So the real story of that hearing was how a group of speakers selected on the basis of their hostility to Comcast agreed that the STI/Free Press position on packet management was wrong.
And that’s why Free Press wants to change the subject from network management to seat-packing.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
As I understand it, the people accused of being Comcast “seat warmers” at the Boston hearing were actually line holders who were supposed to be replaced by Comcast employees who wanted to attend the hearing. (If you have ever visited any of the Congressional office buildings in Washington DC, you should know that professional line holders are common there and fulfill an important function; they ensure that interested parties are able to get into packed Congressional hearings.) They weren’t replaced, I’m told, because the doors were opened early and then quickly closed when the room filled — at which point the line holders could not be replaced.
But be that as it may: The hearing was Webcast, and so the number of people in the physical audience isn’t an important concern; there must have been a hundred times as many watching online. There audience that mattered was the Commissioners. And they were treated to a one sided presentation in which vital information was omitted and many of the speakers were allowed to get away with patently false statements that were never challenged.
April 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
In any event, the Free Press seat-warmers took over the seats taken by the Comcast seat-warmers during the second panel. When I criticized Free Press for promoting a “Deadwood system” of network management, several of the Free Press acolytes yelled, screamed, and stamped their feet.
The hearing was a kangaroo court, so Free Press’ complaints about how they weren’t able to take all the seats is pretty hollow. They had a 3:1 over-representation among the speakers, and that’s what counts.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I was watching online. Which reminds me: Dick — How did it feel when all the real network Guru’s on your panel laughed at you? Even Comcast’s other hand-chosen panelist?
And Brett: The point of DC seat-warmers is they stand in line until the hearing room opens. Once it does, if the person they are holding it for doesn’t show up, they are instructed to just leave; they are not paid to hang around the 2-3 hours of the hearing, and are not asked to.
Comcast did something different; they paid people to fill space and to clap at certain times (they were being instructed as to when to applaud).
But both Brett and Dick miss the point; the people support and open Internet, and no amount of “we know better than you” BS from these two jokers will change that.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Mr. “Bukowski:”
It’s now clear why you’re not posting under your own name: You’re being obnoxious. The fact is that Comcast’s only “chosen” panelist was the executive who appeared on the first panel. And no one on the panels was laughing at Richard — though the Free Press crowd did try to heckle him (which only goes to show how low they’ve sunk).
April 14th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Again Brett you make a claim based on hearsay at best. Show us evidence. Prove it. Listen to the audio of testimony and tell us the exact minute and second where Bennett was heckled.
I want to hear the yelling, screaming and foot stamping. (see Bennett’s claim above)
Bennett was given ample opportunity to make his case. Who’s fault is it then that he didn’t succeed?
Bennett wrote: “I paid my own expenses to testify at the FCC hearing at the Berkman Center, and Tim Karr was paid to be there.”
Again nice try, Richard. I wasn’t on a panel. You were. I happily gave up my seat and spent a good portion of my time working with campus police at the door to make sure that anyone who was being held outside could get in as soon as space was available.
Unfortunately, many of the Comcast seat fillers didn’t leave. (I guess the seats were too comfy to rouse them from the depths of their slumber). We have the evidence of that. Again — where’s yours?
We’re happy to have the FCC testimony from Boston stand on its own merits. We’re also pleased that the FCC is now continuing the discussion at Stanford.
The public has been invited to speak. I hope they show up in droves to do so. The last time this happened, Comcast got scared and tried to block people from the event.
Comcast’s actions begs the question: “What is Comcast trying to hide?”
I’d ask the same of Bennett and Glass.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Hi all - thanks for the lively debate here. I look forward to just as lively a debate at the Stanford hearing. As one of the organizers who has been working closely with community members in Boston and the Bay Area to foster debate and dialog on these issues and encouraging people to attend these hearings, I felt like I should clarify a few things stated in the comments section here.
In terms of the notion that Free Press had paid staff people in the room. Sure that is true, but we also had three staff members stuck out in the hall for the majority of the hearing, including our executive director.
In fact, I gave up my seat so a member of the public could get in the room and hear the debate even though she had no interest in speaking out one way or the other. She simply wanted to learn more. In fact that is what I hear from most people who I talk to about attending these hearings.
Free Press obviously has a position on this issue - one shared with hundreds of other consumer groups, technology leaders, and policy makers on both sides of the political spectrum. However, for my part, I think it is vital for people to participate in these events, to learn about these issues, and the hear from the panels of experts and their neighbors about the future of the Internet. This should be a dinner table conversation, not a backroom debate where the public is blocked from the conversation.
Unlike Bennet and Glass who are discouraging people from attending, I encourage people from all walks of life to head to Stanford, and I hope for a spirited debate there.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Interesting comments, jstearns, especially that bit about Brett and I “discouraging” people from attending the hearings. Can you back that up, or is it a typical Free Press slur with no substance at all?
I wouldn’t agree that Free Press has a position on net neut and broadband traffic, they have several positions which they trot out in a never-ending attempt to paint themselves as champions of the little guy while arguing for regulations that would have a profoundly destructive impact on the Internet experience of most of the little guys in the world. This is what happens when you jump on a bandwagon without bothering to discover where it’s going.
It doesn’t make any difference who comes to the hearings and who doesn’t, or who sits in the room instead of watching the webcast. The Commission wasn’t persuaded by the hecklers who tried to stifle my free speech when I criticized Free Press for advocating the “Deadwood System” and they’re not persuaded by all the junk comments offered by grass roots organized by FP at Mr. Soros’ expense. The Commission has to draft good, solid rules and regulations, not simply appeal to the emotions of an audience in this room or that.
Free Press had every opportunity to present a case for increased regulation at the Berkman Center hearing. They picked the panelists, had the Chairman on their side, and had a friendly venue. But still they failed to convince the Commission’s majority of their positions. And it remains so, where the four commissioners are skeptical of the regulatory program.
So don’t blame me for the failure of your program, blame the program.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hey Brett,
Dude, email David Clark — he was a witness suggested by Comcast.
And the panelists did laugh at Dick Bennett, even Clark. Go listen/watch for the section during the Q&A when Dick suggests that the petitioners should be faulted for not including data about network traffic. This is of course absurd, because the network owners don’t make such data available. Dick got laughed at when he said he didn’t fault the network owners for not submitting such data, he faulted the consumer petitioners!
And Dick. Go back and read the Chairman’s statement on the Comcast-Bit Torrent Inc. deal — it’s clear he thinks Comcast’s actions are in violation of the FCC Policy Statement. So do the 2 Dem commissioners. Tate and McDowell just do exactly what private companies tell them, but that is still a 3-2 vote.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Nice attempt at a slur, bukowski, but you’ve already played that card and are now simply repeating yourself.
The facts are these: the petitioners had the power to measure network congestion with a little tool we engineers have called “ping.” The fact that petitioners couldn’t be bothered to directly investigate and instead relied on the AP for their claims underscores their lack of seriousness. So all we get from Free Press and their supporters, such as bukowski, is slur, insult, and ignorance. You better hope you don’t get your way.
The concluding question of the hearing was asked to me by Commissioner Adelstein, seeking guidance on the rules for demarcating reasonable and unreasonable management. Since the hearing, those of us who participated have continued to help the Commission develop guidelines for reasonable management.
So despite the heckling, the process is moving forward, and not going deeper in the quagmire of deception in which the complaints were generated.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Dick, you are in fantasy land if you think Adelstein is going to endorse your radical theories of destructing the democratic Internet. I just checked the docket 07-52 for comments filed by you, and I don’t see anything since your reply comments of 2/29. So unless you are violating the Commissions Sunshine rules by not filing Ex Parte, you are simply lying to say that you “have continued to help the Commission develop guidelines for reasonable management.” No one wants your help, except for Comcast.
And your response about pinging is laughable. Please do tell how knowing the response times of hosts can somehow be used in a comprehensive way to inform the state of network congestion across all last mile networks in the U.S.
Dude, face it, your ideas have lost. The People want an open Internet.
You can fantasize about being Adelstein’s best buddy, that you are so important he asked you the last question, but the truth is you are merely a sideshow, and were only at Berkman b/c Comcast was too embarrassed to put up their own engineers.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You’re right Richard. There is a massive conspiracy against you.
It’s being led by the FCC, George Soros and Free Press. Before the Boston hearing, they all got together at a secret location to scheme about ways to undermine your brilliance.
They hired people and planted them in the audience to hiss and boo every time you opened your mouth — and especially while you were delivering your earth shattering Deadwood analogy. (That chorus of hisses and boos really happened even though you can’t hear it on the audio file. Really it did.)
It’s not your fault that no one took you seriously. Really, your testimony was a stroke of genius.
The FCC-Soros-Free Press triumvirate was beaming its high-frequency hypno-gun at panelists like Clark to win him and others over to their dastardly plan. Panelists laughed at you not because of anything you said but because Soros had them under full mind control.
Good thing you were wearing your tin-foil hat. Soros would have gotten to you with his Net Neutrality ray as well.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
So the idea here is that a lie repeated becomes the truth? We’ll certainly see how the Commission rules on the Free Press petition, and quite soon enough. I’d save my victory dances until the appropriate time, bukowski; remember what happened to the Markey Amendment in 2006, the passage of which was claimed by FP to be essential to the Internet. Here we are two years later and it still somehow manages to work well enough for all these silly insults to move through the pipes. That’s low-bandwidth communication for you.
EParno, you don’t have to act a fool simply because bukowski is doing so; remember, he keeps his identity secret so as not to embarrass his real life persona. You seem to be using a name that might be traced by a potential employer someday, so you might want to keep your histrionics to a minimum.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I detect a threat Mr. Bennett. Rest assured I’m quivering in my boots.
Curious. I simply volleyed your own hysterical claims (hissing and booing, Soros conspiracy, etc. ) back at you and you label me a fool.
Seems like you can’t even agree with yourself.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Here’s a fact for you, EParno: “Free Press has more than $5 million in funding, in part from major foundations such as the Soros Open Society Institute.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032703618.html
Any questions?
The heckling wasn’t so audible on the webcast due to the location of the mikes, but you’ll note David Clark commented on bricks from the back of the room, or words to that effect. He wasn’t talking about seat-warmers. There was a raucous tone during the second panel, which any honest person who was there can describe for you.
And no, I’m not threatening you, I’m advising you to behave yourself, which shouldn’t even have to be said.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Wow! This thread seems to have taken on a life of it’s own. Soros conspiracies, hissing and booing, bricks (??). I must have attended a hearing in some parallel universe.
Richard, you seem like the type of fellow who is obsessed with having the final word in a debate.
I’ll give you that opportunity.
You claim that you were hissed and booed and treated rudely by Free Press and our followers at the FCC hearing. In your own words, these hecklers “tried to stifle [your] free speech.” And yet you can’t produce a shred of evidence to that end.
1. Produce the evidence that you were heckled, hissed and booed at by Free Press during the Boston event. I want the audio.
You claim that Free Press is simply following some agenda set in place by George Soros. And yet all you can do is produce a story that says we receive funding in part from his Open Society Institute — along with money from several other unaffiliated foundations and individuals.
2. Prove that Soros determines our position on Net Neutrality.
You claim that Free Press colluded with the FCC Chairman to stack the panel against you.
3. Produce your evidence that this happened, that we worked together with the FCC to stack panels in Boston.
Until you can prove these claims, you might want to check your rhetoric at the door.
As for EParno, I see why he/she found you worthy of sarcasm. You make claims that simply can’t be substantiated and then accuse others of smearing you when they call your bluff.
So here’s your chance. I’ll give you the last word. Prove yourself.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
What a ludicrous comment, Tim Karr, you only want to discuss side issues, and even then you insist on putting words into my mouth. I’ve said all along that Free Press is not the self-organized grass roots movement it pretends to be, and the Washington Post article nails the facts: you’re funded by the rich folk, people like George Soros and Barbra Streisand, and you support the agenda of the Internet’s megacorps, Google, E-Bay, and Amazon. There’s nothing grass roots about your organization, and the rank hypocrisy of the complaints against Comcast’s seat-warmers proves it. Their paid seat warmers got to the seats before your paid staff did, and that’s your complaint. Comcast’s people simply come to work before you do.
And you’ve also continued to dodge any discussion of the CONTENT of the hearings, in which all the witnesses, including your own paid representatives, spoke against the FP position that all packets are equal and there can be no prioritization. So this is what happened at Berkman: your ideas about Internet management were examined by experts and found wanting.
So you change the subject to your conspiracy theories.
It’s no secret that Kevin Martin has a hate on for cable companies, and is very close to the telcos. In this matter, you and Martin happen to be aligned. Cable has 60% of the broadband Internet access accounts in America, and the success of that technology is a put-down to Free Press because it’s never been regulated as a Title II common carrier telecom service. Bummer.
But don’t let me have the last word, I don’t want it. Tell me how you’re ever going to recover from the whipping your “don’t prioritize anything” agenda took at Berkman, and why Ammori had to flip-flop. That’s what I came here to find out, so don’t disappoint me with this silly smoke screen of yours.
Break precedent and tell the truth.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Tkarr: Produce the evidence that you were heckled, hissed and booed at by Free Press during the Boston event. I want the audio.
RBennett: You’re putting words in my mouth [Only your own]
TKarr: Prove that Soros determines our position on Net Neutrality.
RBennett: You’re not grassroots. You’re a front for rich people [Tell that to the 1.5 million people who took action via SavetheInternet.com.]
Tkarr: Produce evidence that the FCC stacked panels in Boston.
RBennett: [cue the sound of crickets]
So. Now that you have shown us that you can’t substantiate any of your prior claims, you have moved on to a new round of bogus conjecture.
RBennett: Free Press dodges the content of the hearings. [Apparently, you haven’t read our multiple filings on the issue, beginning with the petitions and complaint and lately including a 167-page reply to Comcast’s comments]
RBennett: Ammori flip flopped [Really? When? Was he laughed at by most everyone on his panel? Wait, that was you.]
April 14th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Wrong, Tim Karr, I refused to dignify your straw man distortions by “proving” claims I never made.
Face it dude, your organization is a fraud, you can’t justify Ammori’s flip-flop and whole discussion embarrasses you. I understand that everybody has to make a living, but is this the best you can do?
Think of your mother and all the sacrifices she made to raise you. Is this how you pay her back?
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
This is my 3-minute testimony before the FCC on the need for media diversity - It still makes sense.
I was going to thank the FCC for letting me share my views on this topic, when I realized that our Founding Fathers are really the ones to be thanked. We owe them thanks because the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
To dilute the number and diversity of media is an experiment that places America at great risk of losing one of its most fundamental freedoms – the freedom of speech.
The ultimate result of the reduction of media is the loss of freedom of speech. This was brought home to me most strikingly when I spent a summer living in Spain at a time, when it was still under the control of the Dictator Francisco Franco. Freedom of speech was not even a luxury at that time and place – it was a concept entirely unacceptable, untolerated, and impermissable under any circumstances.
One of the members of the family with whom I lived greatly disliked Franco and was disposed to protest bitterly against him. His oratory always frightened his family greatly because they knew that if it was heard and reported, all of them could be imprisoned. As we lived in public housing with thin walls, this was a real danger.
Consequently, whenever he began to rail against the government in their own home, they forced him into a clothes closet. Dissent could only take place in a tiny room, in the dark and surrounded by garments, not other humans. I do not want to live like that ever again, and I am afraid that media consolidation is herding us in that direction.
What did I learn from this true story?
If media ownership laws are changed to allow even more consolidation, a few immensely rich businesses will control what is said, and democracy will suffer. Issues in which the rich have viewpoints different from the poor will not be covered fairly or eventually at all, because it will not be in their financial interests to do so. Severe consequences for democracy will be the result, and closets will once again become the only place for protest. People own the airwaves, and democracy requires that the greatest possible variety of opinion should be brought to the attention of the people so that they may pass judgment. Let us ensure that it happens. No closeted dissent in our country.