Thanks!

It’s official. The Federal Communications Commission published its order today lowering the hammer on Comcast for derailing Internet users’ Web access and then pretending that the cable giant was doing nothing wrong.

The order, approved by a bipartisan FCC majority at the beginning of the month, demands that Comcast “must stop” its ongoing practice of blocking Internet content by year’s end.

As we have written before, this action carries considerable weight.

It’s the first time the FCC has gone to such lengths to assert users’ right to an open Internet. And it sends a warning shot across the bow of other major ISPs that are flirting with the idea of blocking, filtering or degrading content, or favoring certain Web sites and services over others.

The FCC Delivers

“This order marks a major milestone in Internet policy,” says Ben Scott, Free Press policy director. “For years, the FCC declared that it would take action against any Internet service provider caught violating the online rights guaranteed by the agency. Today, the commission has delivered on that promise.”

The order concludes the FCC’s months-long investigation, which included two public hearings at Harvard and Stanford universities — and more than 25,000 public comments.

“This clear legal precedent signals that the future of the Net Neutrality debate will be over how, not whether, to protect users’ right to an open Internet,” Scott says.

Comcast’s Smokescreen

Comcast and its Astroturf allies swamped the FCC with filings that challenged the agency’s authority and outright denied any wrongdoing. But the smackdown of Comcast’s claims issued today makes clear that the agency is on solid legal footing, and Comcast clearly in the wrong.

“The Communications Act has long established the federal agency’s authority to promote the competition, consumer choice, and diverse information across all communications platforms,” explains Marvin Ammori, Free Press’ legal counsel, who authored the 2007 complaint against the cable giant.

In 2005, the agency unanimously adopted an Internet policy statement that “extended these rights to Internet users – including the right to access the lawful content, applications and services of their choice.”

That statement served the basis for the Free Press complaint, which set the wheels of the FCC churning towards today’s welcome result.

A Scathing Rebuke

The FCC was unconvinced by Comcast’s attempts to evade accountability. The order finds that Comcast’s repeated “verbal gymnastics” and attempts to muddy the issue of blocking were “unpersuasive and beside the point.”

The commissioners were especially outraged by Comcast’s lies and deception. When it first got caught blocking the Internet, the cable giant “misleadingly disclaimed any responsibility for its customers’ problems,” according to the FCC order, followed by “at best misdirection and obfuscation.”

Contrary to the spin of Comcast’s lawyers, the FCC can protect the rights of Internet users, and promote openness, free speech and competition on the Web.

ISPs Don’t Own the Internet

“The Internet is a world-wide system that does not belong to any one operator,” wrote David Reed, a pioneer in the design of the Internet’s fundamental architecture. “The design of the Internet Protocols specifies clear limits on what operators can and cannot do… Happily, the FCC recognized and exposed Comcast’s transgressions of those limits.”

[Read what other Net luminaries are saying about the order.]

Still, the FCC cannot act without first receiving complaints from users. Cable and phone companies would now be wise to obey the order and resist their gatekeeper tendencies.

But the public also needs to continue to keep watch over the Internet, and to call for FCC action against abuses of our Internet rights.

The open Internet’s leading lights spoke out in support of today’s FCC order against Comcast:

Professor Larry Lessig, Stanford Law

In all of my experience reviewing government decisions affecting the Internet, I have read none that are more subtle and sophisticated in their understanding of the Internet, and few that are as important for setting the conditions under which innovation and competition on the Internet will flourish.

As the Order makes clear, the Commission has clearly recognized the importance of the Internet as a platform for technological growth and innovation. It is also an extraordinarily important platform for free speech. Innovation and technological growth are essential components to economic prosperity. Free speech is the single most important element in a democracy.

… By secretly adding a layer of secret sauce into the Internet that interferes with legitimate applications and network services, Comcast has injured the value of the Internet to other innovators. By denying that it has done this, it has added insult to that injury. The Commission has done us all a great service by stating clearly that it will assure that the platform for innovation that the Internet is will not be compromised by such behavior.

Professor David Reed, MIT’s Media Lab and one of the Internet’s founding architects

The Internet is a world-wide system that does not belong to any one operator, whether providing access lines or backbone transport. This is the essence of internetworking. The Internet is not just “another network” owned and operated by a private concern for a set of customers. The Commission order clearly comprehends that special quality that transcends the interests of Comcast or any other access provider.

The strongest part of the order, for me personally, is that it navigates the tough path between heavy-handed regulation and disciplining misbehavior. To me, this is the challenge that separates government by “sound bite” and the difficult work of making our country work.

Professor Jack Balkin, Yale Law and Professor Barbara van Schewick, Stanford Law

By securing end users’ unimpeded access to applications and content, the FCC’s order protects fair competition and economic innovation.

It preserves the Internet’s decentralized structure, which has permitted the Internet to tap the genius of people around the world and create new content and powerful new applications that few could have dreamed of.

… [The order] is the beginning of a sound public policy for the digital age. It is welcome news for consumers, innovators, citizens, and everyone who has come to rely on unimpeded access to the content and applications available on an open Internet.

We commend the Commission for taking this important first step.

Harold Feld, Media Access Project

[The order] states clearly that protecting the open and vibrant character of the internet by prohibiting blocking or degrading of applications does not raise First Amendment issues. To the contrary such action furthers First Amendment values. (In my opinion, this finding alone makes this Order a huge win.)

… We don’t walk away from this, or stop fighting for the rules we need. Tomorrow, we go right back to work — starting with defending this Order from the inevitable appeal. But tonight, we can celebrate another critical win that keeps an open internet possible.

The Beijing Olympics are underway with the spotlight on China. Unfortunately, our TV announcers are so awed by the grandeur of the spectacle that they are overlooking the country’s authoritarian regime and its stranglehold on free speech.

China now has the world’s largest number of Internet users, having recently surpassed the United States. This number, however, doesn’t account for whether the Chinese government allows for a free and open Internet. So while a record number of Chinese people are logging online, they certainly can’t read or watch anything they choose.

While China had promised to increase Internet freedom during the Olympics, many of those promises have not been kept. The government vowed to relax Internet restrictions for foreign journalists, and finally complied only after intense international pressure, making some previously blocked sites available. Chinese Internet users, however, still face the same firewalls.

China maintains control over Internet users by blocking access to a wide range of Web sites and online activities it believes are a threat to the security of the state. To accomplish this monumental task, the government has created an elaborate system of filters, commonly referred to as “the Great Firewall of China,” using technology called deep packet inspection or DPI.

When an Internet provider installs DPI equipment, it allows them (or a third party) to see everything you do on the Internet. DPI technology has been in the U.S. news recently, as ISPs have begun using it to track customer activities for targeted advertising. But two U.S. broadband providers were using this technology for purposes that mirror China’s to block online content. Which American providers do such a thing? None other than Comcast and Cox, two Net Neutrality violators.

The companies have installed DPI equipment to block Internet communications they don’t like using reset packets (as China does). As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explained, their use of reset packets is akin to “a telephone operator that interrupts a phone conversation, impersonating the voice of each party to tell the other that ‘this call is over, I’m hanging up.’” While legitimate purposes exist for the reset command, only these two companies and malicious hackers use it as a third party to interrupt people’s communication.

Comcast and Cox purchased the equipment from the corporation Sandvine, which hit the “on” switch to let the companies start violating Net Neutrality. Since Free Press filed a complaint with the FCC against Comcast for its illegal blocking, Sandvine has had a tough time. Their stock price has tanked and their biggest customer, Comcast, has had second thoughts.

As long as Sandvine’s business model is violating Net Neutrality, we consider this good news. A couple weeks ago, however, their stock price received a bump. How is this possible after the consumer win on Net Neutrality, with the FCC telling Comcast to stop blocking?

Sandvine simply looked to the example of the Great Firewall of China. Feeling the heat in the U.S., Sandvine struck deals with two countries – Qatar and Kuwait – looking to follow China’s lead and prevent their citizens’ access to a free and open Internet.

As you’re watching the Olympics, in the rare instance that an announcer actually brings up the current lack of online freedom in China, remember that Comcast and Cox utilize the same technology to impose their vision of what the Internet should be. Unless we continue to organize and fight for our online freedom, your Internet provider will assert an increasing level of control over what you say and do on the Internet, and Net Neutrality will no longer exist.

Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell increasingly sounds like a man stranded on a desert island, willing to say anything to get a ride back to shore.

Yesterday, Commissioner McDowell stooped to a new low in a talk with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. He was invited to discuss the FCC’s recent decision to punish Comcast for blocking users from sharing legal content on the Internet.

Comcast was caught red-handed secretly discriminating against innovative technologies used for high-definition online TV, using the same censorship technology the Chinese government uses to block free speech. This discriminatory behavior represents a blatant and outrageous violation of free speech.

Based on this clear-cut case against Comcast, a bipartisan majority of the FCC issued a guilty verdict. Commissioner McDowell, however, dissented, using almost every inaccurate argument made by Comcast to defend his decision.

Yesterday, the increasingly isolated McDowell decided once again to put the facts aside.

Law and Order

In both his speech and the interview that followed McDowell tried to tie the FCC’s Comcast decision to the Fairness Doctrine (which at one time regulated equal airtime for diverse perspectives in broadcast media).

He suggested that any FCC decision that supports Net Neutrality — the idea that the Internet must be free and open — is somehow tantamount to government regulation of content.

But contrary to these misleading assertions, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with empowering the FCC to regulate content. Net Neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, and has been part of the Net since its inception. It says that no one — government agency or corporate giant — should be able to tell consumers what legal content they can access and share online.

It is absurd to equate Net Neutrality — a principle that promotes and protects free speech on the Internet — with any effort to regulate speech.

FCC Commissioner McDowell’s World

In reality, the FCC’s decision is not about regulation; it’s about law and order. If someone is caught red-handed committing a crime, their punishment is not regulation. It’s justice. Comcast was caught illegally blocking free speech and the free market on the Internet and now they are being punished for their crime. Punished not with a fine, but with a reasonable request. The FCC simply told Comcast to stop.

The Grass is Always Bluer

Unsurprisingly, this dishonest effort to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt comes precisely at a time when bipartisan support for this important protection is growing.

Americans of all political stripes are tired of politicians saying the grass is blue and the sky is green. McDowell’s blatant attempt to portray Net Neutrality as the exact opposite of what it is may go over well at industry-funded think tanks and in meetings with Comcast lobbyists, but everyday conservatives, liberals and independents can see through this fear mongering.

The bloggers over at TechRepublican said it best: “Without meaningful competition, consumers can’t push for better service. I can get my high-speed Internet from Comcast, with all its attendant issues, or I can use dial-up. The FCC made the right decision […] mandated content neutrality protects the customer without hurting competition.”

It is disappointing that McDowell is responding to the genuine concerns of a nation about our digital future with threats that have no basis in reality. As American people across the political spectrum fight for a robust Internet system that connects all people to a safe, secure, and neutral Internet, the only way McDowell can oppose this movement is by twisting the facts.

Thousands of people heralded the FCC’s decision to punish Comcast for blocking Internet traffic last week, and for setting an important precedent for Net Neutrality. A small group of skeptical observers, however, are worried about the ruling’s unintended consequences.

These skeptics fear that Internet Service Providers, no longer allowed to manage their networks through blocking, will turn instead to a radical, industry-wide switch to “metering” — imposing steep fees for exceeding tight caps on bandwidth usage.

Hello even larger Internet bill, and goodbye to watching a movie online when it strikes your fancy.

This scaremongering has people worried that we’ve exchanged one corrupt practice for another. Luckily, as S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press points out in his new policy brief, this “be careful what you wish for” rhetoric is unfounded. Turns out, we don’t have to choose between secret and arbitrary blocking and the unreasonable practice of metering.

If you find yourself in a back alley — or message board — arguing about metering, here are a few arguments you can use to defend yourself:

• It is a false choice to suggest that since Internet service providers cannot arbitrarily block online content, they will be forced to meter. There are a whole host of other non-discriminatory options available to providers that are more effective at managing congestion.

• Talk of metering is not new and has nothing to do with the FCC’s laudable decision to prohibit providers from blocking applications. Time Warner floated plans to meter as early as 2002..

• Metering is the wrong solution for Internet users. History shows that consumers strongly prefer simple, flat-rate pricing to metering. They do not want to look over their shoulder and face surprise higher monthly bills. This is likely to encourage all subscribers – not just high-bandwidth users — to curb their Internet use.

• Metering is bad business for Internet service providers. Not only does it decrease Internet use, it discourages the development of and demand for new and innovative applications that give the Internet its value. ISPs that meter are likely to see a subscription drop that hurts their bottom line.

• There are strong financial incentives at play that actually make it very unlikely that ISPs will make the drastic switch to metering. Congestion should be treated as a short-term problem, while continued investments are made to keep pace with demand. Offering simplicity and abundance is the best outcome for users, providers and the future of the Internet.

Don’t listen to the Chicken Littles: The sky isn’t falling. For those of us who believe in a truly open Internet, the sun is starting to break through the clouds.

Last week in the Washington Post, Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell published an op-ed asking, “Who Should Solve This Internet Crisis?”

Based on that article and his lengthy, flawed dissenting statement at last week’s FCC meeting, this much is clear: It shouldn’t be McDowell.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, secretly blocked Internet users from accessing legal content. It got caught. Last Friday, a bipartisan majority at the FCC moved to hold it accountable.

That’s the FCC’s job. But McDowell, the commission’s newest member, mounted a spirited defense on the company’s actions that conveniently leaves out many facts of the case.

The Case Against Comcast

Comcast clandestinely cut off transmissions by impersonating their customers. When it was first caught blocking, its spokespeople denied it. Then Comcast claimed it was just “delaying” traffic in the name of “reasonable network management.” When the FCC investigated and held public hearings, Comcast paid people to pack the rooms, applaud on cue, and keep the public out. When all else failed, it launched a last-minute smear campaign against FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Independent tests conducted by the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Germany’s Max Planck Institute clearly demonstrated that Comcast wasn’t just targeting a few high-bandwidth users at busy times; it was blocking peer-to-peer protocols all day and night regardless of the size of files being transferred. The AP couldn’t even upload a copy of the King James Bible.

This strong evidence is the basis of the complaint filed at the agency by Free Press, Public Knowledge and a group of esteemed legal scholars. They were supported by tens of thousands of public comments asking the FCC to stop Internet blocking.

McDowell was strangely unruffled by any of this.

What’s Causing the Traffic Jam?

Instead, McDowell tries to excuse Comcast’s illegal behavior by stoking fears about traffic jams and “clogged arteries” on the Internet. But he fails to recognize that with the growing thirst for audio and video on the Web, today’s “bandwidth hog” is tomorrow’s everyday user. Instead of reinvesting in the capacity we’ll need, Comcast is pocketing its sizable profits while trying to exploit its control of the pipes to undercut the competition for Internet content.

McDowell cites statistics peddled by the cable companies that only “5 percent of Internet consumers are using 90 percent of the bandwidth due to P2P.” Numerous other traffic studies suggest this isn’t accurate. Think about it: Are we really to believe that all those YouTube videos, phone calls, and emails are only 10 percent of traffic?

And while McDowell says “some estimate that 75 percent of the world’s Internet traffic is P2P,” he cherry-picks one of the more outlandish estimates. Even Sandvine – the Canadian company that provided Comcast’s Internet blocking tools – guesses that just 44 percent of North American traffic is P2P. Other estimates are even lower.

One thing consumer advocates and Comcast can agree on, however, is that that Internet traffic has grown consistently year to year by about 40 to 50 percent. According to “Moore’s law,” computer technology should get cheaper and faster at about the same rate.

Yet rather than upgrading their bandwidth rate to meet demand, Comcast blames its customers for wanting to use more of its product. Instead of secret blocking, how about some more capacity?

An Engineering Problem?

McDowell suggests that the issues here are too complex for the average policymaker. He insists the Internet is best left to engineers instead of “unelected bureaucrats.”

But apparently he wasn’t listening when engineers like David Reed and David Clark – two of the original architects of basic Internet protocols – harshly criticized Comcast’s actions in testimony before the FCC.

The fact is that rather than addressing “network management” in an open manner, Comcast chose to secretly block file-sharing in a way that violates every accepted Internet standard.

McDowell is fond of comparing Comcast’s malfeasance to a moment in 1987 when engineers came together to solve Internet congestion issues without the government getting involved.

But unlike Comcast, those engineers two decades ago agreed to standards to address congestion without blocking or targeting particular content or applications. Unlike Comcast, those engineers were not working for one company secretly interfering with the Internet experience. Unlike Comcast, they openly collaborated in the light of day.

Side Deals and Settlements

McDowell also touts a last-minute “settlement” between Comcast and the company named BitTorrent as evidence that there’s no need for “government intervention.” But BitTorrent wasn’t even part of the complaint against the cable giant. And the that deal never would have happened without public and government scrutiny.

Furthermore, the vague arrangement was worked out with just one company — the countless other firms using the same technology weren’t consulted. And those innovators, such as Vuze and Miro, celebrated the FCC’s move against Comcast.

Moreover, press releases issued by Comcast won’t prevent other cable and phone companies from blocking or trying to stifle the next big thing.

That’s why we need a clear policy against discrimination – a.k.a. Net Neutrality — that applies to everyone.

The Rules of the Road

McDowell suggests a false choice when he urges us to choose “collaboration over regulation” when it comes to Internet governance.

We’ve always had rules, and we always will. The only important question is whom those rules will benefit. Will it be the small handful of phone and cable companies who have showed time and again that they can’t be trusted? Or will it be the innovative entrepreneurs and cacophonous voices that make the Internet so great?

Largely absent from McDowell’s arguments is mention of the public — the FCC’s actual constituents — who have made clear that they want the Internet to remain free from secret meddling and corporate gatekeepers of any kind.

McDowell, unlike his current Republican colleagues, is likely to stay at the FCC in the next administration. This makes his disconnect from the popular will even more disconcerting.

Fortunately, a bipartisan majority at the FCC is listening to the public and has now established a clear precedent that blocking will not be tolerated. That’s the kind of collaboration everyone should support.

Today the FCC delivered a technical knock-out to Comcast. In a landmark decision, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein approved an “enforcement order” that would require Comcast to stop interfering with the use of popular peer-to-peer applications by people on its network.

Today’s FCC move is precedent-setting. It sends a powerful message to phone and cable companies that blocking access to the Internet will not be tolerated.

It also gives the FCC (one still controlled by industry-friendly Republicans) the teeth to stop powerful companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from getting between you and what you want to do online.

And it wouldn’t have happened without the strong public backlash against phone and cable companies and their gatekeeper ambitions. Activists, bloggers, consumer advocates and everyday people who love an open Internet took on entrenched corporate power and won — defying every ounce of conventional wisdom in Washington.

The Comcast Mafia

Through its D.C. mafia, Comcast had been exerting intense political and financial pressure on the FCC’s Martin, who in July had announced his intention to sanction Comcast for mucking with the Web.

But the Republican chairman stood his ground — alongside Democratic Commissioners Copps and Adelstein — and instilled some hope that, even in a divided city, the public’s interest can win out over partisanship and corruption.

It also follows more than two years of intense organizing by a coalition of organizations dedicated to preserving the democracy of the Internet. During this time, more than 1.6 million people sacrificed time and energy to contact Congress and the FCC, speak out at town meetings, collect signatures on street corners and on campuses, and spread the gospel of an open Internet via blogs, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube.

A Movement Milestone

A people-powered movement for a free and open Internet is taking shape around issues of Net Neutrality, open access, online privacy and digital inclusion.

Today’s FCC victory is a milestone for the movement, but the work of creating a more accessible, open and affordable Internet is really only just beginning.

Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are continuing to fight Net Neutrality using lobbyists, lawyers and campaign contributions. They’re aligning with powerful forces in Washington to spy on their users without warrant - and then gain retroactive immunity via Washington. They’re looking working with the Hollywood industry associations to sift through information we send and download online to impose a draconian copyright regime on the Web, They’re quietly snooping for data about our private online choices to turn over to advertisers.

Telco Doublespeak

Inside the Beltway, Big Telco and Cable are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create special rules written in their favor.

For all of their talk of “deregulation” and “free markets,” cable and telephone lobbyists work aggressively behind the scenes to force through regulations that protect their local monopolies and duopolies, stifle new entrants and competitive technologies in the marketplace, and increase their control over the content that travels over the Web.

It’s only recently that the well-heeled phone and cable lobby have been beaten back by a well-organized public. We are coming together in increasing numbers to see that these special interests are not allowed to set Internet policy for the nation.

The Internet’s true greatness lies in those of us who use its level playing field to challenge the status quo, create and share new innovation and ideas, take part in our democracy and connect with others around the world — without permission from any gatekeepers.

As we continue to mobilize to save the Internet, Washington should start to follow the public’s lead. Change may be on the horizon for American politics, and this recent FCC decision may have offered up our first glimpse.

Comcast tried to stop it. Telecom-funded politicians tried to discourage it. Big Media tried to de-legitimize it. But nothing could stop the people-powered movement to hold Comcast accountable for illegally blocking Internet content. Today, the FCC issued a punishment that has Network Neutrality opponents cringing and the rest of us popping champagne.

In a landmark decision, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein approved a bipartisan “enforcement order” that would require Comcast to stop blocking and publicly disclose its methods for manipulating Internet traffic.

Tests by the Associated Press and others showed that Comcast blocked users’ legal peer-to-peer transmissions by sending fake signals that cut off the connection between file-sharers. Today’s decision follows a months-long FCC investigation, launched in response to a complaint from Free Press and Public Knowledge urging the federal agency to stop Comcast’s blocking.

In response to the victory, Josh Silver, Free Press executive director, said: “Comcast’s history of deception and continued blocking shows brazen contempt for the online consumer protections established by the FCC. We commend Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein for standing up for internet users and working across party lines to protect free speech and the free market.”

Martin Stands with the People

Traditionally a friend to industry, even Martin couldn’t deny Comcast’s culpability.

In his statement this morning, Martin compared Comcast’s blocking practices to allowing the post office to discriminate against mail “Would you be OK with the post office opening your mail, deciding they didn’t want to bother delivering it, and hiding that fact by sending it back to you stamped ‘address unknown – return to sender?’” he asked. “Or if they opened letters mailed to you, decided that because the mail truck is full sometimes, letters to you could wait, and then hid both that they read your letters and delayed them?”

Despite the cable giant’s Hail Mary effort to shame and pressure Martin into bending to their will, Martin stuck by the wisdom that allowing ISPs to block and discriminate against online content is bad for America.

Today he stands with the public. Activists, bloggers, consumer advocates and everyday people have shown a relentless effort in lobbying the FCC to punish Comcast. The people who use and love the Internet have successfully brought Comcast to justice for trying to stifle consumer choice on the open Internet.

The Fight Continues

This precedent-setting victory sends a powerful message to phone and cable companies that breaking Net Neutrality rules will not be tolerated. And it marks a milestone in the fight to preserve a free and open Internet – and the first time the FCC has enforced the peoples’ right to see and hear what they want on the Internet without blocking or slowing down content.

This victory is monumental. But the fight to safeguard Net Neutrality is far from over.

Commissioner Copps recognized the struggle ahead, and called for the FCC to adopt a principle that commits the FCC to a policy of network openness. “A clearly stated commitment of nondiscrimination would make clear that the Commission is not having a one-night stand with net neutrality, but an affair of the heart and a commitment for life,” he said in a statement.

Already, more than 1.6 million people have contacted the FCC and Congress to protect Net Neutrality. The calls, petitions and e-mails must not stop. Now is the time to flood our policymakers with the message that we demand an open and free Internet now and always.