Thanks!

Will Mike McCurry be called as a witness for consumers in their class action lawsuit against Comcast for blocking and degrading its broadband customers’ access to legal Internet content downloaded via BitTorrent?

Here’s why I ask: in response to my earlier Huffington and SaveTheInternet blog post, Does Big Media’s One-Two Punch Knock Out the Internet?, “Hands Off the Internet,” the mega-bucks anti-Net Neutrality lobbying group co-chaired by McCurry and funded by Verizon, AT&T, etc., writes:

Jonathan Rintels writes this week at SaveTheInternet that Net Neutrality is “a requirement that broadband Internet consumers be permitted to access the lawful content of their choice.” We agree. But if that’s the definition, then this Net Neutrality fight is over since consumers already have that right.

But Comcast was caught red-handed blocking and degrading ALL content using the BitTorrent service, including a file containing the very legal, public domain, un-pirated King James Bible, as well as legit un-pirated legal video from Big Media stalwarts Viacom, Fox, Warners, and others.

It’s not very comforting that McCurry’s “Hands Off the Internet” now claims that consumers already have the right to access the lawful content of their choice over the broadband Internet, so that additional government consumer protection is not needed, when Comcast’s actions so obviously demonstrate the very opposite.

What Comcast did to BitTorrent proves that without further government action to mandate Net Neutrality, consumers are at the mercy of the broadband ISPs and do not have the right to access the lawful content of their choice over the broadband Internet.

So, if McCurry is called to testify on behalf of consumers’ rights in their class action against Comcast, would he be what lawyers call a “hostile witness?”

What a surprise to open today’s Wall Street Journal (well, click on it anyway) and see that Comcast and BitTorrent are suddenly BFF.

Apparently, all Comcast’s blocking, lying, blocking, denying, blocking, seat-filling, blocking, snubbing its nose at the FCC, and more blocking was just a big misunderstanding.

According to the companies’ joint press release: “Comcast Corporation and BitTorrent, Inc. announced today that they will undertake a collaborative effort with one another and with the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with rich media content and network capacity management.”

Oh, and did they mention? “Both BitTorrent and Comcast expressed the view that these technical issues can be worked out through private business discussions without the need for government intervention.”

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but there still might be a few loose ends.

Here’s Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, who wrote the complaint that sparked the FCC investigation:

This agreement does nothing to protect the many other peer-to-peer companies from blocking, nor does it protect future innovative applications and services. Finally, it does nothing to prevent other phone and cable companies from blocking. Innovators should not have to negotiate side deals with phone and cable companies to operate without discrimination. The Internet has always been a level playing field, and we need to keep it that way.

And he’s far from alone in questioning the Comcast-BitTorrent love affair. Here’s Nicholas Reville of the Participatory Culture Foundation, whose Miro Internet TV application is one of the fastest-growing BitTorrent clients in the world:

Comcast is taking a page right out of the auto industry playbook: Car companies deny the importance of global warming while using announcements of future technology to block meaningful environmental protections. Comcast can see that public demands for Net Neutrality protections are growing — this announcement is a transparent attempt to distract from that debate. The announcement from Comcast and BitTorrent Inc has absolutely nothing to do with the need for Net Neutrality protections, and BitTorrent Inc certainly does not speak for other torrent technology companies.

And even FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seems skeptical of the new P2Peace agreement:

I hope that the negotiations to which Comcast commits today will result in a solution that preserves consumers’ ability to access any lawful Internet content and applications of their choice. That ability is fundamental to preserving the open marketplace and innovation that characterizes the Internet.

I am concerned, though, that Comcast has not made clear when they will stop this discriminatory practice. It appears this practice will continue throughout the country until the end of the year and in some markets, even longer. While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn’t stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications. Comcast should provide its broadband customers as well as the Commission with a commitment of a date certain by when it will stop this practice.

The FCC is holding a hearing at Stanford on April 17. Be sure to get there early!

If you’ve been following the news of Monday’s FCC hearing at Harvard on Comcast’s Internet blocking, you’ve probably heard the story of how Comcast hired people to fill up the hearing room — which left everyone else out in the cold.

You might think you know the story, but you ain’t heard nothin’ yet.

This week’s Media Minutes podcast includes more responses from the audience — both Comcast employees and the seat-fillers. And we hear from those who were shut out of the hearing.

Listen to Media Minutes >>

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.

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.

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

Reprinted with permission from the Guardian

There’s a classic scene in The Matrix, where Morpheus (the Laurence Fishburne character) offers Neo (played by Keanu Reeves), a fateful choice.

He holds out two pills. Take the blue pill, he says, and you go back to a life of clock-punching drudgery where your every move is monitored. Take the red one, and you get spaceships, kung-fu and a leather-clad Carrie-Anne Moss.

Take away the martial arts, and Morpheus could just as well be describing the monumental choice Americans are facing today over the future of the Internet. Only it’s not science fiction.

Over the next few years, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission and the next president will shape the Internet for a generation. Down one path is a closed Internet experience tightly controlled by a small handful of giant corporations. Down the other is the open Internet, with all its possibilities.

Closed for Business

Who wants you to swallow the blue pill? Meet the nation’s biggest telecom and cable companies, a cartel that dominates 99% of the U.S. residential market for high-speed Internet access. These firms — led by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to exploit their gatekeeper power to decide what you can do on the web.

That’s not what they say in their ubiquitous ads, of course. But watch their actions closely — or squint at the fine print in the terms of service — and you’ll get a glimpse of their plans.

These companies are lobbying furiously to kill “Network Neutrality,” the longstanding principle that prevents them from discriminating against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination.

Comcast was recently caught blocking users of file-sharing services, cutting off access to legal content — including a download of the King James Bible. Their “network management” is really just an attempt to undercut potential competitors in the video business, while avoiding sorely needed network upgrades.

Verizon censored text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its own members. Only after the incident appeared on the front page of the New York Times did Verizon correct its “glitch” and let the messages go through.

AT&T plans to “filter” content to ferret out pirated material on its networks. The company - the same one seeking retroactive immunity for spying on your phone calls - would use copyright protection as a Trojan horse to inspect everything travelling over its pipes and control how audio and video are distributed on the Web.

The Open Road

An open Internet looks quite different. It starts with Net Neutrality, which guarantees a level playing field and gives the little guy the same chance as Google to come up with the next big thing. (Remember, it wasn’t Comcast or AT&T that invented YouTube, blogs, eBay or almost anything else that makes the internet so great.) On an open Internet, a provider’s only job is to move data — not degrade, inspect or censor content.

An open Internet also means more competition and choices. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has abandoned the “open access” requirements that once forced telecom companies to share their wires to ensure a competitive market. When it comes to broadband, most U.S. consumers now are lucky to have two choices: the phone or the cable company. Contrast this with the dozens of providers competing for your business overseas. No wonder Americans pay far more for slower speeds than consumers in Europe and Asia.

We need to open up the wireless networks, too. Mobile devices are how many of us will access the Internet in the future. But U.S. consumers are shackled with punitive, long-term contracts as new technology is kept behind walled gardens. (If you want an iPhone, your only option is to sign up with AT&T.) Why can’t we use any phone or software we want on all networks?

The answer comes down to policy decisions - mostly bad ones. For too long, our policies have been crafted behind closed doors by high-priced lobbyists and clueless politicians. It’s scandalous that we’ve reached this critical juncture without a truly public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like.

Taking it Public

Instead of aiding and abetting another massive giveaway to the phone and cable companies, our legislators and regulators need to get outside Washington. We need old-fashioned town meetings and online forums about the Internet’s future in every state, if not every congressional district.

Unless you’re a phone or cable company executive, it’s hard to imagine anyone who opposes universal, affordable access to an open internet for everyone. Already, nearly 2 million people have contacted Congress and the FCC about the once-obscure issue of Net Neutrality. Can you think of another issue that unites MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition, PETA and the Gun Owners of America, Amazon.com and the American Library Association?

Putting an open Internet on the national agenda this election year and into 2009 will require an unusual combination of dedicated politicians, high-tech companies that see beyond their own narrow interests, and innovative grassroots organising online and off. And we can count on the phone and cable giants — with their limitless lobbying budgets and bulging campaign coffers — to put up a fight.

But as Morpheus once said: “I didn’t say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.”

Comcast’s new “terms of service,” which were quietly issued last week, remove any doubt about who the cable and broadband giant is looking out for — and it’s not the customer.

On Jan. 25, the company released its “revised and effective” terms for Internet users with lots of restrictions and new limitations — but little fanfare. No press release. No announcement to customers.

Guest Post by Marvin Ammori, Free Press General Counsel

Just a Web-accessible document that, fortunately for me, was forwarded by networking guru Robb Topolski. Upon reading the document Comcast’s relative silence becomes clear. Why publicize a limited and throttled service when you are pitching “unlimited” Internet access to your customers?

After having been caught lying to users and the press for years, Comcast is now basically saying: Our network sucks, and we can block your peer-to-peer connections — and everything else — for any or no reason. And since the FCC’s competition policy lets us operate with no competitors — where else are you going to go?

But wait, there’s more:

1. Comcast thinks you’re a virus.

Comcast says it needs to manage its network to protect users from “the negative effects of spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service.” Let’s put this is plain English:

As a Comcast customer, you pay $40-$60 for what’s been sold as a 6 Mbps unlimited service. Let’s forget that you’re overpaying compared to European and Asian countries for speeds that are 20-to-100 times slower.

If you want to use Comcast’s service as it has been advertised, you’ll be treated like spam or a virus. You are like a security attack to them. Instead of using the Comcast service as it has been billed, send Comcast your monthly check and, I don’t know, read a book. Watch a play. Just don’t use the network you paid for. Because Comcast can’t handle the load.

2. Comcast throws its buddies under the bus.

Comcast is taking a lot of heat. The FCC is investigating the company after blocking complaints from consumers and a petition filed by public interest advocates.

The FCC responded by asking for public comments before they determine a course of action. More than 15,000 Americans have already weighed in, most complaining about Comcast’s blocking a wide range of applications — including the popular peer-to-peer services offered by BiTorrent and others.

Comcast’s excuse? The company says its practices are “consistent with industry standards.” It claims that many Internet providers “use the same or similar tools that Comcast does.”

This is called the first-grader defense: If caught stealing candy, be sure to blame others kids for doing the same. Most adults wouldn’t try this excuse. But if you give millions in campaign contributions and support an army of connected lobbyists, you might just think you can get away with it in Washington.

What’s lurking behind Comcast’s defense is even more alarming. Comcast could be right that content discrimination is industry-wide. If so, the FCC should begin with Comcast and then dig deeper — start investigating the “content-shaping” practices of the phone and cable duopoly that control 96 percent of America’s residential broadband market.

3. Comcast violates its own terms of service.

One of Comcast’s 12 “conduct restrictions” states that users can’t “impersonate any person or entity, engage in sender address falsification, forget anyone else’s digital or manual signature.” But this is a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do.”

To block protocols, Comcast and its vendors impersonate both the sender and the receiver — dressing themselves up as the user to transmit a message that breaks off the connection.

Imagine if the operator were to break into your phone call, impersonate your voice, tell your mother you didn’t want to talk with her, and hang up the receiver. Comcast thinks that would be “reasonable” — even though it’s in direct violation of the company’s own terms of service.

4. Comcast sucks: please use our product less.

In its new terms of service, Comcast essentially admits that it has built its product poorly and lied to customers about “unfettered,” “always-on” access. It states that it must “temporarily delay peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion.” Let’s unpack this. “Delaying” is a lie. What Comcast is doing is terminating connections.

The company calls it “delaying” on the assumption that users will try to connect at a later time — but when you’re “delayed” for three hours, do you stay at your computer hitting refresh over and over? Some peer-to-peer applications just give up after a delay.

But Comcast isn’t just delaying peer-to-peer sessions — it’s delaying sessions using “other” applications and protocols. Translation: “We block whatever we want, whenever. And we say that it’s OK for us to do this … on page five of our online terms of service.”

Finally, what are periods of “high network congestion?” If Comcast’s network could handle more traffic, there’d be few times of the day with congestion. But when you have a crappy network, “network congestion” is “always-on.”

We’ve seen no evidence that Comcast is only blocking during periods of congestion. We’ve seen Comcast blocking any time and at random — even attempts to upload small files such as the King James Bible.

Also, users are also forbidden from — intentionally or unintentionally – “generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others’ ability to use, send, or retrieve information.” This makes no sense. In general, cable users in a local area “share” the same bandwidth, so generating any traffic at all impacts other users trying to use the network.

Let’s be honest — it’s Comcast, not users, impeding other users. Comcast says “network resources are not unlimited.” But it is Comcast that didn’t build a network robust enough to handle how consumers now want to use the Internet. We’ve left the 20th century.

The reality is that Comcast should have invested in a better network with more capacity. It’s time for the cable giant to come clean that what it’s selling isn’t the real Internet — it’s the crippled Comcastic version.

5. Comcast censors free speech.

The “conduct restrictions” in Comcast’s terms of service could fill the syllabus of a law school course on the First Amendment. Comcast forbids users from sending “libelous” or “threatening” material, or material “which infringes the intellectual property rights of any person.”

Another restriction forbids users from disseminating information a “reasonable person” would consider indecent. If the government were imposing these vague, undefined, restrictions, based on a “reasonable person,” the terms would be struck down — with Justices Alito, Thomas, and Breyer arm-in-arm — as flagrant violations of freedom of speech.

But because the government has “deregulated” Internet delivery, private companies like AT&T (which spies on Americans for the government) and Comcast can censor speech. In the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, government cannot “inject federally authorized private censors into forums from which they might otherwise be excluded, and … therefore limit local forums that might otherwise be open to all constitutionally protected speech.”

The bottom line is that we can’t trust Comcast — or any other Internet service provider — with the future of the Internet. And we shouldn’t have to.

Net Neutrality supporters just won a new round in the fight to keep the Internet free of corporate gatekeepers like Comcast.

Over the past three months, more than 23,000 SavetheInternet.com activists sent letters to the Federal Communications Commission demanding an end to Comcast’s practice of blocking peer-to-peer traffic on its network.

Earlier this week the FCC came through, announcing that it would investigate an official complaint made by several SavetheInternet.com Coalition organizational members about this clear violation of Net Neutrality.

The agency is now seeking public comment in the face of mounting evidence of this blocking. (The commission also asked for comment on complaints by SavetheInternet.com members Free Press and Public Knowledge about Verizon Communications’ recent blocking of text messaging.)

The FCC will consider the public response before it decides whether to punish Comcast for filtering Web traffic.

Please take a moment to tell the FCC to put an immediate stop to content blocking by any ISP.

A Non-Neutral Comcast

Late last year, the Associated Press caught Comcast secretly using Web filtering technologies similar to those used in China to censor the Internet. AP called the violation “the most drastic example yet of data discrimination.”

In November, Free Press and other open Internet advocates filed a petition with the FCC calling for urgent action to stop Comcast’s Internet blocking. Tens of thousands of activists sent letters to the agency in support of our petition.

Until now, 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.

Make an Example of the Gatekeeper

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 open Internet protections. Public pressure is now forcing the FCC to act.

Comcast’s meddling with user content is the canary in the coal mine for corporate efforts to control the Internet. The FCC must send a stern message to stop other phone and cable companies that want to follow Comcast’s lead.

Blocking access to the Internet should never be tolerated. The longer the FCC waits to punish Comcast, the more companies will continue to invest in technologies to censor and manipulate what we can do online.