They Took Your Seat
On Monday this week, at Harvard, the FCC held a meeting on Comcast and Net Neutrality, a chance for the public to air its views over the issues.
Turns out a not so funny little thing happened on the way to the forum: Comcast tried to pack the meeting, going so far as paying people to come in and take up the spaces that could have been filled by concerned members of the public.
How big are the stakes in the so-called network neutrality debate now raging before Congress and federal regulators?
Consider this: One side in the debate actually went to the trouble of hiring people off the street to pack a Federal Communications Commission meeting yesterday--and effectively keep some of its opponents out of the room.Broadband giant Comcast--the subject of the F.C.C. hearing on network neutrality at the Harvard Law School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts--acknowledged that it did exactly that.
Trying to lock out the public is a great example of why we need net neutrality. If the other side will use their money to restrict public access to a public meeting, how can we feel confident they won't use their power to restrict voices in the virtual world?
And the company's response to the revelation doesn't exactly assuage that worry:
A number of people in the audience wore yellow highlighter marking pens on their shirts or jackets; Karr said that was to identify them to Comcast employees coordinating the company's appearance at the event. Khoury acknowledged that Comcast coordinated the employees that it brought to the hearing.
"For the past week, Free Press has engaged in a much more extensive campaign to lobby people to attend the hearing on its behalf," Khoury said.
The official response from this industry giant is to say that paying people to pack a hearing is simply a tit-for-tat response to the efforts of a grassroots organization of activists trying to make their voices heard. This is an outlook where money can overwhelm public participation, and where speech is a commodity not a sacred right of democracy.
The commercial success of the Internet, the entrepreneurship it has unleashed, has been because of its free and open architecture. The explosion of innovation that created boosted our national productivity and added untold billions to our national economy. To try to restrict the Internet would hamper the innovation still to come.
But even more important is the potential of the freedom on the Internet to transform our civic conversation - an effort we're watching right before our eyes. It's not a coincidence that my.barackobama.com has been the vehicle for millions to organize around the campaign of a firm supporter of net neutrality and the benefits of free and open information exchange. Freedom on the Internet is a core value for progressives, and it holds the potential for enormous advances in empowering citizens to take control of the political destiny of our country. Efforts like this by Comcast simply put in stark relief the importance of the fight for those values.
I'll be watching closely the future actions of these large companies around these hearings, and I'll continue to fight for more broadband access to an open, information-neutral Internet.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Capitalism has been taken to its most extreme in America, which is being destroyed by big business who care not for the average American citizen, but who instead only wish to line their pockets and inflate their companies stock. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are prime examples of how big business (energy) is dividing and destroying the country.
free speech? oh, hell no! Speech is a commodity, bought and sold by Corporatists.
Since the court ruled that money is free speech,
What part of free speech to the courts not understand?
Maybe we should insist that the meeting be held at a larger venue if people are turned away at the door. May I suggest the new, soon to be completed Cowboy's stadium, or Max Yasgur's farm? If that's their tactic, bleed them white. Besides, why not infiltrate the labor pool and get paid while you oppose net neutrality? Sure, they can fire you and take away your yellow marker, but it's not like they can eject you from the proceeding.
Sorry, meant support net neutrality.
I HATE comcast! They are the only cable provider in our area, they've managed to monopolize the area and squeeze out any competition. Disgusting.
I have really enjoyed Comcast and their bundled services of cable tv with "On Demand," digital phone and high speed ISP. Also, when you call them you actually get to talk with a human customer service person and they are always REALLY nice people. They have twice lowered my bill without loss of services because I asked. That's a good company. However, if I learn that they are hurting freedom of speech on the internet, I will drop them like a hot potato. Tv is not that good for you anyway. I can get a cheaper phone and ISP,and we have other cable companies with similar services available hereabouts, anyway.
Yeah and Bush took your seat, John.
BTW, Kerry, since Massachusetts went for Hillary aren't you now compelled to cast your superduperdelagate vote for her or does that mandate only apply to poor old John Lewis?
Bet I already know the answer.
right on, piezoid!
HRC beat BO by more than 15 points in MA. who is hounding kerry and kennedy, the was lewis was, to switch their votes???
Senator Clinton herself, in her first comments on this issue afterSenator Obama said that the superdelegates should vote as the pledged delegates did, immediately targeted Senators Kerry and Kennedy. In doing this she twisted Obama's words to mean the voters of their district rather than the total national result of the pledged delegates.
Piezoid, though this is not the topic of the OP,
Here is the comment that Senator Kerry gave when the issue of the superdelegates potentially awarding the nomination to the loser of the pledged count arose.
"''My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates -- insiders, establishment politicians -- to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates,'' Mr. Kerry said."
http://que
This is the answer he has stuck with since then. It is far truer to everything he has ever stood for than a pledge to blindly vote as the state of MA did. Here's why.
Assume the Senator Obama wins the pledged delegate count by say 100. Then assume that all pledged delegates who are elected officials vote as their district or state did. Those votes are likely to be distributed much as the the pledged ones are. So, who does that leave. The PARTY INSIDERS, many put in place or owing something to the Clintons.
If this happened, and Senator Kerry helped it by blindly voting as MA did he would be an accomplish to the insiders theft of the nomination from the one who won it. That is why the stand he gave the NYT (and others) is a far better answer. (It is not inconsistent that the Obama campain is courting the superdelegates just as the Clinton campaign is - it would be stupid if they didn't when the other side was.)
How dare Comcast use the tactics perfected by liberals! The nerve!
Do you have any evidence that "liberals" paid their employees to pack a meeting so that the public couldn't get in? No the head honcho of Comcast saying that liberals encourage people to attend meetings is not the same.
I know you are, but what am I?
This old lady is so glad that she has the computer, email and the availability of most of the news from many different sources. As I learn, I find more and more "links" that give me a larger "overview" of this election process, opinions and angles to the issues. I find I can get more out of the news on line without the "talking heads". There are a couple on CNN that I agree with but oft' times they just repeat and repeat and repeat....
we have to stop this, everyone. big money, big corp is wagering that their deep pockets can outflank the common person.
Remember, both radio and TV promised to be the ultimate democratic medium until the corporations found their way in. It can happen to the internet too. STOP THEM. CALL YOUR REPRESENTIVES IN CONGRESS! WRITE LETTERS TO THEM. WRITE THE FCC.
I'm in the 4th month of a 6 month Comcast special ($19.95 per month for broadband). Are they making money at even that low rate? Or should I finish the period before I dump them? And when I dump them, are their competitors (Knology & ATT) equally loathsome?
ATT? ATT!? Are you kidding? ATT is perhaps the worst of the worst. Hell's bells, they are the heart and soul of warrantless spying on Americans in contravention of the laws that they themselves helped to write! Dump Comcast, most assuredly, but do not make the mistake of jumping into bed with a criminal organization like ATT! That pretty much limits you to Knology.
I hate to say it but sometime you have to pay more for conscience.
The Internet is the only truly free method of public communication left. The equivalent in some ways of the political leaflets posted on walls in Revolutionary War times. The Briitish hated these and if posters were caught they were often hanged for sedition.
The attempt to take away net neutrality is not much different. With apologies to my friends in England, guess who the "British" are in this battle?
IMHO the best thing that can be done presently is to resist all government regulation of the internet. Yes, some government officials (perhaps Senator John Kerry) may have the best interests of the public at heart, but when the net becomes regulated we play into the hands of the moneyed interests.
With a regulated net who will be able to hire the best lawyers to interpret the law to the benefit of their clients, certainly not Mr. Joe Citizen? The nascent power of the net which is manifest by grassroot campaigns could be stifled by government regulation.
I agree. It threatens their control.
Information is the coin of the future and they want it all.
It surprises me how much privacy the Government insists for it's affairs, while trying to exert control over citizen's communications.
I'm sure Sen. Kerry is not reading this, but I'll pretend he is:
Dear Senator: Since you and your fellow senators seem to have absolutely no power over Comcast and other companies hostile to consumers' rights, perhaps you could use some of your personal wealth to help build a lawsuit against these muthas.
Or better yet, we the people need to organize some boycotts. I suspect people would rather give up their rights than their cable, but until these huge conglomerates are threatened with loss of revenue, they are going to do exactly what they want to do. And the good Senator and his colleagues will continue to write opinion pieces like this, rather than instituting hearings to get rid of people like the little tyrant running the FCC.
Our government
Dear Senator Kerry, I am also pretending that you are reading this duplex packet switched communication.
It is possible for any two parties to communicate securely and to absolutely certify each others identity via the net. I could send you my personal information that has been encrypted with my secret passphrase along with my public encryption key. You use software and my public key to decrypt the information and if you have any doubts about my true identity then you can contact me via registered mail, etc.
Using the above as an example, what's to prevent me from voting in this manner? If the system is set up correctly it would be possible for me to verify my vote at a later date using my secret passphrase.
UK courts require citizens to reveal a passphrase in order to decrypt files. If a defendant does not comply then they are subjected to a prison term of 5 years. In the case of a person with encrypted kiddie p&rn on his computer and subject to a sentence of 20 years, its better not to reveal the passphrase and to accept the lesser sentence.
Now in case you're wondering what's my passphrase is, "Nittenau, wo der Himmel ist immer blau!". Now, all the super computers at the NSA couldn't decrypt my communications, but they may be able to waterboard it out of me.
One person, one passphrase and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination could serve as the basis for an incorruptible society without RFID tags and a National I.D.
Food for thought. Good post.
Yeah, but having ONE well placed loyal Bushie in the way of the majority, like Kevin Martin, overrides ANY opposition, regardless of public hearings. Him and Colin Powell's idiot son, Colin W. Powell (I mean Michael Powell) should be publically embarrassed somehow on Youtube.
The next level of absurdity beyond the balance vs objectivity argument. Now it's ok to justify deliberate censorship as "balance" to activists trying to get the word out.
What will happen once they get their wish and become the information gatekeepers, and we no longer even have the tools to know what they're doing? What are they capable of justifying when noone's able to watch?
I think it's pretty damn scary that Net Neutrality is as fragile as it is.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was and still is a bad bill. Thanks President Clinton.
Go John, John go...Net neutrality is the only free and fair way to keep the NET. No more cable companies deciding free speech. The revolution is here and it's on the NET. The net has empowered people like no other medium since the printing press. A free society is not a corporate one! Corporate society is scared as George Carlin put it (paraphrasing) doesn't want you to think, to be educated, to be free. Only smart enough to operate the machines.
Well they're too late the revolution has started without them and let's keep it that way! It's blow back time for the corporations what they sowed they reaped themselves. Don't blame me I voted for Kerry in 04...Bush fools got what they deserved at our expensive.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
