In Boston: A Shot Heard 'Round the Internet

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

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

Comcast's Sleeper Cell

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

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

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

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

What Problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting Gatekeepers Out of Our Way

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

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

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

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

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

We're the Deciders

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

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

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

Comments

[Badbone]

It’s important to realize that what Comcast is doing is not simple filtering, but something much, much worse. Comcast is doing something called forging RST packets.
Imagine you were having a telephone conversation with someone. Your phone company is listening in to your conversation, so they hear both of you talking, and what you are talking about.
Suddenly, they hear something they don’t want you to discuss. The phone company has determined they don’t like the conversation you are having. So, they break in to the conversation. And using your voice and without your consent, tell the other person, “I can’t talk about that. Goodbye” And hang up the phone.
Can you imagine your phone company doing that? Actually impersonating your voice! Using their technology to fake your voice, perfectly, in order to trick the person you were talking to. Just imagine that!
Well, you don’t have to imagine it. Because it is exactly what Comcast is doing. Forging RST (connection reset) packets.
When Comcast determines you are downloading a file they don’t agree with, they connect to the server you are getting the file from, impersonate you, and send a “close this connection” message.
This is not “filtering”. This is criminal impersonation. Comcast is engaging in behavior that would result in criminal charges. If someone was doing it to them, that is. As it stands, Comcast is able to get away with their behavior due to their monopoly status and the technical difficulty of the problem.
But please don’t let the tech stuff get in the way. “Filtering” is a red herring. “Illegal downloads” is a red herring. It’s not about copyright. It’s about Comcast’s criminal behavior. It’s about the fact that Comcast doesn’t want to have to upgrade their infrastructure, and because they are a monopoly, they don’t have to. For a big company like Comcast, it’s easier to just break the law, deny it with their last breath, and pay the fine if caught. Beats working!
What Comcast is doing is quite simply this: Illegally impersonating you in order to fraudulently stop downloads of a kind that they don’t like.
It is wrong. It is illegal. And Comcast must be stopped from continuing. Fining them 10 years worth of revenue, and putting whoever thought of this scheme in prison, would be a nice start.

[Gatormouth]

Yes, for a variety of reasons media (and other) corporation decision makers (not the corporations themselves, of course, corporations are not persons and can not think) are trying to press their own agendas and resent being regulated "for the public good". They have the money, and they buy the politicians who write the laws they want and appoint federal judges and U.S. attorneys who will "enforce" the laws their way.

These captains of industry for the most part are not interested in any issue other than their own profit. Even their own corporation's welfare is secondary to their own. They have little interest in the security or prosperity of their own country and its people, and they like to think they are in control. The problem is, they attract a form of government that uses their greed to impose its own agenda of securing power.

The corporations, blinded by self interest, wind up dependent upon this kind of government and become it's willing servants. The voting population is duped by so called wedge issues of little real meaning to those in search of wealth and power, and the real agenda remains hidden. The nation is then bled of it's prosperity and the people reduced to serfs serving an oligarchy. At the top is the party, unifying and controlling all of the segments of society. Even religions may be given power by the state to seduce their willing cooperation. That kind of describes Italy in 1920's, doesn't it?

[cylindar]

I fail to understand your point about allowing copyright violators to do what they want. I think they should be prosecuted and shut off.

[HFh]

It is no more the job of AT&T to do this than it is of AT&T to listen to my phone calls to determine if I'm talking about committing a crime.

[TakeSake]

It seems you would be fine with your tax or accounting software ratting you out for not reporting that nickel you picked up off the street.

Can you guarantee that every report would be correct? What is the recourse if a report is not correct? How do you determine the difference between piracy and fair-use? How do you determine the difference between pirated content and legally purchased online content? Whose content is checked? Whose content is not checked? Which content is checked - only the content that is owned by that media group, or all content?

[Gatormouth]

Right, neighborhood wardens would be even more efficient at this.

[research]

It's any excuse to filter and spy.

[Deidroni]

Thank you for the important information about comcast and other internet providers.

Which internet provider is the best in terms of net neutrality protection?

I'd like to quit using comcast. Please suggest an alternative.

[mcthorogood]

That's the problem. Some people have no choice which ISP to choose. Basically there is DSL, cable, or satellite.

DSL requires the subscriber to have a landline, within a certain distance of the telephone switching office. DSL is usually only available in urban areas.

Cable requires either a hard cable connection or line of sight from the last tower.

For those people, who don't live close enough to the telephone office or don't have cable, the only other option is satellite, which requires a clear view to the south.

The above factors limit the number of providers. Each provider may have restrictions on bandwidth consumption, etc.

[glitzqueen]

I endorse most of what you say, but you don't go nearly far enough when calling the Internet "this most democratic of media". In fact, it's the only medium left that hasn't yet been at least 90% perverted by big money.

If the corporatists gain control here, too, we're deep-fried. Where could we possibly learn and tell the truth, if they choose to censor their opposition? All that would remain are few liberal magazines and radio stations that would lose their present reach without the Net and revert to being tiny coteries talking to themselves.

[Shaddup]

The most telling phrase in the article is when you refer to "twentieth century business models." That is exactly what the telecoms are, in an effort to maintain their own power they will end up putting the US behind the rest of the world, and stunt innovations for everyone. At this point these innotvations are the eventual merging of business, societal, social and electronic networking. These people don't know how to make a growth industry out of information because the information is more valuable than the format itself.

[Oldchef]

It's way past time to get the antitrust actions moving. This administration seems to have abandoned the principle entirely.

[dexxjones]

if they can sell off huge swaths of land in texas and build a road that's owned by corporations from another country, even though 90% of the citizens affected are loudly protesting, i cannot imagine that we will be able to keep the internet for long.

we need better anti-trust enforcement and we need to send a message to the telecoms and cable companies that they will be dismantled brick by brick if they continue to try and kill our freedom. thats the only language they will understand.

[research]

The Robber Barons Are Back!

[mcthorogood]

Control is rooted in the concept of corporate personhood and perpetual charters. Since the emancipation of the slaves, corporations have been declared legal persons with all the rights of immortal human beings. As a result wealth continues to accumulate and concentrate in corporations ad infinitum.

Welcome to the Corptocracy of the United States of America.