Internet Users Stop Comcast, Net Neutrality Win on the Horizon

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is taking action against Comcast for illegally violating Net Neutrality, after a coalition of Net users and activists caught the cable giant blocking open access to the Internet.

Martin told the Associated Press last night that Comcast had "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access and failed to disclose to consumers what it was doing. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

Topolski Ignites the Fire

The move is the agency's response to a complaint filed by Free Press and members of SavetheInternet.com, which called for severe action against Comcast for jamming people using popular "file-sharing" applications. But the story goes back further than that.

Organized People Beat Organized Money

Martin's action -- to be voted on by the full FCC in three weeks - would be a major milestone for the growing open Internet movement, marking another defeat of entrenched corporate interests in Washington and a stunning victory for ordinary people who want to control their Internet experience.

If adopted by the FCC, Martin's order could set an historic precedent for protecting the future of the open Internet. Against every ounce of conventional wisdom in Washington, everyday citizens and consumer advocates have taken on a major corporation and won a major victory.

The decision follows nearly a year of organizing and action by a growing alliance of bloggers, Internet innovators, consumer groups, organizations from across the political spectrum, and Net activists from all walks of life.

In that time, tens of thousands of people wrote the FCC in support of Net Neutrality after Free Press filed its complaint against Comcast and asked the agency to levy the largest fine in its history.

Comcast's "Shame"

Hundreds of others packed public hearings to speak out against would-be gatekeepers (even after Comcast notoriously attempted to keep them out by hiring drowsy seat warmers in Boston).

The Power of One

But it all started with one person. When barbershop quartet enthusiast Robb Topolski found Comcast was preventing him from sharing legal music files with other fans, he took to his computer and launched a one-man investigation.

Topolski uncovered conclusive evidence that Comcast was secretly blocking his uploads. His concerns echoed those of hundreds of other Comcast users, who had taken to the blogs and chat rooms to express their dismay.

He posted his findings on a single tech blog. This had a cascading effect, and soon dozens of others were writing about his findings. The Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation conducted their own investigations with similar results. The evidence was indisputable: Comcast was blocking the Internet.

The wheels of government started churning. This time for the better.

The Fight Continues

Martin's move is a major victory. But this fight is far from over. His order has yet to pass, though it seems likely. The cable companies -- and the phone companies, too, even though they're trying to distance themselves from Comcast -- will be back with their money, lawyers and phony grassroots groups to try to take control of the Internet and establish themselves as gatekeepers.

Companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Washington to gut Net Neutrality and hand over control of the Internet to them. But they so far have failed to overcome widespread and organized public opposition.

Today we can celebrate a huge victory for real people, but we need to continue this fight to send a clear signal to the next Congress and White House that standing with regular people for a free and open Internet is a winning proposition.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[ObamAtomic]

Next ....ATT

[nellie]

This is amazing news. I've been following, and participating in, the net neutrality fight with a lot of skepticism. I really didn't believe the public had a chance against the big telecoms with the Bush Administration at the helm of the FCC. This is extremely encouraging. Keeping my fingers crossed until some legislation goes through.

[Paw1]

What victory? The FCC is almost completely toothless in this and most other respects. Net Neutrality is not law yet; thus, there's no law to enforce. To paraphrase Robin Williams, it's like the British policeman without a gun, yelling to the fleeing criminal, "Stop! or I'll say 'Stop' again!".

Comcast will argue that they need "reasonable" methods to control traffic for ALL users, not just those evil file sharers that everyone knows steal copyrighted material. Until Net Neutrality is the law of the land, this is just a meaningless press release.

[Timothy Karr - Huffpost Blogger]

It's more than just that Paw1.

The FCC has made a clear statement in favor of Net Neutrality, and against the type of discriminatory “network management” that Comcast first claimed wasn’t happening at all.

After being shown that it was, Comcast heralded such blocking as normal and acceptable procedure — something that was beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC. Not so.

Martin told reporters today that Comcast should be sanctioned for failing to engage in “reasonable” management of its network. This was a clean victory for Net Neutrality. There now are solid prospects that the agency will make the order enforceable when the five commissioners meet on Aug 1.

But it goes beyond Comcast.

What this would mean is that the Internet is a mass medium with a legal guarantee of access without your network provider blocking or degrading your connection. This is a precedent-setting moment, that has sent a powerful warning shot across the bow of all ISPs that harbor gatekeeper ambitions.

Free Press’ filings have made it clear that our number one priority is putting an end to the harmful blocking by a date certain, in order to protect a free-flowing Internet and to stop companies like Comcast from getting between us and what we want to do on the Web.

We will soon have grounds to bring similar complaints to the FCC’s attention, and confidence that the agency will take action.

[Paw1]

I hear you, Timothy, but whether the FCC favors this or anything else is mostly irrelevant until there is an enforcable law or set-in-stone licensing procedure that forces ISP's to act appropriately. A mere "sanction" will be vigorously fought by the ISP's, both in court and by their well paid lobbyists. Hell, it took CBS 2.5 years to pay the FCC fine for the Super Bowl half time show and they're still appealing it to this day in federal court. And what does sanction mean in this context anyway? A fine that the ISP's will appeal as well?

I applaud any and all efforts to make Net Neutrality a true set of laws. Unfortunately, most of our elected officials don't understand or care what that means.

[falco]

Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/canada_net_censorship.html

This could be of interest. The goal is to have the internet censored by 2010. Information for most will be cost prohibitive, the bass turds. Spread the news, maybe we have enough time to do something about it.

"The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether."

[myimoto]

Investigative reports show Comcast may be aware that their Digital set top boxes order Porn without the consumers consent

http://www.babelation.com/?q=node/622

[jvarga]

I wonder how long until comcast raises all of our rates as a reward for this :P

[3arthling]

On the bright side, at least you'll be getting what you pay for, instead of subsidizing the activities of censors at ClownCast.

[westwind]

An energized citizenry informed by an open internet that is free of manipulation by its major providers and participants is our last hope of saving democracy.

This might sound like hyperbole, but the corporate media is so inherently biased towards money and entrenched power, that only in an forum where everyone has an opportunity to participate and learn, and where both individuals and organizations can be judged on the quality of their ideas and not the size of their megaphones, can the person without extraordinary political access influence the debate.

Of course, even on a flat playing field, the name recognition advertising and public relations of major news organizations, ISPs and political entities gives those groups a decided advantage, but only in a fairly regulated and open internet can people receive the full range of news and ideas without feeling that things are being concealed, and make up their minds accordingly.