Op Ed: Comcast a Bunch of Hipocrites

At an open FCC net neutrality hearing held at Harvard Law School on February 26, broadband company Comcast shamelessly paid employees to wait in line and fill seats in order to give the illusion of strong support for an already questionable cause. Comcast is desperate to justify what most are calling unreasonable network management, where the company targets and disconnects BitTorrent users, without notice or explanation. Daniel Weitzner, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Decentralized Information Group explained, “These are techniques that hackers would use to deny service to any application on the web.”

Comcast's actions are wrong for a number of reasons: Most importantly, there is a large discrepancy between the company's words and actions - In 2007, Comcast told The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press it would not interfere with users' ability to run file sharing applications over its network, specifically noting BitTorrent. Despite saying this, they have since been caught actively disconnecting BitTorrent users, and have thus incited the FCC's interests into their actions. Users have a right to know just what type of actions their Internet Service Provider(ISP) is using against them, and the information is only beginning to surface.

Secondly, it is completely out of Comcast's jurisdiction to police internet traffic. Competing broadband companies like Verizon and AT&T have already clearly stated they will take no such role in monitoring users for bandwidth usage and content. The philosophy entails letting people fileshare freely, while letting the government takes care of violators. For some reason, Comcast feels compelled to resist the paradigm shift and play the vigiliante.

The unreliability of a network will surely stifle web application innovation, causing developers to take a conservative stance in order to anticipate unknown “network management” effects. In fact, at the hearing they were accused of trying to eliminate “competition by blocking the delivery of rival video-on-demand services over its cable system.” If Comcast remains on the same course, they surely could not advertise as offering the same type of robust service other ISP's do.

Comcast argues that certain network management is needed due to the expensive costs of upgrading a system to handle increased user load. Of course certain management is needed, but what is reasonable? Where is the line drawn? Comcast already has the infrastructure for cable and on-demand services, but they aren't fully utilizing it. Furthermore, where other companies look to expansion to accommodate increased user needs, Comcast disconnects certain users to keep a balanced bandwidth.

Comcast has not yet been forced to change because the situation is almost totally unprecedented, and it carries large implications down the road regarding net-neutrality litigation. The issue emphasizes the importance of having some sort of regulation to set a standard for Internet Service Providers.

The company's actions at the meeting further expose their surreptitious nature. It's not wrong to organize people to rally, but perhaps hiring them to is over line. Comcast's fraudulent representation at the FCC hearing serves as a symbol of their dishonesty towards the general public and internet users alike. Their gestapo style regulation and feigned popularity resemble the tightening grip of a failing despot.

Must we draw a line?

In the battle for net neutraliy, there are no neutral parties. For this two sided debate, each side carries a double edged sword. The current debate is reminiscent of the lasseiz-faire argument earlier in America's history that also focused on regulation and government intervention in big business. Though to many it seems ideal to have an unrestricted flow of information while allowing the large companies to do as they please, some problems are evident. By allowing the large internet companies to run free, we may see the microsoft anti-trust dilemma resurface with Google, Time Warner, or any other telecomm/net conglomerate. With the ability to takeover threatening companies and boycott competing apps, it is more than feasible that a company aquire a monopolistic market share. A proposed legislation would force a minimum amount of internet service providers in order to avoid such a situation. Also, legislation may be used to promote innovation of internet services and technology to ensure a high quality of service. Despite the seeming familiarity of the situation, the Internet is a new and unique phenomenon, behaving unlike any entity the world has ever seen.

It seems paradoxical for net neutralists to push for a rule for the internet, but the sort of rule they are pushing for would merely ensure the sanctity of personal freedom and equality on the web. They don't want government censorship and regulation of information and they certainly dont want to have to pay for extra services. Because of the polarizing nature of the debate, it sometimes becomes difficult to discern friend from foe.

To me, it seems that the large telecomm corporations should be feared most since they have the most to gain. Though Google and Microsoft seem to be friendly and pro-user, they are essentially the ones in control now, and should not be totally trusted either. This debate has huge implications for American's individual freedoms. I think the best course of action would be to keep an open debate without rushing to any rash decisions with the goal of a compromise in mind.

here is a video produced by an anti-neutrality lobbyist. notice how it almost seems to be pro-neutral - the key is the diction. the comments are insightful as well.



what no neutrality could mean: