A win for Net Neutrality
Posted by Rick on August 1, 2008
Here is some good news about Comcast getting their heads handed to them for violating our right to a free and open internet.
From savetheinternet.com:
Historic Victory for Net Neutrality
August 1st, 2008 by mtadyComcast tried to stop it. Telecom-funded politicians tried to discourage it. Big Media tried to de-legitimize it. But nothing could stop the people-powered movement to hold Comcast accountable for illegally blocking Internet content. Today, the FCC issued a punishment that has Network Neutrality opponents cringing and the rest of us popping champagne.
In a landmark decision, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein approved a bipartisan “enforcement order” that would require Comcast to stop blocking and publicly disclose its methods for manipulating Internet traffic.
Tests by the Associated Press and others showed that Comcast blocked users’ legal peer-to-peer transmissions by sending fake signals that cut off the connection between file-sharers. Today’s decision follows a months-long FCC investigation, launched in response to a complaint from Free Press and Public Knowledge urging the federal agency to stop Comcast’s blocking.
In response to the victory, Josh Silver, Free Press executive director, said: “Comcast’s history of deception and continued blocking shows brazen contempt for the online consumer protections established by the FCC. We commend Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein for standing up for internet users and working across party lines to protect free speech and the free market.”
Martin Stands with the People
Traditionally a friend to industry, even Martin couldn’t deny Comcast’s culpability.
In his statement this morning, Martin compared Comcast’s blocking practices to allowing the post office to discriminate against mail “Would you be OK with the post office opening your mail, deciding they didn’t want to bother delivering it, and hiding that fact by sending it back to you stamped ‘address unknown – return to sender?’” he asked. “Or if they opened letters mailed to you, decided that because the mail truck is full sometimes, letters to you could wait, and then hid both that they read your letters and delayed them?”
