Comcast Ramps Up Ad Campaign Claiming To Support Net Neutrality, Even As It Really Supports Killing It

from the truth-in-advertising... dept

Fri, Jul 25th 2014 5:42am — Mike Masnick

We just wrote about how the FCC is now claiming that it will enforce its "transparency" rules that require some sort of truth in advertising. If that's the case, it might want to take a close look at Comcast's recent "truthy" advertising campaign, which it's running online, in newspapers and on TV, claiming that it's a huge supporter of "net neutrality." In fact, in a recent video ad, Comcast flat out claims that it wants to "extend net neutrality protection." Here's a newspaper ad from the Washington Post making the same dubious claim:

And it's running web ads that make the same claims. Here are some screenshots a reader sent me of parts of a Comcast ad he spotted on Daily Caller:

Comcast defends this position by claiming, first, that it's bound by the original 2010 FCC open internet rules, as part of the conditions of its big merger with NBC Universal. That part is true. Just about everything else is misleading or bogus. First, the FCC's 2010 open internet rules were always a weak sauce. They barely allowed the FCC to do anything and there were tons of loopholes. Being bound by those rules was never really being bound by any true sense of net neutrality.

Also, as Brian Fung at the Washington Post points out, the merger conditions only last a few more years. And then Comcast is free to do whatever it wants within the "new" rules:

But what Comcast doesn't say is that its commitment to "full" net neutrality expires in 2018. After that, it will no longer be legally bound to follow the 2010 rules, and it'll be free to abandon that commitment literally overnight. Comcast does not note this detail in its ads; nor does it explain how its policies may change in 2018.

In a statement to the Post, Comcast said the expiration of its net neutrality commitment was a "red herring" because it didn't have a problem with the 2010 rules and continues to "have no issue, long term, with them."

That's not the same as laying out what'll happen in 2018, however...

And, of course, the FCC won't do anything about this, and Comcast can continue to claim it as true, mainly because the FCC is pretending that it's currently proposed rules, under Section 706 are about preserving net neutrality. That's why Comcast is among those whose filings with the FCC were about how great the FCC plan is. Because it allows them (and AT&T) to pretend that they're "supporters" of net neutrality when the truth of the matter is that the plan would fling the doors wide open on the end of a neutral end-to-end internet.

The problem, in part, is that there's been so much "noise" about what is and what is not net neutrality, that Comcast has embraced this incredibly cynical (and really misleading) plan to claim to be for full net neutrality -- even extending net neutrality -- when the reality is that it's actually supporting the FCC's current plans under Section 706, which have a loophole you can drive a cable truck through to end net neutrality, with the term "commercially reasonable." And, of course, since your everyday person-on-the-street doesn't know the details and the differences between Title II and Section 706, they might actually believe that Comcast has their back -- when it's really stabbing them in the back.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ad campaign, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, truth in advertising, truthiness
Companies: comcast

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

When you need to keep repeating you are the good guy it generally means you are not that good...

—Ninja

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Violynne (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 5:04am

Little girl in the ad: "Daddy! I can't watch Adventure Time. The video is just sitting and doing nothing!"

Little boy in the ad: "Yeah, dad. It's not working."

Dad in the ad: "Relax, kids. Let me show you what you need to do. See this icon? It's our VPN. You need to click this first before you watch videos online."

Kids in the ad: "Thanks, dad!"

Comcast: "We'll protect net neutrality by promising you access to the site, after we bilk them for millions so you can actually access it. It's not like you have a choice in the matter."

FCC: "Well, our hands are tied, but we'll huff and puff and pretend we can actually do something about this issue plaguing Americans for decades."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 5:48am

Still don't know what to think...
The FCC is responsible for the current monopoly market that is generated.

Not sure any rules they come up with will have any meaningful association with actual neutrality on the internet.

What are we hoping to achieve? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results.

We should instead, be petitioning or mobbing the government to break up the damn telco monopolies and tell the businesses to do whatever they want with their networks so that the damn market can decide! You will find that shit can be put right when you make real competition a factor again!

We are all lost as hell... "Fighting for scraps from someone's corrupt table"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 7:08am

Anything that Comcast says and $5 will get you a nice latte at Starbucks
Anyone who believes anything that Comcrap says should invest in futures for a really nice bridge I "own" between Manhattan and New Jersey. It is a classic of the suspension form...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 25 Jul 2014 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Anything that Comcast says and $5 will get you a nice latte at Starbucks
  Anything that Comcast says and $5 will get you a nice latte at Starbucks
  
  Perhaps a small black coffee, but I think that would only be a down payment on a latte.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:45am
  
  Re: Anything that Comcast says and $5 will get you a nice latte at Starbucks
  More like a bridge between Dallas and New York.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 7:26am

even more basic - note the wording
Note the very specific wording : "we are bound by net neutrality". Not "We follow/will follow net neutrality". It's even more explicit that they will not follow it unless they have to, dragged kicking and screaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 7:45am

i can't find out who is responsible for this mess...
when i *tried* to see about alternatives to our present shitty ISP (is that a redundant oxymoron?), i kept on running up against -what i *thought* was anathema to a so-called free-market capitalistic system- 'non-compete agreements', such that we HAD NO CHOICE...
literally, EVERY *theoretical* alternative ISP i called up to see about service, routed my phone call BACK TO MY PRESENT ISP when i input my zip code...
EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM...
I HAVE NO CHOICE, and i can't even find out WHO the responsible parties are for WHY i have no choice...
county says its the state, state says its the county...
and NONE of them are interested in hearing about it, period...
so pissed off, am thinking about becoming a distributor for a satellite-based system which goes to a peering, point-to-point antenna system... if i had the money to burn, i would... (i'd rather burn the ISPs, though, fuckers)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fgoodwin (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: i can't find out who is responsible for this mess...
  Have you actually SEEN an ISP "non-compete" agreement? If you have, then I challenge you to produce it. Otherwise, I'm not so sure Comcast is the one "lying" here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:30pm
    
    Re: Re: i can't find out who is responsible for this mess...
    Since when did the copyright shills let facts get in the way of making their point? When in Rome, do as the Romans.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:36pm
      
      Clarification:
      It's true that Art Guerrilla doesn't link to any real proof, but then again, neither do the people he usually rails against.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 9:54am

Comcast video streaming doesn't count against data usage caps, I believe. They're already anti-net neutral. Comcast is seeing large declines in TV cable subscriptions. Yet nobody seems to be dropping broadband internet service.

Now people are paying $10 a month for Netflix. Much cheaper than $60 month for Comcast cable. Plus there's some new punk on the block who kinda looks like a duck, offering live streaming internet TV names Aereo.

This current net neutrality debate boils down to last-mile residential ISPs not wanting to give up control as the gatekeepers of live stream TV access and On-demand movie rentals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 11:26am

When you need to keep repeating you are the good guy it generally means you are not that good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  This. Plus the age-old adage of "never trust anyone who says 'trust me'."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay Lahto (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 11:47am

Corp Crush
Oh oh.

Looks like, even though Comcast owns NBC, that they might have a secret crush on Fox news. Can't wait until they both show up at a party wearing the same dress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Jones (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 12:43pm

Good job the youtube video is only 15 seconds long, Comcast customers may have struggled if it was any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]