Comcast Continues To Pretend To Support Net Neutrality With Misleading Claims
from the because-of-course-it-says-that dept
We've mentioned in the past how Comcast has been pretending to support net neutrality, with ad campaigns stating that it does -- clearly in an attempt to confuse the public. Yesterday, Comcast even put a thing on its own front page claiming that the company is "committed to an open Internet and Net Neutrality."
Again, as we've noted in the past, this is not actually true. Comcast supports the 2010 open internet rules that were painfully weak and didn't really limit Comcast in any meaningful way. And Comcast supports them because it's legally obligated to support those rules as part of the terms of its last big merger, with NBC Universal. But that agreement runs out in a few years and Comcast has, in the past, shown a willingness to compromise on net neutrality issues, and as it gets bigger that seems likely to continue. Many of Cohen's claims are outright laughable:
We don’t interfere with our customers’ ability to access lawful content online.Well, unless that lawful content you want to access online is from Netflix, and Netflix hasn't paid up at the Comcast tollbooth. As a reminder, here's the wonderful chart that the Washington Post put together of Netflix's download speeds on various broadband networks. See the black line as it drops and drops before suddenly darting upwards? That's Comcast purposely letting its border routers clog up until Netflix paid the toll, and Comcast went in and hooked up a few more ports (a trivial exercise it could have done quite a while ago if it actually cared about its customers' ability to access lawful content online.)
As today’s actions show, the availability and access to lawful content and websites online is ultimately up to the provider of that specific content.Until they get big like Netflix, and then it's up to how much that provider is willing to pay Comcast to stop letting their traffic purposely degrade.
We continue to be committed to delivering the same high-quality, high-speed Internet service that our customers rely on each and every day.Committed... right up until the point Comcast feels it can shake down a company to pay extra just so Comcast's consumers can actual reach them with the bandwidth those customers already bought.
Of course, the meat of the post is that Comcast really, really, really hates the idea of reclassification under Title II. You can practically hear Cohen screaming "don't do it!"
What we don’t support is reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II because it would harm innovation and investment. It would harm the very thing we love about the Internet – the speed at which it can change, adapt, and innovate. And a Title II reclassification is simply not necessary.Except Comcast is not exactly viewed as a particularly innovative or adaptable company. Comcast totally tried to mislead the FCC by misrepresenting a Fortune listing of "most admired" companies (Comcast was way, way, way down the full list, but at the top of a very, very small list of "cable and satellite providers" all of whom were not particularly admired). And should we really forget that Comcast regularly wins the "world's worst company" award from Consumerist? Comcast hasn't exactly shown its ability to be particularly innovative under the existing regime.
In fact, if history has shown anything, it's that greater competition leads to innovation, not greater consolidation. But, remember that Comcast is actively trying to buy one of the biggest competitors in the space, Time Warner Cable. And while both companies and their supporters point out that the two companies don't compete head on for customers, they do compete in other areas, such as in how they can buy third party services. And, of course, just think about how much more leverage a combined company would have in shaking down internet companies in the future...
At Comcast alone, we have invested tens of billions of dollars in our network and continue to invest more every year.Yes, and that won't change under the FCC's regulations... unless there's no competition. Investment follows competition.
We want our customers to continue to enjoy their favorite videos, web applications, shopping, news, and whatever may come next.Unless, of course, those favorite videos come from Netflix, and Netflix hasn't paid the toll taker.
Light touch Open Internet regulations should be a part of that.Because it allowed us to shakedown Netflix, and Comcast now has its eyes on others as well...
Again, if there were a truly competitive market, perhaps this wouldn't matter. But there isn't, in part because of efforts by companies like Comcast to block out anything that might lead to real competition. Comcast isn't supporting an open internet. It's supporting whatever puts it in the best position to shakedown internet companies.
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: claims, david cohen, net neutrality, open internet, support, title ii
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Great
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTC needs to make redefining words illegal...
**Unlimited Internet, starting at just 999.95 a month.
Block of text to get you excited about being ass-fucked by the service provider without lube.
Then the fine print...
**Limited to 1.21gigabytes of data per month
Things like that, for any kind of message whether advertisement, public disclosure or even just a news blip statement, should be able to fine the company for 10% of a year's NET income per violation. (1 ad in 1 million magazines would be 1 million violations).
ie - a single lie would wipe the company fiscally - stock would need to be liquidated, corporate officers would need to liquidate their assets as they'd be fiscally responsible as well.
It would certainly get us closer to a perfect economy if that were implemented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't outright lying to the public an accepted part of marketing now?
I assume Comcast can say that only their cable service prevents end-user cancer, and without their special biopseudoscience package you will die, and that they give 100% of their profits to African hungry orphans and that non-cable subscribers are in league with ISIL.
Oh, they may have an asterisk, but often that asterisk doesn't lead to any disclaimer on the same page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't outright lying to the public an accepted part of marketing now?
This would avoid the "prevents" flag, and be factually correct, as I'm sure there are some services provided in this world that are carcinogenic (such as at some tanning salons).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The company also said one thing, did another, and wouldn't easily let you end your "commitment" to be their customer.
This company made a couple of pounds of money.
Since we are talking Comcast, and they are doing the exact same thing as a 2-bit marketing company - can the government step in a fine them?
Comcast makes tons of money. I can only imagine what the fine would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can the government fine Comcast?
Will? Hell no.
Instead they'll come to a closed-door settlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can the government fine Comcast?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that fine could lower my taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about not interfering with any of my private personal doings on the web my service is paid for so sit back ,shut up and collect the money and mind your damn business , which is providing internet service, not policing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: They're talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the "innovation" they talk about is coupling services from content subscription, making people buy things they don't actually want to get the delivery service they do. They're using their monopoly infrastructure to help ensure they don't lose any ground in the fight for media subscription. If we can't get title II (and we should) then we should split the vertical monopoly into separate companies. Ask them which of those two options they prefer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What two faced fools they are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure their posts are moderated, but J T. Ramsay's snarky reply to someone critical of Cohen's post made me think they aren't. Give them your best arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]