Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
from the one-born-every-minute dept
Despite the nation's biggest ISP and cable company having spent millions of dollars and lobbying man hours on repealing broadband privacy rules and soon net neutrality protections, executives at the least-liked company in America hope you're dumb enough to believe they won't be taking full advantage.
Comcast has spent months now falsely claiming that it will still adhere to "net neutrality" once the FCC's rules are gutted by Ajit Pai. But the company's pet definition of net neutrality is so narrow as to be effectively meaningless. For example, last week as the FCC was trying to hide its obvious handout to telecom duopolies behind the cranberry and stuffing, Comcast issued a tweet again insisting that you can trust them to be on their best behavior despite the fact there will soon be no meaningful rules holding their feet to the fire:
We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. We will continue to make sure that our policies are clear and transparent for consumers, and we will not change our commitment to these principles. pic.twitter.com/YHDADvFqau
— Comcast (@comcast) November 22, 2017
Comcast would have you ignore the fact that net neutrality violations are just a symptom of a lack of competition in the broadband market. They'd also like you to ignore that there's a myriad of ways that ISPs like Comcast have taken advantage of this lack of competition to engage in even worse anti-competitive behavior, with "throttling" and "blocking" just being a small subsection. For example, a lack of competition lets Comcast impose arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees, then exempt its own content from those caps while penalizing direct competitors like Netflix.
Comcast also hopes you've forgotten this debate began, in part, when Comcast decided to throttle the upstream traffic of all BitTorrent users on the Comcast network without telling anybody, then lied about it repeatedly. Similarly, Comcast hopes you don't realize that as people grew wise to ham-fisted throttling and blocking, ISPs began abusing net neutrality in other, more "creative" ways -- like intentionally letting peering points congest in order to drive up costs for transit and content operators who foolishly wanted their traffic to reach consumers unimpeded (aka "double dipping," or less generously: extortion).
There's a reason Comcast and other large ISPs are happily promising not to throttle or outright "block" websites: large ISPs now know it's hard to get away with either now that the public and press are more savvy to what they've been up to. They know that blatantly throttling or blocking a website completely would generate a tidal wave of negative PR.
That's why they've long-since moved on to more creative technical abuses of limited competition they can hide behind half-baked techno-babble and semantics, whether that's usage caps and zero rating, charging you more money for privacy, or strangling innovation via their lucrative cable box hardware monopoly.
Anybody that honestly believes that uncompetitive duopolies won't take full, brutal advantage of limited competition and incompetent/corrupt regulators is ignoring history and fooling themselves. Fortunately, most people seem to understand that when it comes to not abusing a lack of competition, large, incumbent telecom providers are the very last companies in America you should trust:
We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us. https://t.co/6f3qJupZRS
— Lore (@loresjoberg) November 23, 2017
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: ajit pai, fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, of course they promise to play nice.
I mean, that's how net neutrality came about in the first place: "ok, then let's make a law against it."
Now what are you going to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
You didn't object, for instance, that Google "bought" existing city internet structure costing millions for $1, and hasn't kept promises to build more.
So WHY do you object to Comcast "partnering" on national scale?
Techdirt also argues that "internet corporations" especially Google and Facebook must have special privileges in law to shield them from the liability that publishing on paper would bring...
So WHY do you advocate fascism at times, then rail at it other times?
Your view of fascism done right is to favor or oppose with regard to how benefits Google.
Do you even recall "Don't be evil"? Corporations HIDE their intent until get entrenched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
LOL. Do you think we have capitalism now?
Do you even know what the word means?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
This is why I say the Rs and Ds deserve each other.
Two BSers BSing about a bunch of BS they know nothing about.
serves you BS suckkas right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
Your dichotomies presented are false in so many ways it's not funny.
There aren't "sides" ... and this isn't some "battle." Google is evil in ways, and "not evil" in others. Comcast is the same.
So it's not about what "Techdirt is advocating" as it is how to present one of the most complex arguments in our technological history.
Almost no one likes the idea of "more Government regulation" ... but that is necessary to keep ISP companies from going "full oligarchy."
Google made promises it hasn't kept, because people fell for the argument they were making.
Comcast et. al (remember, there are other ISP's) is trying to do the same, and some people are falling for the argument they are making as it pertains to Net Neutrality.
Some people (like Ajit Pai) are "bought" into the idea in more than one way.
But as simplistic as I'm trying to make it, this is a big complex mess of politics, policy, money, Internet, infrastructure, capitalism, etc...
Un-tying that mess (which the Big Co.'s and their lobbies create) is what Techdirt does fairly well.
It might appear they "go one way" then "go the other" to you, but expand your dichotomies from "favor or oppose" to "How does this one thing affect the 50 other things?" and "How do those 50 other things affect each other?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
No more than funding public road infrastructure with tax money. Private companies build it, private companies use it, and it works reasonably well. It's not pure capitalism but I rarely see politicians arguing against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
Perhaps you misunderstand what the term fascism describes?
"Google and Facebook must have special privileges"
You must be referring to section 230 - idk, but I thought it applied to everyone - so why do you say it is only for a few corporations? I must be missing something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
> So WHY do you advocate fascism at times, then rail at it other times?
I can't tell whether you seriously believe what you wrote or you're just trolling.
Nobody is arguing that Google and Facebook be shielded from liability for publishing their own content. Nobody is arguing that individual users of those services be shielded from liability. What we're arguing is that Google and Facebook should not be held liable for the drivel that you publish on their platforms because it's not possible for Google and Facebook to "police" your drivel at internet scale.
The internet is nothing like a newspaper. Stop trying to equate the two. It's disingenuous at best, straight up deceit at worst. And there's nothing "fascist" about not holding Techdirt responsible for your lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
The second one. Ignore him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
The Internet is a global telecommunications network. What we want is for the FCC to ensure we, the general public, can use the Internet unhindered by the whims of the telecom companies that control our access to it. If we pay for Internet access, we should be able to access every site with no throttling of speed—not just the sites that ISPs want us to access at speeds they think we deserve.
We want regulation that upholds the principles of Network Neutrality. We want it because we know the companies who would break those principles will do so as soon as they can. The telecoms will see an opportunity to turn the Internet into a ISP-paywalled gold mine where the people most desperate to access niche content—e.g., young queer people looking to access support groups that are not on social media or other heavy-traffic sites—will have to pay for that privilege. If you think it won’t happen—can’t happen—you sorely underestimate both the power of greed and the willingness of the government to let the rich get richer while making the poor that much poorer.
We who support Network Neutrality legislation do not want the FCC to control our access to any kind of content. We want the FCC to tell ISPs and telcoms that they should not get to control what kind of content we get to access. That, sir, is what sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
Do you two need a private room to grieve? Or fellate each other? Or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you truly are going to follow it, you will be at a disadvantage because others won't be. You would soon be pushed out and have to sell your company to those who are not playing by the rules you set for yourself. At this point, you have spent so much on getting a law repealed that it killed you once you got what you asked for. Sadly, I feel, there are enough people in this country to believe this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook-like walled garden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook-like walled garden?
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh, I know ... look at AOL for a good example of what is going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook-like walled garden?
The decline of AOL and its walled garden created a major opening for "social" services like Facebook and Twitter to occupy people's time, just as AOL once did, in a whole new menagerie of the mind.
It might be worth remembering that the early pioneering companies like Compuserve and AOL did not exactly practice network neutrality either, but at least back then people had other choices of (dialup) internet providers, unlike today.
One direction seems certain: vertical integration, with a single company both producing the content and distributing it, as well as constantly devising ways to maintain its monopoly grip. It's the very thing that probably would have happened a century ago, if the federal government had not stepped in and slapped down regulations to prevent a single company from owning a movie studio as well as the theaters that played its content (in addition to radio station ownership,etc). It's funny how the government's traditional anti-monopoly interventionism has become almost completely reversed in recent decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Facebook-like walled garden?
You have not stated why you think history will not repeat its self. People will get tired of the boorish corporate sponsored garden and will leave. They are betting upon their monopoly position to force those who need connectivity into ridiculous contracts, like those cell phone contracts that everyone hates.
"AOL did not exactly practice network neutrality either"
That was sorta the point of the comment. You seem to have talked yourself in a full circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook-like walled garden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Facebook-like walled garden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Facebook-like walled garden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I believe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But congratulations America. You got what you voted for. Now suffer in it a while so you really feel, deep down, the stab of "We told you so."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Comcast will cease all investment into broadband now. The U.S. will become the country where people pay the most for Internet and get the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it is NOT throttling!
If a packet from netflix shows up before a packet from one of comcasts networks then the netflix packet will route without any delay.
At best you can only say that prioritization has potential knock-on effects of bandwidth, but only when the line has been saturated over 100%... otherwise there is no bandwidth loss with prioritization.
Prioritization or QoS is a legitimate as shit technology and SHOULD be allowed and deployed over network for obvious as fuck reasons!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but YOU are wrong. It IS throttling. If two packets show up at the exact same time (which is TECHNICALLY impossible), if you do anything other than RANDOMLY decide which goes first, you're throttling. Period. And simply allowing one to go first because they pay you a fee is exactly the same as throttling all other traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first bits of the frame that are configured by decisions made by the end user, is the port number in the TCP/UDP header. If the carrier analyzes the datagram about OSI layer 3, then they are examining end user to end user communications, which is data that is protected by the 4th amendment and wiretapping laws, without the consent of parties who have they have no business with.
Layer 3 traffic is carrier traffic. Layer 4 traffic is consumer traffic. If you can't switch efficiently on layer 3, then you shouldn't be switching at all.
IOW, take your QOS switch and shove it up your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So priorization will sell better when Comcast stops all investments into broadband. Maybe take a sledgehammer to some fiber installations, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So long as all similar packets are treated the same, that is all video streams get the same priority. Give you own content priority over competitors content and you are manipulating traffic to your own advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We just need to understand that Comcast has its own special, improved dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And don't forget "innovation" As in, the only "innovation" stifled by NN are the ISPs new innovative ways to defraud their customers out of even more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goo problem?
Just like all start up companies, they have to battle for access to your wallet. Monopolies don't like that. They don't like to share their access to your dollar. Remember the old BBS days, and downloading one movie a night, or a podcast, a night, and getting the commercial before the stream died due to the buffer being full, or, some such. But, the monopolies love being the only game in town. And if you thought the game is bad now, just wait, it ain't gonna get better. They will charge more while letting the service degrade. Just because they can. They will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goo problem?
errrr - wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goo problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We promise not to create 'slow lanes', we're just going to make a 'fast lane(TM)'"
"We promise not to block anything on our new plan for only $199 a month! Also, now introducing a new discounted plan for only $80 a month that has access to many of your favorite web-sites!"
"We promise not to throttle legal content! Only P2P will be throttled! Oh, and youtube. Hey, whatever video you were trying to watch is probably violating copyright law in some country."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about what they consider to be unlawful content, and who decides. What about a site where there is some unlawful content.
That promise give them room to drive a bus through, especially where site with user generated content is concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
money talks and the bullshit walks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like on TV they call some programs "Paid For TV Programming" even though all of it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While site blocking is generally bad, and it would certainly be nice if Comcast would fight against it, I can easily see why it's reasonable for them to not want to be bound to doing so in every single case regardless of the merits or the expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha ha ha
We love regulation... until we don't but keep asking for more even when it is being used to screw us! WHAAAAAAAAA!
When you guys finally figure it out... it will be too late. It probably already is too late.
Of course Comcast is going to take advantage... why shouldn't they? You make it super easy!
TD and Comcast has something in common... and that is a hate for Free-Market ideals, and since you both hate the Free-market it is easy to destroy it! Now all we have are two entities crying like babies over the problems they helped create.
You just don't get to tell other people what they can and cannot do and have a free market or liberty at the same time. Someone is getting oppressed, period!
You made your bed and kicked Free-Market out of it, now lay in it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ha ha ha
Forgot your meds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ha ha ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ha ha ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ha ha ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless and new technology was supposed to take care of this, and considering there are over 400 ISP's in the US currently, it might be there.
There are options other than cable or wireless companies, some offer better prices and service. There are other options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Depends. If the telcos are allowed to own the infrastructure then it would decrease due to natural monopoly or you would get this shit mess "lookup india teleophone pole" and you will see what that looks like.
If we only need to get rid of regulations that secure these fucking monopolies and fiefdoms and only keep regulations that Protect free market in the form of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.
Then we will have solved the problem as solvable as it can be. You can only protect from corruption so much before it becomes a force of corruption on it own in the form of regulatory capture which is what is going on right now and what the free-market folks have been warning for so fucking long.
Told you so does not even cut it right now... it's told you fucking shitbags so fucking many times you now YOU fucking DESERVE it told you so now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Depends. If the telcos are allowed to own the infrastructure".
Ummm, don't they own it? Didn't they pay for it? Didn't they pay people to put that infrastructure in place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well the way it works is this. The state gives them a shit load of money to build networks, then they don't build the networks, and kick back the money into the encumbants political campaigns.
So technically, not only is it fair to say that the public owns the fiber, but also that it owns the politician. Please Verizon, can I borrow one of your bitches? I need my lawn raked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's funny that whenever these kind of private-company/government partnerships exists, one side tends to profit enormously -- and it's not hard to figure out which side that will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This solves the black market cabling problem, and maintains competition. The carrier should really only ever be responsible for the backbone and the backhaul from the CO to the backbone.
Everything else should be local.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"'Lawful' Content"
... guess who will decide what "lawful content" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctor Strangepai
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doctor Strangepai
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast has ALWAYS been a dick at any given opportunity.
Comcast is notorious for taking any opportunity to engage in subversive tactics to increase profits. Obstruction of competition is its prime strategy.
Considering Concast's extensive history, why would we trust them. The only reason I have to live with Comcast is I don't have any other options.
(And I'm not getting any new options anytime soon in this neighborhood.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, then you wouldn't mind it being put in some regulation, would you? Since you are going to do it anyway... Great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't wait too long for them too do this however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawn chair analogy
Infrastructure investment would mean buying more lawn chairs, but let's not be stupid.
We make some upgrade offers customers cannot refuse and look-and-behold, we have 15 customers with access to "up to 1 lawn chair". That's net neutrality.
Now 5 more customers come in. We could just charge them for access to "up to 1 lawn chair", but where is the profit in that? Instead they can opt to pay a hefty surplus charge for the right to push others off a lawn chair.
Of course, those others can upgrade for that priority service as well. And they will. And will curse the "sun bingers".
Now three lawn chairs break down from all the pushing. A golden opportunity for closing more "priority sales". We now have mostly goldstar plus customers pushing each other off the remaining lawn chairs, proud to be paying premium price for premium service.
Make no mistake: the "net neutrality" situation wasn't good. There were lawn chairs missing. But now the lack of lawn chairs is actually driving profits, and selling more than is available is a feature, not a bug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawn chair analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast...
— Comcast
Yeah, and you have a better chance of meeting Christ at a Slayer concert...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]