FCC/Comcast staged mock Nazi-style show hearings to expedite Martial Law

[Dig]

Comcast Blocking: First the Internet — Now the Public
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/

There was huge turnout at today’s public hearing in Boston on the future of the Internet. Hundreds of concerned citizens arrived to speak out on the importance of an open Internet. Many took the day off from work — standing outside in the Boston cold — to see the FCC Commissioners. But when they reach the door, they’re told they couldn’t come in.

The size of the crowd is evidence that many Americans don’t want giant corporations like Comcast and Verzion to decide what we can do and where we can go on the Internet. Sleeping on Comcast’s dime


But will the FCC hear these voices? For many people who showed up on time for the hearing, apparently not.

Comcast — or someone who really, really likes Comcast — evidently bused in its own crowd. These seat-warmers, were paid to fill the room, a move that kept others from taking part.

[Update: Comcast admits to paying people to stack the deck in their favor. Read the report.]

They arrived en masse some 90 minutes before the hearing began and occupied almost every available seat, upon which many promptly fell asleep (picture above). Seat warmers


One told us that he was “just getting paid to hold someone’s seat.”

>> Listen to the audio

He added that he had no idea what the meeting was about.

If he was holding someone else’s seat, he never gave it up.

Many of this early crowd had mysteriously matching yellow highlighters stuck in their lapels. Comcast payoff


We also photographed them outside the venue being handed papers by an organizer who had been seen earlier talking with several of the Comcast people at the hearing.

Here’s why this is a problem. Comcast clearly paid disinterested people to fill seats. This barred interested citizens from entering.

More than 100 people who arrived at the appointed time for the hearing were turned away by campus police because the room was already full.Barred: The interested public


The Cambridge hearing is part of the FCC’s ongoing investigation into Comcast’s blocking of Internet traffic. But there’s much more at stake. We are at a critical juncture, where it will be decided whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it.

Comcast wants the former — to dictate which Web sites and services go fast, slow or don’t load at all. And they’re backed by the other would-be gatekeepers at AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner.

Tell the FCC to stop Comcast from blocking Internet traffic and to permanently protect Net Neutrality: http://www.savetheinternet.com/comcast.php

The official deadline for comments in Feb. 28.

[Infowarrior]

The public still has the power here, if they stop using Comcast.  People can set up a website, leave comments SAYING why they're closing their accounts with Comcast, publicly giving their names for all to see.  It is within the power of the people to voice their concerns over tiered internet providers.  If Comcast wants to play rough, the people need to do likewise imo.

The people again have to realize that the bottom line is still the bottom line.  That's what these companies care about.  So, if enough people protest this action and SPEAK OUT that they are disconnecting their service with Comcast because of their net neutrality stance (lack of), then Comcast will be forced to bend to the people.  Just like everything else though, the people have to get mad enough to take action.  Nobody is forcing Comcast internet down anyone's throat.

How many people would be willing to switch providers though?  If they don't have Verizon or another company who can provide DSL or fiber connections in their area, would they be willing (or able) to get satellite?  Would people be willing to sacrifice a little to take a stand, even if it meant going back to dialup?  If they can't do this with something as small as their internet provider, how can we expect people to take a stand with the big issues facing our nation?  What's more important to the majority of people here?

Of course in the end, who owns the backbones?  If they start these practices, it will be all over.  We all need to get educated about this thing called the internet, how it works, who are the big players, and make sure they keep the internet unmolested.  Is a protest comment to the FCC going to do anything?  I don't know.  What do you think?

Ahhh the internet of the early 1990s. 

[InsideJob]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/26/152820/580/236/464551

[InsideJob]

Here's another link:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Did-Comcast-Hire-Public-Standins-For-Neutrality-Hearing-92178

[mr anderson]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/

[Update: Comcast admits to paying people to stack the room in their favour.] Read the report: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/02/26/Comcast-FCC-Hearing-Strategy

Comcast, net neutrality advocates clash at FCC hearing - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080225-comcast-and-net-neutrality-advocates-clash-at-fcc-hearing.html

[mr anderson]

If you want to get a taste of what went on, we've got MP3 audio of some of the exchanges between Cohen, Wu, and Ammori: http://arstechnica.com/news.media/fcchearing25feb08.mp3

Right click and save as

[Dig]

Comcast acknowledges that it hired people to take up room at an F.C.C. hearing into its practices.
by Sam Gustin  Feb 26 2008
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/02/26/Comcast-FCC-Hearing-Strategy



How big are the stakes in the so-called network neutrality debate now raging before Congress and federal regulators?

Consider this: One side in the debate actually went to the trouble of hiring people off the street to pack a Federal Communications Commission meeting yesterday—and effectively keep some of its opponents out of the room.

Broadband giant Comcast—the subject of the F.C.C. hearing on network neutrality at the Harvard Law School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts—acknowledged that it did exactly that.

Comcast spokeswoman Jennifer Khoury said that the company paid some people to arrive early and hold places in the queue for local Comcast employees who wanted to attend the hearing.

Some of those placeholders, however, did more than wait in line: They filled many of the seats at the meeting, according to eyewitnesses. As a result, scores of Comcast critics and other members of the public were denied entry because the room filled up well before the beginning of the hearing.

Khoury said that the company didn't intend to block anyone from attending the hearing. "Comcast informed our local employees about the hearing and invited them to attend," she said. "Some employees did attend, along with many members of the general public."

That was not enough to satisfy Comcast's critics.

Craig Aaron, a spokesman for Free Press, one of the groups that filed the complaint against Comcast, denounced the company's tactics.

"The sad thing about this is that literally hundreds of people who were not paid to stand in line, or paid by their employer to attend, were prevented from even entering the building," Aaron said.

Such tactics are not unheard of at congressional hearings in Washington, D.C., but Comcast's critics said that they were inappropriate for a public hearing on a college campus.

Free Press campaign director Timothy Karr said that he showed up at the hearing 90 minutes early, only to find the room "75 percent full."

"The only reason these people were in the room, it seemed to me, was to keep seats warm and exclude others," Karr said.

Some audience members appeared to sleep through the proceedings, according to photos taken during the hearing. Other applauded enthusiastically when Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen delivered key points in his presentation.

A number of people in the audience wore yellow highlighter marking pens on their shirts or jackets; Karr said that was to identify them to Comcast employees coordinating the company's appearance at the event. Khoury acknowledged that Comcast coordinated the employees that it brought to the hearing.

The revelation that Comcast paid nonemployees to stand in line at the hearing comes against the backdrop of a bitter public relations war between Comcast and its critics, including the public interest groups Free Press and Public Knowledge.

"For the past week, Free Press has engaged in a much more extensive campaign to lobby people to attend the hearing on its behalf," Khoury said.

The hearing was held to address complaints leveled by Free Press, Public Knowledge, the web-video company Vuze, and others, that Comcast is trying to stifle competition by blocking the delivery of rival video-on-demand services over its cable system.

For weeks, Free Press had been trying to organize supporters to attend the hearing by issuing press releases and circulating flyers advertising the event.

Unlike Comcast, Free Press did not pay anyone to stand in line, Aaron said, nor did it provide transportation to any of its supporters.

[Dig]

NEW BOARD:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=315.0

[Dig]

Hey look, COMCAST was pissed that they could not initiate Amercan Genocide sooner.  But after a year of payoffs and using Viki to bang Juan McCain into submission (pun intended?), the FCC said, "f**k it."  So the FCC took away all barriers for COMCAST to move forward on the genocide of millions of American Citizens in Halliburton/GE concentration camps...yeeeeehaaaaaw

Comcast challenges FCC's ownership limits
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8935.html
By Eric Bangeman | Published: February 27, 2007 - 02:15PM CT

Comcast has decided to challenge the Federal Communications Commission's "unofficial" cap on cable system ownership. In a filing earlier this month, Comcast criticized the FCC's 30 percent horizontal ownership cap, saying that limits on how many subscribers a given cable operator can service are no longer necessary.

In 1992, the FCC tweaked its cable-ownership regulations in response to a law passed by Congress. Concerned that cable networks would have too few distribution outlets if there was insufficient competition among cable providers, the FCC ruled that a cable company could serve no more than 30 percent of homes passed by cable companies in the US. Later that decade, the FCC changed its measurement metric, deciding to drop the homes-passed measurement and decreeing that no single cable operator could serve over 30 percent of all cable subscribers in the US.

The FCC's limit was challenged in court, and in 2001, a federal court overturned the limit and directed the FCC to come up with a new set of metrics. Instead of coming up with new criteria, however, the FCC has continued to enforce the 30 percent limit for mergers.

Comcast is hit hardest by the FCC's rules, as its 26.2 million subscribers account for just over 28 percent of the 96.8 million US residents with cable or satellite TV service.
Comcast: Times have changed

As required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC is currently reviewing its media ownership rules. Those rules cover not only cable systems, but TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers as well. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has indicated that he might be willing to spin off discussion of cable providers into a separate track.

In its filing, Comcast says that the rationale for limiting ownership no longer applies. Calling it a "relic that cannot be justified," Comcast says that "continuing, rapid development of competition in the video marketplace" obviate the need for ownership caps. The cable company points to the proliferation of video services on the Internet, over mobile phones, peer-to-peer, and video-on-demand services, as well as multicast TV broadcasters as evidence that cable, satellite, and broadcast networks have several means available to reach viewers.

"These new sources of video content have two major effects on the marketplace," Comcast argues. "First, they represent sources of fierce competition to cable operators. Second, and most importantly for this proceeding, they represent massive growth in the number and type of available platforms for the distribution of video programming, which have the effect of unleashing an unprecedented 'flow of video programming' to consumers."
Is TV like broadband?

The bigger question is whether further consolidation of the cable industry would benefit consumers. So far, the FCC's moves towards deregulation have arguably had a negative impact on consumers, especially when it comes to broadband. With the deregulation of DSL and cable Internet, consumers now have fewer choices for broadband. As a result, the US badly lags behind many western European and Asian countries when it comes to broadband availability, speed, and price.

Can the same be said of television? As is the case with broadband, competition is between modes of service (e.g., cable vs. satellite) than between providers themselves. In most US towns and cities, cable providers have exclusive franchise agreements that give them the exclusive right to offer programming within municipal boundaries (or in some cases, neighborhood boundaries). As a result, customers who want something more than over-the-air television programming can choose between a single cable provider and—sometimes—two satellite providers. That situation is slowly changing for some people in Verizon and AT&T's service areas as they roll out their fiber networks and begin offering television programming, but the two telecoms will be hard pressed to pass 30 million homes with their new services by the end of the decade.

There are some important differences between broadband and television, however. As Comcast pointed out, consumers have other means of accessing TV programming. Fans of Desperate Housewives and other ABC shows can now view episodes online after the shows have aired. Shows are also available for download from the iTunes Store and other places online and some TV fans have succeeded in "replacing" cable TV with broadband, BitTorrent, and a media center PC.

It's apparent that the cable television industry faces new challenges from the Internet and other areas. That said, it is not clear how giving a big thumbs-up to consolidation in the cable industry will benefit consumers in the slightest.

[Dig]

Hey look General Electric (owner of the concentration camps in the US) Murdoch (Neo-con channels for a New World Order) and Viacom (ohhh yeah controlled opposition of Comedy Central/MTV/etc. and the wonderful firing of truther Dan Rather) are in total love and are the driving force behind COMCAST's American Genocide:

Comcast Backed By NBC, Viacom In Network Neutrality Dispute
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200802291827DOWJONESDJONLINE000996_FORTUNE5.htm
February 29, 2008: 06:27 PM EST


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) has found allies in its fight to convince the Federal Communications Commission that it was doing nothing wrong when it slowed customers' access to certain applications on its high speed Internet network.

Broadcasters NBC Universal Inc. and Viacom Inc. (VIA) filed comments at the FCC supporting Comcast's right to engage in reasonable network management.

The companies argued that if Internet network operators are not permitted to manage their networks it will hamper their abilities to fight the flow of pirated content on the Web.

"Reasonable network management practices are vital to combating the well- documented, unauthorized and illegal distribution of copyrighted material on the Internet," Viacom said in its filing.

Comcast has been accused by public interest groups, academics and software companies of slowing and even blocking subscribers' access to peer-to-peer file sharing applications on the Internet.

The applications allow the sharing back and forth of user-generated and other video content over the Web.

The company has acknowledged slowing access to the software, arguing that a small number of users are hogging too much bandwidth on its network using file sharing services, endangering the bulk of its customers' ability to use the Internet.

It has denied blocking access to the applications.

The two broadcasting giants said that the bulk of content that travels over file sharing software is pirated content.

In its filing, NBC estimated that up to 90% of it is illegal content.

Their concern, as expressed in their filings, is that the FCC will implement rules severely limiting network operators' ability to manage their networks at all.

This could inadvertently affect filtering or fingerprinting technologies currently being developed which would help in the fight against piracy on the Web, they said.

"Simply put, there is overwhelming and undisputed evidence that massive copyright infringement takes place on peer-to-peer file sharing networks and that BitTorrent and other P2P technologies are today used primarily to facilitate the exchange of a tidal wave of illegal content," said NBC Universal in its filing.

NBC Universal is owned by General Electric Co. (GE).

BitTorrent Inc. is the software application that Comcast stands accused of slowing and blocking.

Eric Klinker, the company's chief technology officer, said the broadcasters' argument risked endangering the very existence of peer-to-peer applications.

"Comcast is not blocking pirated content, they are blocking an entire class of applications," said Klinker.

While conceding that pirated content is distributed using BitTorrent, he said there was no way to monitor the traffic.

"We acknowledge that pirated content exists and that many protocols, BitTorrent included, are being used to distribute pirated material. But we don't track or monitor the use of our protocol."

Klinker noted that NBC Universal uses file-sharing software itself for its online video service, while Viacom is a partner of BitTorrent.

Vuze Inc., another file-sharing software company that is one of the groups that made the complaint to the FCC, said it was taking steps itself to combat pirated content.

"We are not opposed to efforts to try and interdict piracy at the network level," said Jay Monahan, general counsel at Vuze. "But, it would not be effective and would interfere with legitimate content which affects our business."

He said that software companies like Vuze were looking at ways to implement filtering technologies.

The FCC must decide if Comcast violated its existing rules on network neutrality, and if these rules need beefing up. It is the first time a major network operator has been accused in this manner.

The commission held a hearing at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass., this week where a number of witnesses gave evidence about the issue.

- By Corey Boles, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6637; corey.boles@dowjones.com
---------------------------------------------

More on GE's plan for US Genocide here:

GE/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC...A Fuller Spectrum Of American Genocide

General Electric owns much of the the Security and medical operations equipment contracts for the over 800 US Concentration Camps and the propaganda that will be used to assist in forcing varous racial groups into these death camps. MSNBC, owned by GE who also owns a large share of The History Channel, runs 8 hours a day of programming on what life is like in prison.  The point of the multiple documentaries to be aired for 8 hours every day it to allow the viewer to assimilate with the conditions in a concentration camp.  They show the priisoners having individuality and coping successfully with prison life.  They show how they can still develop relationships, still get an education, develop cliques, etc.   The whole point of this is a contracted psyops programming so that when they throw you and your family into the concentration camps, you will feel like it is normal after watching 8 hours a day of it. Out of all the MSNBC Documentaries, Lock Up comprises of an overwhelming majority of their production costs and scheduling.

Now lockup may be an ok program, but 20 full documentaries is not meant to learn about the issues of prisons.  These psyops videos are used to condition us. GE has a direct conflict of interest to reveal the truth about continuity of government, the current recession, false flag terrorism, who are the best statesmen running for president and of course...9/11.  The recession, the devaluation of the dollar, the fake war on terrorism (most importantly the lies about 9/11), and the disinformation about who the true presidential candidates are being used to get us into martial law and GE/MSNBC owns the propaganda and many of the security contracts for that martial law. So if GE actually told the truth about 9/11, they would have most of their funds cut. It is a simple matter of fascist elitests v. the American people and the victims (which everyone now is).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036750/

Here is a sample of all the lockup shows they have (odd for a 24 hours "news" channel):
Lockup: Indiana
Lockup: Alaska
Lockup: Holman

Lockup: Rikers Island
Lockup: Miami-Dade
Lockup: The Criminal mind
Lockup: Corcoran
Lockup: Valley State
Lockup: Kentucky State
Lockup: Kern Valley

Lockup: New Mexico
Lockup: Utah State prision
Lockup: San Quentin
Lockup: Pelican Bay
Lockup: Anamosa
Lockup: Riverbend
Lockup: Brushy Mountain
Lockup: Inside Iowa State Penitentiary
Lockup: Wabash

Lockup: Folsom

Here are just some of the over 100 links to information regarding GE/FEMA Camps/Homeland Security Contracts:

0703 Market Monitor Top 25 and Rising 10 Homeland Security ...Of the five largest DHS contractors in 2006, four were FEMA contractors. ..... Under the agreement, the new joint venture, Smiths GE Protection, ...
www.hstoday.us/archive/0703_Market_Monitor_Top_25_HS_Companies.cfm?IsValid=true - 67k - Cached - Similar pages
ARES Security Lands Contract Securing FEMA Facility @ Government ...Company's contract is to provide armed security services to FEMA's National ... solution on top of mesh-based surveillance network GE Security Names New CEO ...
www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=350&id=5883 - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
GSN: Top 100 DHS ContractorsIn addition to well-known security contractors, the Top 100 list includes ..... Agbayani was awarded major construction contracts from FEMA to build trailer ...
www.gsnmagazine.com/special/top100_07.html - 77k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Department of Homeland Security FEMA Contracts Awarded in Support ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
ProTrac Report 8/25-9/17.Department of Homeland Security. FEMA Contracts Awarded in Support of Hurricane Katrina Recovery Efforts. As of October 21, 2005 ...
www.taxpayer.net/budget/katrinaspending/femacontracts10-21.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF] homeland security companiesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contracts ..... LAND SECURITY CONTRACTORS. ... General Electric, Stamford, Conn., combining both of their ...
www.raytheon.com/feature/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_021043.pdf - Similar pages
Homeland Security - Press Release SectionGE Secures $2.5M from DHS Funding for Advanced Nuclear Detection .... Awarded Homeland Security Contract Plans to develop low-cost biological weapons sensor ...
www.homelandsecurityweekly.com/press-releases/ - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] At least 94 former domestic security officials from the Bush ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
security contracts. 44 Patrick Rhode. chief of staff, acting deputy director F.E.M.A.. Bearing Point. consultant. D.H.S. contractor. 45 Steve Parsons ...
www.graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20060618_LOBBYLIST2.pdf - Similar pages
National Homeland Security KnowledgebaseExperts in homeland security and defense will join policy makers and defense contractors next month at what some are calling an unprecedented mingling of ...
www.twotigersonline.com/newsletter/news_september05.htm - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
American Chronicle: Saudi Takeover of GE Plastics Flies Under RadarWhile its consumer product contracts are extensive, they are but part of GE’s ... Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA), ...
www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31690 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
They Shoot News Anchors, Don't They?By September 12, even the White House admitted that FEMA had been its own disaster ... ever bothering to tell viewers GE had billions in contracts pending. ...
www.commondreams.org/views05/0917-29.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Update: GE Recenltly bought a railway company, what do you think they will be transporting?
Locomotive Services
Traffic Control & Dispatch Systems
Signaling & Communications Products


And if you are worried about martial law, well you should be, the last time these powers were used in an industrialized country, it was germany.  Then the trains took everyone here:

GE/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC...A Fuller Spectrum Of American Genocide

IBM, GE lock up security partnership



http://www.news.com/IBM,-GE-lock-up-security-partnership/2100-7355_3-5079051.html
By Matt Hines  Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: September 18, 2003, 9:01 PM PDT

IBM and GE's Interlogix business unit announced a joint agreement Friday to provide integrated computer- and physical-security systems to large customers.

Under the terms of the agreement, GE Interlogix will integrate its security software with IBM's enterprise management and application server software to create systems meant to protect computer networks, buildings and employees.

An example of a possible project under the agreement would be an integrated security network in which employees' facility key cards are linked to the passwords on computer systems. Customers would benefit through increased security and lowered overhead, according to Ray Blair, vice president of business development at IBM Global Services.

"Say one person 'badges-out' of a facility and 10 minutes later someone else tries to access a computer system using that person's password. Immediately alarms would go off," Blair said. "By integrating physical security with IT security tools you get a whole new level of protection."

IBM reported that the partnership would combine human resource systems and facilities management applications with physical security assets such as badge readers and intrusion and surveillance systems. The system would also link to "logical security capabilities," including single sign-on protection through smart cards, Blair said.

Blair said IBM and GE Interlogix have been working together for years to build internal security systems for their own companies and only recently decided to market their work to users. The companies estimate they have saved as much as 80 percent of the time and money they previously spent performing now-redundant security tasks, according to Blair.

Other potential applications could include facial recognition systems that identify when someone has illegally gained access to a secure facility, or radio frequency identification (RFID) tags inserted into laptop computers to track equipment movement around facilities, he said.

IBM will be responsible for providing IT security services and application integration for customers, and it will work with network partners to help customers integrate their information technology infrastructure and back-office systems. IBM will also handle overall project management when requested, the companies said.

Blair said the partnership is non-exclusive, allowing both companies the freedom to work with other vendors on similar projects. It will also let them maintain an open-systems architecture.

Under the deal, GE Interlogix will integrate its Facility Commander security integration software with IBM's Tivoli enterprise management software--including Tivoli Risk Manager and Tivoli Enterprise Console--and its WebSphere server software. GE Interlogix will also support IBM Directory Integrator and IBM DB2 database, IBM said.

IBM reported that it also plans to incorporate its IBM Tivoli Access Manager and IBM Tivoli Identity Manager into other GE products to integrate and automate identity management businesses processes with physical security practices.

GE/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC...A Fuller Spectrum Of American Genocide

[Dig]

FCC may do-over Comcast Net Neutrality hearing due to presence of paid Comcastards
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/27/fcc-may-doover-comca.html
Posted by Xeni Jardin, February 27, 2008 1:25 PM | permalink



Yesterday on Boing Boing, we shared first-hand reports from the guys at Miro that Comcast hired goons to fill seats and cheer at an FCC hearing over net neutrality at Harvard. Today, Jordan at Valleywag points us to this update:
The FCC is considering holding a fresh hearing on net neutrality, with Comcast and Verizon again in attendance -- and this time it may be at Stanford. The do-over after a mini-scandal erupted over the first hearing, held at Harvard; Comcast flacks confessed they'd paid people off the street to act as seatwarmers. Let this be a lesson to you all: If you're going to meddle in politics, do it skillfully enough not to get caught.

The Harvard hearing, a rare outside-the-Beltway event, ended disastrously for all involved. The hearing had many more attendees than were expected, with the room running out of space well before the hearing began. As a result, dozens of members of the public and opposition groups were refused entry. Comcast's ruse was detected when some of its fresh hires fell asleep.
Read the rest here. Image: Comcast's yellow-highlighter-wearing goons snoozing off during the hearing (photo: Free Press. The term "comcastards" is TM, 2008, Brian Lam).

[TimeLady]

Will someone please tell me what Comcast has to do with genocide?

I've read through this topic, followed a few of the links, and I still don't get it.

[Dig]

Will someone please tell me what Comcast has to do with genocide?

I've read through this topic, followed a few of the links, and I still don't get it.

COMCAST creates mock show hearings on Monday

The hearings are to give COMCAST power to control the Internet

Controlling the Internet does many things:

1] Ability to limit, censor, move, distort, create information for all internet users (emergencies, concentration camps, police actions, voter fraud, corruption, genocide in Iraq, Africa, Asia).  This includes your phone, your car system, your alarm system, your banking system, your video games, anything that uses the Internet.

2] Ability to conduct powerful and robust surveillance of all Internet users (with operation Round Up, thousands of "bloggers" can be picked up in the night of the long knives)

3] Companies supporting this are General Electric who owns the US concentration camps and the railways to the camps.

so controlling the Internet via COMCAST show trials indicates an expediting of the US Genocide population control plan (you should be familiar with this from ENDGAME).

[Dig]

I changed it to Martial Law as many people do not realize that martial law is only used to enforce mandatory population control programs (Genocide)

[bigron]

Published on Friday, February 29, 2008

Comcast Facing Backlash After Hearing
by Hiawatha Bray

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/29/7388/


After a hearing into Comcast Corp.’s Internet policies this week, the company faces a backlash of bad publicity and increasing skepticism about the way the telecommunications giant runs its high-speed Internet service.Critics have denounced Comcast for paying people to occupy seats in the cramped Harvard Law School lecture hall where the Federal Communications Commission hearing was held, preventing many critics from gaining admittance. Comcast officials said they were merely trying to save enough seats for company executives. But Josh Silver, executive director of the Internet activist group Free Press, said the hired guests stayed on, preventing many Comcast critics from attending the hearing.

There are about 300 seats in the lecture hall, and when they were all filled people were turned away.

“Comcast had these guys sit through the first entire half of the day to keep those seats full,” Silver said.

Despite having friends in the audience, Comcast took a verbal beating at Monday’s hearing, from FCC commissioners and hostile witnesses alike. The controversy over Comcast’s network management policies has helped revive the once-dormant debate on “Net neutrality,” the concept of forcing Internet companies to treat all data on their networks exactly alike.

Companies like Google Inc. and online video provider Vuze Inc., which use the Internet to distribute their services, say Net neutrality is vital to their businesses. But Internet providers like Comcast say there are legitimate business and technical reasons for them to offer different levels of service to different kinds of traffic.

Broadband providers designed their network for users who mostly swap e-mails and visit websites - tasks which don’t transmit, or upload, very much data. So broadband systems are designed to receive, or download, data much faster than they can upload it. “We have to engineer and manage the network for typical usage of a vast majority of customers,” said Mitch Bowling, Comcast’s senior vice president of online services.

But these days, many Internet subscribers use peer-to-peer software that lets thousands of Internet users share large files by uploading and downloading them to each others’ computers. So when a computer with BitTorrent downloads a TV show, it starts uploading the same show to other users. As a result, many Internet users now upload far more traffic than broadband providers expected. And Bowling said just a few of these users can consume most of the capacity on a neighborhood Internet “node,” which may serve several hundred households.

Comcast copes with the problem by sometimes slowing down BitTorrent data uploads from its customers’ computers. Last year, BitTorrent users complained about problems on the Comcast network, but the company refused to confirm the policy until last October. Comcast still insists it has done nothing wrong. “We have to engineer and manage the network for typical usage of a vast majority of customers,” said Bowling. “We are simply managing the network for the greater good.”

But Vuze, which filed the FCC complaint that led to Monday’s hearing, uses BitTorrent to send videos to its subscribers. Comcast’s policy to slow these file transfers could hurt Vuze’s business. Indeed, the company argued that Comcast could use “network management” as an excuse to fend off Vuze’s challenge to Comcast’s cable TV business. “By degrading the high-quality video content by which Vuze differentiates itself in the marketplace, network operators can seek a competitive edge,” said Vuze in its FCC complaint.

Virtually everyone who spoke at the hearing agreed that Comcast should provide far more information about how it manages its network. But there’s less uniformity about whether to regulate the practice or ban it altogether.

Free Press wants Net neutrality legislation that would make it illegal for networks to discriminate against particular kinds of Internet traffic, such as BitTorrent. The group’s general counsel, Marvin Ammori, said if Comcast installed better technology, it would be able to handle BitTorrent traffic with little trouble. But Comcast has said it will reduce its capital expenditures this year compared with 2007.

Comcast’s Bowling said that merely improving the network won’t eliminate the need to throttle back some kinds of traffic. He said peer-to-peer programs like BitTorrent tend to use more bandwidth as it becomes available, so network clutter doesn’t get better with more capacity. “You can’t outrun this problem by building more bandwidth,” he said.

US Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who attended the hearing, favors Net neutrality, but said Comcast may have to manage its data traffic because of the way the company designed its network. The real problem, said Markey, is a lack of competition.

In most communities there are no more than two broadband providers - the cable TV company and the phone company. These companies have already attached wires to all local homes. A would-be rival would have to spend millions building wired networks of their own - a massive barrier to competition.

Markey favors an “unbundling” policy, in which the federal government would require cable and phone companies to sell wholesale access to the lines going into consumers’ homes. This would let many companies get into the Internet access business without having to string their own wires.

In an unbundled world, said Markey, Net neutrality will take care of itself. Companies that discriminate against BitTorrent traffic would lose business to those that didn’t. “Competition is a proxy for regulation,” he said.

Markey acknowledged that Congress might not embrace his idea. But he said the only alternative is a Net neutrality law that could saddle Internet access providers with burdensome regulations. “If unbundling isn’t possible,” said Markey, “then Net neutrality is going to be the rule of the road.”

Hiawatha Bray can be reached at bray@globe.com.

[mr anderson]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=28744.msg115580#msg115580

[setmefree]

I use my local phone company to provide internet, At&t DSL.  Even though I know they can track everything I do, my only other choice is comcast and I'm not going there.  I can't stand that woman they always put on the commercials for comcast.  I think verizon is a choice too but just the same as what I have.  I'm really going to be upset one day if I try to log onto prisonplanet and it's no longer available.  They realize they've given us a great alternative way to get accurate info and now want to sqaush it.

[Amd304912]

its sick the dvdr boxes are infrared. every computer after 486's have infrared, right now mines bypassing the north bridge on my mini board.

[jack_2002]

COMCAST---- The same corrupt "peeping tom" pigs who are conniving with the criminals running the government to re-engineer cable set top boxes into surveillance platforms
with embedded video cams + audio and face recognition software. The "prez" of this gang
was caught on tape bragging about this when he thought the interview was finished & he was
supposed to be off "camera".
After the cat was out off the bag, comcast shelled out millions for a huge "lies & spin"
propaganda campaign for damage control.

                               

[sociostudent]

I use my local phone company to provide internet, At&t DSL.  Even though I know they can track everything I do, my only other choice is comcast and I'm not going there.  I can't stand that woman they always put on the commercials for comcast.  I think verizon is a choice too but just the same as what I have.  I'm really going to be upset one day if I try to log onto prisonplanet and it's no longer available.  They realize they've given us a great alternative way to get accurate info and now want to sqaush it.

That's why every weekend, from friday afternoon until sunday afternoon, I practically have an ulcer because I don't know if the show will be back on sunday or not with how fast they're moving to silence dissent.

[TimeLady]

That's why every weekend, from friday afternoon until sunday afternoon, I practically have an ulcer because I don't know if the show will be back on sunday or not with how fast they're moving to silence dissent.

I'd suggest purchasing a good shortwave radio, but apparently last Friday The Power Hour was knocked off of WWCR...

[patrick]

The public still has the power here, if they stop using Comcast.  People can set up a website, leave comments SAYING why they're closing their accounts with Comcast, publicly giving their names for all to see.  It is within the power of the people to voice their concerns over tiered internet providers.  If Comcast wants to play rough, the people need to do likewise imo.

The people again have to realize that the bottom line is still the bottom line.  That's what these companies care about.  So, if enough people protest this action and SPEAK OUT that they are disconnecting their service with Comcast because of their net neutrality stance (lack of), then Comcast will be forced to bend to the people.  Just like everything else though, the people have to get mad enough to take action.  Nobody is forcing Comcast internet down anyone's throat.



How many people would be willing to switch providers though?  If they don't have Verizon or another company who can provide DSL or fiber connections in their area, would they be willing (or able) to get satellite?  Would people be willing to sacrifice a little to take a stand, even if it meant going back to dialup?  If they can't do this with something as small as their internet provider, how can we expect people to take a stand with the big issues facing our nation?  What's more important to the majority of people here?

Of course in the end, who owns the backbones?  If they start these practices, it will be all over.  We all need to get educated about this thing called the internet, how it works, who are the big players, and make sure they keep the internet unmolested.  Is a protest comment to the FCC going to do anything?  I don't know.  What do you think?

Ahhh the internet of the early 1990s. 

I closed my comcast account because their service sucks and they charge way to fuggin much, for any body that wants to stay on the net but stop comcast, cricket phone now has a wireless connector for the net, you don't have to use those anal comcast people anymore.