DAVID COHEN: All of this is designed to have a minimal, virtually imperceptible effect on a small number of users. The result of course is a wildly positive impact on the Internet experience of many more users who subscribe to our services.
NICKISCH: But most experts disagreed with Cohen’s description. David Reed from MIT said he did an experiment; and found that Comcast is essentially forging network transmissions between users to make it look like each wants to end the transfer. Reed says that’s deceptive and intrusive, and violates standard Internet practices for reducing congestion.
There were some real great lines from our side. Gilles BianRosa, a Harvard MBA and CEO of a video-on-demand company, Vuze:
We compete with Comcast in the delivery of video content over the Internet. What we have here is a horse race. And in this race Comcast owns the racetrack.
Then there was Marvin Ammori from Free Press:
Your Internet provider will pick your websites for you. Online companies and device makers like Vuze will need a permission slip to innovate. And providers will be able to profit from artificial scarcity.
But the best part about this is what the Republican chairman of the FCC said! According to Nickisch:
NICKISCH: After the hearing, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he’s prepared to stop Internet providers from hobbling traffic. That’s a key statement from a Republican who generally favors the market sorting things out on its own. Martin and the rest of the panel may get some help from Massachusetts Congressman Edward Markey. He introduced a bill last week that would give the FCC more authority on the issue.
I wrote a shorter post about this at my website, Left in Lowell, where I can normally be found. đ
Go Net Neutrality!! We need to keep fighting, but there’s light at the end of the tunnel, at least in regards to the first battle! For more, visit FreePress.net.
I was at the hearing, and went to the social thing afterward, where I got to talk to the FCC Chair for a while. It seems he was not convinced of the need for the government to enforce traffic nondiscrimination until the recent Comcast scandal.
<
p>Overall a very interesting discussion. If I have a chance I’ll write a blog post about it somewhere, possibly on my livejournal.
Thanks, Cos, I’d like to hear the story.
has someone admitting to being paid to hold seats to prevent citizens from attending:
<
p>
“Comcast hired people to get to the Harvard hearing early” and block people from being seated:
<
p>
<
p>From Portfolio.com.
Universal Hub also linked photos from the event, for those interested.
draconian enforcement of the “fairness doctrine” as well as a means to provide “balance” to talk radio?
I am against both. I really see no difference in the two. Why the three. It was a fair question. They are truly related.