Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Well I'm absolutely shocked that Comcast has refused to run this ad. NOT!! This happens all the times. I remember a few years ago, ABC refused to run anti-drug war ads during the superbowl, while they ran ads from the drug czar. Companies shouldn't be able to disciminate like that. They should have to run ads regardless of political content.
Hee hee hee!! I imagine that right about now, this post is winging its way around the Comcast execs, with much groaning and shaking of heads.
Nice one Glenn. As usual.
I used to argue that it wasn't meaningful to call such things "censorship" unless they were done by an actual government. I still think the word gets used too often in situations where it doesn't really apply, but corporate media consolidation has resulted in situations like this where the word fits all too well.
Comcast has no legal obligation, at least that I'm aware of, to broadcast particular ads.
Except is Comcast a broadcaster? Or a carrier? Doesn't common carriage require that they act neutrally with respect to content?
Yes, ABC can refuse to run an ad for whatever reason. But they can't jam the airwaves so that nobody watching any TV will ever see it.
As a resident of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, what I find so ironic about this little episode is the fact that nearly everyone here hates Comcast.
Add in ClearChannel's domination of the radio airwaves and it's a two-fer of disgust in this neck of Penns Woods ...
This may be of interest - from 1995!
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1334
and fun to read. It brings up the old question again: why are they seeking pardon if they did not break the law? Just a precaution, right? A kind of "get out of jail free" card to protect themselves from those nasty libruls. You never know when someone will accuse you, right out the blue, of having given their private information to the government. And it is so easy for it to happen by mistake. But those commies will show no mercy.
I happen to live in an area where the only broadband internet I can get is Comcast. ADSL does not work at my home for some reason, I suspect I have some pretty rotten phone lines headed for my house (even if they did work, it would be Verizon, which is also all too willing to provide access to my communications)
Pretty soon Yakov Smirnoff will be able to dust off his old act, change all the USSR reference to the USA, and tour the former Soviet republics to huge acclaim.
from 2008 - Comcast
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3384
from 2001:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01july-august/julyaug01interviewcohen.html
2004:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1990
As a corporation, Comcast obviously has a responsibility not to run an ad against itself. As a steward of the first ammendment rights--ostensibly bound in some way by the fact that municipal and city governments lease the public's right of ways for its cable--Comcast has an OBLIGATION to do so!
The reason we have this conundrum is the FCC's willingness to facilitate media consolidation, creating a situation in which Comcast is the only purveyor of television media in certain markets (where broadcast television is not an option, and where single cable contracts preclude competition).
This fight is a bit of a windmill, and an odd argument--asking a corporation to advise the public of its own malfeasance--but what better way to highlight the dangers of media consolidation?
FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein attended the recent National Conference for Media Reform, and I believe they would be interested in the content of this column. These and all other commissioners can be emailed via the FCC, but I especially recommend these two, for communications regarding this issue. I have no expertise on the legalities involved here, or FCC rules regarding proper usage of the public airwaves, which comcast uses at no charge. But perhaps these FCC commissioners can make some suggestions.
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/mail.html
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/adelstein/mail.html
I remember a little bit of this common carrier thing from the telecom fights of the 90's, but can't seem to find much on it. In any case, I've never noticed it being applied anywhere...do you have any more info?
Is that it has a tendency to quash the rollout of VoIP services, aka internet phones. The more enforced neutrality you have the worse it is for VoIP. Why? Because it becomes impossible to sell packet prioritization and VoIP is extremely sensitive to QoS (Quality of Service) isochronous packet priority ordering. The technical workaround is to deploy more expensive gear on the customer end to deliver uplink QoS but that's only a partial fix as the downlink side tends to get highly congested at the DSLAM. Anyone who tries to run a Bitorrent on the same link as a VoIP will immediately understand the latency issues that create a huge falloff in VoIP quality and reliability.
Again, it has to do with neutrality translating into a legal block on being able to sell prioritization since a packet is a packet is a packet as far all the lower and middle layers are concerned. Carriers can't tell them apart unless you force that and as soon as you do you're violating the terms of neutrality.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
I realize that the essential need for the telecom lawsuits to go forward is to get to the bottom of just how far this illegal surveillance program has gone, but I'm wondering if anyone can post a list of the companies known and/or suspected of being accomplices of the govt? Or better still companies that are known to be "clean"? I recall Qwest being criticized for not cooperating.
I've donated to support this cause, but I'm also looking to sever my relationships with any companies that have aided and abetted here, but need to know if there are any companies out there I can trust.
ATT is on my hit list. I didnt realize today that Comcast is (apparently) in deep. At the least, their behvavior over this ad is enough. I hate the satellite TV providers, but at least they can't monitor my communications.
What about it? Is there such a list?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
