I'm somewhat confused here.

If Comcast is a cable provider, don't they primarily just re-broadcast the product of other organizations?

If so, why can't the ad be placed with one of the local television stations that are NOT owned by Comcast? Wouldn't Comcast then have to actually delete the feed from that local station to keep the ad from being "aired" on its cables?

I'm using IE - - which seems to work much better than FireFox for Salon.Com.

Even in FireFox the YouTube video was also working okay just now - - but much slower than in IE.

Here in Houston, Comcast (who actually managed to make Time Warner look good by comparison after Comcast's recent takeover of Houston's cable monopoly) quickly moved liberal-leaning MSNBC to the premium tier from its longstanding position on the basic cable lineup.

Fox News and CNN are still available on Houston's "basic cable."

Coincidence? Unlikely. Regulators, start your hearings.

What Comcast is doing is the quintessential practice, considered obvious in a less corporatism-addled world, that would necessarily result from any one voice in the media growing so dominant that it felt comfortable silencing its critics with ham-handed impunity. It is probable that under the next round of FCC "reform," Blue America's ad could have been relegated to the alternative press entirely, and thereby, utterly vanish down the Memory Hole without a trace. I have no doubt that Comcast is measuring the windows in the smaller media outlets with the temerity to run such un-American blasphemy for the heavy drapes they plan to draw against all such offending speech in the salivated-over "future."

As Kovie points out, and as the cockeyed optimist I stubbornly continue to be, I think that they have overplayed their hand and risk their dreams of one corporation, under God, with this petulant, stupid, and overconfident display of Bushian Deciderism. Don't they read the polls? Don't they know how fed up, disgusted, and downright angry the public is from so many years of this crap? And have they any idea that their own customers probably think less of them, due to their poor, overpriced service and "my way or the highway" attitude than even the equally annoyed civil libertarians in this country?

Bring it on, Comcast.

No high-priced lawyer can pull your chestnuts out of this fire.

I will happily contribute to a new ad campaign highlighting this... Especially large (Clear Channel?) billboards along their executives' routes home to their no doubt gated communities.

why can't the ad be placed with one of the local television stations that are NOT owned by Comcast?

I don't know about "feeds" but Glenn did mention one local station that accepted the ad. I am assuming they ran it if they accepted it.

The ads that were submitted were accepted by numerous newspapers and radio stations in Carney's district, as well as one television station operator (one much smaller than Comcast).

Definition .--At the time the Constitution was adopted, many persons understood the term ex post facto laws to "embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing or controlling past transactions, whether ... of a civil or a criminal nature."[1722] But in the early case of Calder v. Bull,[1723] the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes. But although it is inapplicable to retroactive legislation of any other kind,[1724] the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal.[1725] Every law, which makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or which inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution.[1726] A prosecution under a temporary statute, which was extended before the date originally set for its expiration, does not offend this provision even though it is instituted subsequent to the extension of the statute's duration for a violation committed prior thereto.[1727] Since this provision has no application to crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country, it is immaterial in extradition proceedings whether the foreign law is ex post facto or not.[1728]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html

We know there are places and lands on this planet where what Comcast has done here is performed by those in government with power and money to do this.

Shutting down those whom they deem not to be towing the line or getting out of line to stir up "trouble".

Here in America we not only get the kind of abuse regimes like Bush/Cheney wholeheartedly embrace of breaking the law and mocking legal process but also get corporations which in America can be just as capable of shutting down,shutting out and sidelining what we as Americans learn,know or can draw conclusions about.

CNN,a big media corporation,puts on the full buffet for big coal,petro and allied energy interests often enough these days. It is propaganda and vested big energy corporations are buying CNN program blocks and other adtime to sell it.

Comcast,as with all corporations,although treated in American courts of law as a "person" is comprised of real people who in this case have slow walked what GG is relating here and now have decided to erect dubious legal barriers to deny/avoid doing what they clearly deem not good for Comcast or see as an ally in Comcast pursuits.

So...who are the people who being in positions of control at Comcast are able to put this in place and enforce it?

They are real people who in American politics need to come out from behind the Comcast "wizards curtain" here and declare who they are and why they will not permit this ad to air on Comcast being it is within reason a clear practice of free expression and speech.

Where is the danger Comcast sees in this taking place?

Of course the last thing Comcast the corporation and those who run the levers and vid screens of Comcast want is any light of day to shine in.

Which is why the light of day is what needs to be brought in.

As with much of this kind of corporate behavior and the rats in the corporations who put it in motion(ENRON anyone?) it comes down to finding out who the rats are,give them a public face and let them scurry about seeking to stonewall or hide.

It does come down to the money often enough.

As with this Bush/Cheney regime then too.

The light of day is last thing they want brought to bear on them.

Which is why it is the first and best switch to reach for and turn on.

Shame does still have some merit and will work despite the efforts of the rats to posture and conduct themselves in shameless ways.