Comcast Gets Hard Up At FCC Meeting

alphadogg notes a story over at portfolio.com claiming, and presenting evidence, that Comcast paid people off the street to take up room at yesterday's FCC hearing in Massachusetts. Comcast acknowledges that it paid people to hold places in line for its employees. But Save The Internet claims that people were bussed in by Comcast and then took up almost all available seats in the meeting room 90 minutes before the meeting opened, blocking scores of interested people from attending. Such tactics are not unheard of in Washington DC, but how appropriate are they in a regional meeting on a college campus?

Astroturfing?

[KublaiKhan]

What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be. Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on? Or can you just sit and read a book?

Re:Astroturfing?

[Otter]

Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on?

Judging from the photo [portfolio.com], it's not a very demanding job.

I'm in the neighborhood, and wouldn't have minded getting paid to stop by for a nap, although preferably not on Camo Dude's shoulder. And I'd have happily complained about RCN for free!

I was on campus today

[ystar]

I'm a student at Harvard, and for what it's worth, I can confirm the Widener stretch of Massachusetts Ave was lined with an unusual (and infuriating) number of peter pan buses today (maybe 4-5 buses total). I had assumed it was a group of foreign tourists or a big alumni meeting (two busloads of said travelers are a common sight every month or so) but now that I know the truth, I'm fuming at the ears over this.

I'm contacting some friends in the Crimson to see if they plan to cover this in tomorrow's paper.

Re:

[ystar]

Sorry, I meant yesterday (obviously). I've been awake for the past 48 hours +/- a nap, working on a pset, if that serves as an excuse.

Re:

[spun]

Well sir, thanks for expressing interest in this exciting new career opportunity, but before we go any further, I need to measure your ass.

Re:

[bev_tech_rob]

Alot of them sat down and went to sleep [dslreports.com]...

Re:Astroturfing?

[falconwolf]

What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be. Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on? Or can you just sit and read a book?

What if you speak out against those who pay you? "I'm here because Comcast paid me to be here, however I support net neutrality."

Falcon

Re:

[mpe]

What if you speak out against those who pay you? "I'm here because Comcast paid me to be here, however I support net neutrality."

Best to make sure that you get your money first. Though the implication here is that these people were paid to "reserve a seat", rather than as a Comcast proxy.
Maybe the venue should have adopted the same kind of policy as many ammusment parks. Where this is considered to be "queue jumping", likely to get both people evicted.

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm]

Apparently, sleeping is fine.

Re:Astroturfing?

[vtscott]

Reminds me of a similar incident with a protest group [wikipedia.org] against walmart.

An article in Las Vegas Weekly reports that as part of its Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign, the UFCW hired some protestors to stand outside a Nevada Wal-Mart and protest against it. According to the article, the UFCW was being hypocritical in several ways. In particular: [1] * The protest workers were not unionized.
* The UFCW paid the protestors less than Wal-Mart paid its employees. The UFCW paid the protestors $6.00 an hour. Meanwhile, the average Nevada Wal-Mart employee was paid $10.17 an hour.
* The protestors did not have health insurance. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart provided its employees with health insurance. For example, the article mentioned a Wal-Mart employee whose husband received a liver transplant, and the $600,000 cost was paid for by their insurance policy.
* The protestors were working outside in the hot sun where the temperature was 104 degrees. One of the protestors ended up suffering from heat stoke. Meanwhile, the Wal-Mart employees were working inside a cool, air conditoined environment.

Those people had to walk around in the hot sun for $6/hour so I doubt comcast had to pay much for warm butts to sit inside and nap.

Disclaimer: I'm all for protesting walmart although I don't think it's right to pay people to do it. And I think what comcast did was much much shadier.

Re:

[geekoid]

You harbor under the myth that pay is some how tied to physically working hard.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Disclaimer: I'm all for protesting walmart although I don't think it's right to pay people to do it.

At first I agreed. But now I don't. And it is because of retaliation.

A wal-mart employee that protests has a fair chance of facing increased scrutiny leading to firing for some sort of jusitifiable, but trivial, violation. When the protests are outsourced to independents, the employees reduce their risk (but increase their costs since they have to pay these people).

Furthermore, despite their rhetoric, unions are about improving the situation of union members, not the population as a whole. So it may seem hypocritical to outsource the protesting, but if the end result is better for union members then so be it.

Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[EgoWumpus]

"At first I agreed. But now I don't. And it is because of retaliation."

Note that according to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org], that is a human rights abuse and should be prosecuted as such; it's the sign of a sick governmental body that can't manage it.

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Note that according to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is a human rights abuse and should be prosecuted as such; it's the sign of a sick governmental body that can't manage it.

You should note that the UDHR is not enforceable anywhere, it's not a law of any nation.

Furthermore it's impractical to enforce any actual laws against that sort of under-cover retaliation because it is extremely difficult to prove - you'd waste all available resources weeding out all the false positives. Sure, the egregious cases are easy, but we aren't talking about egregious cases.

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

I very much recognize that the UDHR is not particularly enforceable at present. But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it, and even that aside, there are laws against retaliation in the United States. While they are difficult to prove, I don't think that difficulty is an excuse for not pursuing an injustice. If the government cannot manage to enforce it's laws, then it's not doing it's job - and that undermines the whole system.

I think that in particular, when you have a large compa

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it

Which has zero meaning.

I think that in particular, when you have a large company persecuting dissenting employees, the government has a duty to advocate for the people. Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way.

You are advocating for justice through barratry. In effect, the presumption of guilt.

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

"Which has zero meaning."

I refer you to the Constitution [usconstitution.net]. In Article 6 we find;
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

While you may ascribe zero meaning to it, you'd be wrong.

"You a

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

While you may ascribe zero meaning to it, you'd be wrong.

The UHDR is not a treaty. Thus article 6 has ZERO MEANING in relation to the UHDR.

I am advocating no such thing.

Sorry dude, but there is NO OTHER WAY to interpret, "Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way." except as advocating for barratry. You are welcome to retract that statement though.

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

I give you The UN Charter [wikipedia.org], a treaty signed by the United States in 1945.

As for your difficulty in interpreting statements, try this; even if an infinite number of suits are brought by one entirely abstract entity against another, more influential entity, it would be within the duty of the government to advocate for the less influential - regardless of the success rate of those suits. Perhaps you're running to the idea that they would be suits without cause - perfectly understandable, really. However, I ten

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I give you The UN Charter, a treaty signed by the United States in 1945.

Oh boy you got me now! Totally proved your point! How could I have ever questioned you? It's right there in the first chapter of the UN Charter - ALL DECLARATIONS BY THE UNITED NATIONS HAVE THE FULL FORCE AND BINDING OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Why didn't I know that?

You should not have a system that encourages behavior that makes seeking justice difficult; rather the opposite.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. You might want to investigate the law of unintended consequences, even though Congress never passed it, the UN never made it a non-binding declaration, it is still one of the highest laws of

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

Alright... so let me get this straight. You're for the seeking justice being hard? Because to do the opposite would somehow magically conjure (negative, I assume?) unintended consequences? Whereas if you refuse to support individual rights, it's all going to be magically ok?

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your case if you had any sort of actual basis to believe that protecting the corporations here is the smart governmental move. But I'm not seeing it. Much like I'm not seeing how you seem to object to my

Re:

[guruevi]

Why is everybody so much against Wal-Mart? I don't understand it, the employees get average (usually above minimum-wage) pay AND (free) health insurance. Talk to your average waitress, chances are she doesn't get paid anything or way below minimum wage (Perkins Family Restaurants and Applebee's comes to mind) since she earns too much tips (according to suits) and they usually don't get health insurance, they can hardly get their employers insurance to pay up for work related injuries.

Wal-Mart is indeed big

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

Talk to your average waitress, chances are she doesn't get paid anything or way below minimum wage (Perkins Family Restaurants and Applebee's comes to mind) since she earns too much tips (according to suits)

Some of those waitresses get average $15/hr tips, and on a good day you can break $30/hr for some of the day (serve a large party where the tip is like 20% of $400 and they're there for 2-3 hours). Some crappy places take everyone's tips, pool them, and distribute them flat (not fair; if you serve 4

Re:

[GooberToo]

and this practice needs to die.

Tipping is what needs to die. I'm sorry, but $10/hr for transporting a single piece of paper 100ft in one direction and a couple of plates in the other direction is waaay over paid. When we talk about numbers in the range of $30/hr, it is down right vulgar. Many skilled laborers and artisans that don't make that kind of money; and when they can, often not regularly. Add in the fact that tipping is based on a percent, it is beyond idiotic! I'm sorry, but a 3lbs plate at $5.00 d

Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

As I see it, there are two possible systems. In the one you seem to support, you pay a higher meal fee - as determined by the restaurant - and that restaurant compensates the wait staff accordingly. Presumably, ethically, this also means that the wait staff has an at-least-equal-to-minimum-wage salary, rather than the commonly held less-than-minimum-wage salary legal by law because tips are assumed.

In the second system, the one we are under now, the restaurant has lower prices but it is, essentially, off-l

Re:

[Kelbear]

There's more than the two possible systems. The value of waiting vs. fast-food establishments is blurred by the discrepancy of the foods being served.

It's just that the two most common systems are cheap food with no service, or good food with service.

There is still the possibility of good food with no service(priced accordingly), which is what the GP wishes for. It occurs here and there in varying forms(buffets, order&pick-up diners), and the GP's desire is shared by others who have lamented the tip-bas

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

"Just like" the popularity of Windows may be an overstatement; tipping has been around for millenia, after all, whereas the Windows OS has most certainly not. A better analogy might be taxes; sure, it might be, in some respects, better if all the various land and property owners paid for their own services - allowing them to vote with dollars which are more important. But the needs of the overall society are not exactly served. Taxes are an imperfect but workable solution.

That said, I'm not sure you're suf

Re:

[GooberToo]

Finally, though, let me note that it seems to me as though everyone who is against tipping is somehow under the impression that a tipping-free system would obviate the need to pay that money. The fact of the matter is that the market dictates that there is a certain value to being served at a restaurant.

No one is arguing that. The primary problem with tipping is that value is not proportionate the the service. Not even close. Add to the fact that you already PAID for that service (it's included in your meal

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

"The primary problem with tipping is that value is not proportionate the the service. Not even close."

How do you figure? A $20 meal with a 20% tip is $4. Assuming a meal length of 45 minutes, I have to ask, would you serve someone for less than $6 an hour?

But that is actually beside the point; if the general populace is willing to pay $6/hr, $30/hr or $300/hr for personal service, that is the going price. That is what the service is worth because that is what people are willing to pay for it. The remova

Re:

[GooberToo]

The first part is so riddled, I'll just leave it be. You seem like a smart person so I have no doubt you'll be able to figure out where the huge holes are at.

In terms of numbers of people or dollars?

In terms of number of people, which is not to say the dollar figure is small (frankly I don't remember, but it's a large figure). The problem with chasing these people is that from each, the loss to our coffers are relatively small, but there are a lot of them. Worse, proving it is problematic and time consuming

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

"Worse, proving it is problematic and time consuming so the IRS would rather chase other people."

Yes. As they should. No one is benefited by the IRS going after pocket change from lots of people. In fact, given that that money is going to people who are not hoarding it, but rather turning around and spending into the system again, one might argue that the downsides are twofold. This what they classify as a 'little' problem.

With two parents working the typical case these days, eating out in many house h

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

"You seem like a smart person so I have no doubt you'll be able to figure out where the huge holes are at."

By the by, this is the worst sort of contemptuous rhetoric. If you can't cite a specific hole in the argument, don't pretend like it's there and everyone around you is too stupid to see it. I think everyone on Slashdot - myself included - could do to remember this better.

Re:

[GooberToo]

Yes. As they should. No one is benefited by the IRS going after pocket change from lots of people.

You've completely missed the point. If they were not on a tipping system which encourages tax fraud, there would be no reason for the IRS to be concerned with these point in the first place.

Bullshit. Eating out is not a necessity, it is a choice. There are many, many easy methods of cheaply prepping your own food, many of which do not require dishes or any other of the attendant needs of normal food prep. I do

Re:

[GooberToo]

That was a sincere comment and only presumed you would take a critical look at your position as it related to the paragraph in question.

I guess *I* presumed too much. It would seem you're incapable of self reflection so a request for critical examination of your position is nothing but rhetoric. I was sincere when I wrote that and continue to be. You do come across as smart. Sometimes isn't easier to ask for someone to look within than it is to bang them over the head while writing a book which is likely to

Re:

[EgoWumpus]

I think your basic misconception is that the amount you are compensated for a job should be a direct function of the work and skill it requires. This is basically untrue; you may not wish to pay wait staff for the luxury of them serving you, but the fact is that that task is valued in our economy. If it were not, it would not be paid for. It then simply becomes a matter for how you pay for it.

Further, you seek to obfuscate this by niggling over peripheral issues. If you're actually concerned with waitstaff

Re:

[GooberToo]

I think your basic misconception is that the amount you are compensated for a job should be a direct function of the work and skill it requires.

I know it is untrue. That's the basis for my entire rant! ;) It's not unreasonable. It's just not how it works.

Since you're still in denial about looks versus pay, I sincerely invite you to do some home work. You're clearly uninformed on the topic.

Regardless we don't see eye to eye, the exchange was pleasant. Enjoy.

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

You've obviously never experienced dining with an asshole waiter. The fact is, your waitress IS a skilled worker. It's fucking hard to deal with customers. You could be insignificant; you could be a dick and they actively leave; or you could inject some friendly comments and smiles in passing and good purchase/dining/whatever suggestions and make them come back purely on good service. And when you're carrying plates for 6-8 people and (by the way) at least trying to memorize who ordered what, a 20% tip

Re:

[GooberToo]

Sorry, for the vast majority of wait staff, they are not skilled laborers. Pathetic tricks like memorizing my order, which increases the chance it will be screwed up (surprise, it often is), when it should have been written down in the first place, is a ploy to fool the weak minded (*cough*) into believing they are justified a higher tip. By your definition, anyone who speaks to anyone on behalf of a company is a skilled laborer. That's completely false and flatly dumb. And how is "memorizing who ordered w

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

By your definition, anyone who speaks to anyone on behalf of a company is a skilled laborer. That's completely false and flatly dumb. And how is "memorizing who ordered what", deserving of a tip. It's not. Period. That's idiotic.

So yeah, I was at IBM today trying to sell them on our new eCommerce platform; I don't know why they opted to build their own on WebSphere, I told them flat out we just knew what we were doing better than they did and they'd most probably screw it up and cost themselves assholis

Walmart and Unions

[EgoWumpus]

"Why is everybody so much against Wal-Mart?"

I give you these:

Article describing the impact of Walmart on local economies and the 'cost' of raising their floor wage to $10/hr [huffingtonpost.com]

Book describing what it's like living on minimum wage in America [amazon.com]

In short; Walmart is exploitative of it's workers. Greed keeps it that way, and supporting Walmart supports that same sin.

As to the rest of it; I know everyone dislikes Unions, but I'm always taken aback when people rail against them. Unions protect you as much

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

Whoa. Wal-Mart has better pay rate and health insurance than Target, Best Buy, or K-Mart??? And they have good health insurance benefits? I thought Wal-Mart was the face of evil and treated its employees like crap, isn't that why everyone hates them? ... or could it be that they just make 50 times more money than the other, less employee friendly retail warehouses?

Re:

[cHiphead]

Sounds like bullshit to me, Target has consistently paid a higher hourly wage to employees throughout the years, but maybe they're getting a little stale and starting to slide like Walmart due to their constant expansion.

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

Dunno, some guy I know makes $8/hr at Target. Seems anyone not in Geek Squad or BBY-Business or management/supervisor level can't get $10; one stock guy was making $7.99/hr, spent 2 years begging for a 1 penny raise. By the way, "Stock" seems to encompass three separate teams at BBY: Inventory (unload truck, put boxes on shelves); Merchandising (set up displays, make the store look nice, etc); and Loss Prevention (if someone gets stabbed by a shop lifter, this is them). None of them make $8.

Re:

[cHiphead]

Years and years ago I did a very short stint at CompUSA working as an 'Upgrades tech' (the guys that actually had face time with customers, occasionally get called onto the main sales floor when a rush hits, etc) and somehow ended up stocking the fucking store at the end of each night. Sorry but stacking 21" CRTs on the top shelf of the racks all over the store was not in the job description. All at $7/hr. I will say that it at least made subsequent employers seem a lot nicer when the work at a job act

Re:

[mpe]

We used to get those hired protesters here in Atlanta too, though they represent the "carpenter's union". They would hire up to 50 people to scream and shout until the corporation either ignores them long enough or pays them off to go to the next building.

Maybe someone could start an actual "rent-a-mob" agency :)

Re:

[milsoRgen]

I can't find specifics, but from this article [arstechnica.com] I would wager it was probably a whole afternoon. I would of jumped at the chance to be there, and get beer money for later. But I can only imagine what Joe Six-Pack and company thought of the whole event.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Em Adespoton]

The best method is to get Cisco to bus you in, and then link up to a group IM service so that you can represent all the interested parties who WEREN'T able to get in because of Cisco's seat stuffing :)

Re:

[HiThere]

Why did you say Cisco when the summary said Comcast?

It was Comcast that was reported as paying people to stuff the hearing.

P.S.: No, this isn't an ethical approach, whether in Washington DC or elsewhere. But if it isn't illegal, then immoral companies will do it. Especially if they have no rational grounds to forward in favor of the decision that they want to have reached.

Re:

[Em Adespoton]

Sorry; meant Comcast; I happened to be troubleshooting a pesky router problem when typing that ;) Freudian slip.

Re:

[cbiltcliffe]

Sorry; meant Comcast; I happened to be troubleshooting a pesky router problem when typing that

No, you happened to be avoiding troubleshooting a pesky router problem when typing that

Re:

[clang_jangle]

I would of jumped

It's "would have jumped"!

It wasn't all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It was touching when Bill the Wino, whom Comcast had been promised a fifth of vodka to fill a seat, entered a rare moment of lucidity and shouted, "I will not sell my soul for liquor anymore, net neutrality for all!"

Re:

[twistedcubic]

Wow, an anonymous person just won the Funniest Post of The Year So Far award.

Sounds like our ex-mayor

[nurb432]

One of the last things he did was have a 'community meeting' about property taxes, then let all his people in and fill the room before they opened the doors to the public.

Re:

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

Well, we can only hope that Comcast gets the same outcome as your ex-mayor. :)

just like OOXML!

[l2718]

Microsoft has been using the same tactic for the OOXML meetings (remember the incident in Sweden?) I guess manipulating public meetings is the next form of business competition.

Re:just like OOXML!

[QRDeNameland]

Is it any surprise? Our political and business leaders have been teaching us more and more all that the path to success is scumbaggery. Lie, chisel, and cheat; and as long as you are powerful enough to get away with it, you will be richly rewarded. Honor, ethics, and good reputation are quaintly outmoded concepts, and those who cling to such silly traditions are in a race to be the last sucker.

The problem is not that people will attempt such venality to get ahead; this has always been the case. The problem is that, increasingly IMHO, the rest of us let them get away with this crap with their reputations intact.

business

[falconwolf]

Honor, ethics, and good reputation are quaintly outmoded concepts, and those who cling to such silly traditions are in a race to be the last sucker.

While a lot of businesses may not operate this way some do, and they are doing well. One of the fastest growing grocery store chains is Whole Foods Market [google.com] which does. Their mission statement, Declaration of Interdependence [wholefoodsmarket.com] goes over what they work on.

I know this is only one example but there are others.

Falcon

Re:

[sheldon]

I would hardly hold up Whole Foods as an example in Ethics [boston.com]

Re:

[falconwolf]

I would hardly hold up Whole Foods as an example in Ethics [boston.com]

I hadn't seen that before, thanks.

Falcon

They're not unheard of tactics?

[spectecjr]

Hmmm... sounds like a bug in the political system. We should fix that.

Re:

[Jester998]

Yeah, too bad the change control process is such a bitch.

Re:

[mazarin5]

Maybe we could have a big meeting and invite interested parties to voice their opinions!

Comcast branching out

[Enuratique]

Looks like the crack R&D team at Comcast has branched out and found a way to manage congestion at FCC filings too.

Re:

[Floritard]

It is strange to think they are essentially forging supporters much like they were forging packets. Small playbook they have there.

Who cares where it is located?

[garcia]

Such tactics are not unheard of in Washington DC, but how appropriate are they in a regional meeting on a college campus?

Huh? I am all for thinking that this is dick move but to ask "how appropriate" it is seems a little ridiculous. It's a fucking college campus -- if anything, it shouldn't be permitted in "Washington, DC" (whatever that means) but if someone wants to fill a campus auditorium with highlighter toting narcoleptics, so be it.

All this shows is that Comcast is willing to play dirtier than ever to ensure that their network operates in the manner they deem necessary. Normally I couldn't care less what a private business does with its customers but when they have a permitted monopoly in as many areas as they do, they should be held accountable for the bullshit they have been pulling using pipes that my tax dollars helped fund.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[wolff000]

I'm with you 100%. Comcast should be held accountable for this. If law makers are doing it they need to get booted and brought up on charges as well. This kind of thing just makes me sick.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[KublaiKhan]

Bring a suit against 'em for 'subverting the democratic process' I suppose. Or something else that sounds suitably treasonous.

Re:

[Rob Riggs]

Bring a suit against 'em for 'subverting the democratic process' I suppose. Or something else that sounds suitably treasonous.

Is 'subverting the democratic process' illegal in the US?

A fair response would be to have another hearing with the folks that couldn't get in, and allow Comcast one paralegal in the meeting.

Re:

[unitron]

Lawmakers don't do this, lobbyists do. They hire people to stand in lines for them so that when a committee meeting that's considering a matter of concern to them finally starts they have a guarantee of getting one of the limited number of seats available to the public in the room in which the committee is meeting. While their stand-in is standing in for them they're off somewhere else getting something else done instead of just standing around in a line waiting for congresscritters to start a meeting.

Re:

[proudhawk]

All this shows is that Comcast is willing to play dirtier than ever to ensure that their network operates in the manner they deem necessary. Normally I couldn't care less what a private business does with its customers but when they have a permitted monopoly in as many areas as they do, they should be held accountable for the bullshit they have been pulling using pipes that my tax dollars helped fund.

if you really want to get the attention of comcast (and others), everyone should buy up as much stock as possible in comcast (and others), assign it to a voting block and force them to do the right thing by the power of voting stock. I know it sounds simplistic, but sometimes, its the simple things that get the job done.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[seanadams.com]

Yes, drive their stock up! That'll teach 'em.

Re:

[Dahamma]

Are you KIDDING? Comcast is worth $60B. If you somehow managed to find people willing to buy over half of it (at which point it would inevitably be worth over $100B anyway, I'm sure...) Why would they then intentionally try to destroy their investment by working against the company's interest??

If you want to organize the masses and get the attention of Comcast, wouldn't just having people switch to a competing service (satellite TV, DSL Internet, etc) be the sensical way to send a message?

If you don't th

Buying free speech

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

It wasn't as much for blocking competition from other companies but from blocking the public from speaking out. There's gotta be some law against this kind of thing...
Oh wait...

What does this say

[palegray.net]

... about the people who accepted money to "attend" a meeting they knew nothing about? Pretty shitty ethics on both sides of this transaction.

Re:What does this say

[urbanriot]

Hahah what planet are you from? I don't know many people that *wouldn't* accept a few bucks for sitting in a court room while they listen to their ipod or txt their friends, let alone people that might be down on their luck.

... about the people who accepted money to "attend" a meeting they knew nothing about? Pretty shitty ethics on both sides of this transaction.

Desperation

[milsoRgen]

It almost seems like a move of desperation, I can't imagine why they would be that desperate though. Granted public opinion seems to be against what they are doing, but when has public opinion ever generated decent regulation from the FCC.

Commonplace in Washington

[KookyMan]

For those who aren't aware, its common practice for Lobbyists to pay professional "line waiters" in Washington D.C.

Since lines form hours ahead of time for meetings and other public discussions, its a waste of time to force the lobbyist themselves to be waiting in line for 2-3 hours, so they pay someone to hold a place. I believe it was the Colbert Report that actually did a piece on this within the last couple of months. I think there was possibly some legislation being floated that would make some judgments on this practice.

Re:

[KublaiKhan]

Seems to me that if it's your job to go to a meeting that you should sit your own rear end in line.

Besides, the more you have these lobbyists tied up waiting, the less you have them actually lobbying--so perhaps the congresscritters might have to listen to their constituents for once, if only out of sheer boredom.

Re:

[geekoid]

Yep. It's called "No Savies"

Ask any 1st grader.

This should not be allowed at all. You can have the person behind you save your seat, briefly. But if you are gone longer then 10 minutes, or the doors open while you are away. Too Bad, So sad.

"no Swappies", or "Cutsies" either.

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[Stanislav_J]

Yes, but you make the erroneous assumption that D.C. lobbyists are as mature as 1st graders...

Re:

[Red Flayer]

From a political standpoint, I agree.

But from an economic standpoint, the market has decided that lobbyist time is very valuable (yeah, yeah, this is due to restrictions on supply of lobbyists, as well as constaints on who has access to politicians). In a capitalist system, we must assume that lobbyists produce something of value, since the market has assigned value to their labor.

So what we're left with is that it's a very inefficient use of resources to have the lobbyists waiting in line. We're all be

Re:

[powerlord]

Otherwise, we'd need more lobbyists to fulfill the market demand for them, and other than the sharks themselves, who wants that?

Well, the way I see it, there are other possibilities.

1) More lobbyists (which would cost their backers more)
2) The same number of Lobbyist, but spread out thinner (since each would campaign less)
3) Less Lobbyists (since some might decide that sitting in line for hours is not something they care to do), or perhaps less "Competent" Lobbyists, combined with more cheap and less compet

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[bandini]

I was a bike messenger in DC for several years, and did a number of line standings. Messengers are often hired for this purpose, being familiar with the Hill offices, and being still more familiar with working as dispensable help for some of the worst people in the world.
I never liked doing line standings, though they usually paid well (relative to my average income back then); besides being deadly boring, there was always a sort of bitter ethical aftertaste, it's true. I think the last one I did was for one of the asbestos hearings; I'll never forget seeing the looks on the faces of what appeared to be genuine concerned citizens, showing up at what they thought was an early hour only to find themselves effectively locked out of the room by a ragged bunch of guys in rain jackets and shoes that close with velcro - who were only proxies for three-piece suits and wing tips, but whatever.
The deal (for whoever's interested in these things) is you show up at one of the Senate or House office buildings at some crazy hour, usually well before dawn or even a day or two ahead of time, and wait. The building isn't open yet, so you have to wait outside, and then march in to the hallway near the assigned hearing room, trying to preserve the order of the line as it was. Sometimes the hearing room is a ways from the open entrance; guys want to move up in line or at least not lose too many places, everybody starts walking faster and the line will break into a sprint. Kind of fun to run across the floor of the Hart building at 5am, bike cleats ringing on marble, but as things are generally a lot more locked down on the Hill these days I doubt if this happens much anymore.
So one problem, for the waiter, is that while this is basically an accepted practice the Capitol Hill police don't really fully condone it, either. I'm guessing that there's no clear regulations, let alone laws, covering these things, but once you're inside the cops will threaten to kick you out if you try to sit down, or leave a bag or other placeholder in line while you use the bathroom. If they catch you holding someone else's place in line (besides the one person who's paying you to be there, natch) they'll wait for the other guy to come back and throw you both out. Their right to do any of these things is pretty vaguely defined, but good luck trying to lodge a complaint.
Of course for important hearings where people are waiting for many hours beforehand, some bending of these rules has to happen, and so it does, but you have to defer to the cops by not doing it in front of their faces. They in turn give a little leeway; right up until an hour or so before the hearing, they only walk down the line once in 20-30 minutes, then as the time approaches they come by more and more often. By the time the lawyers and lobbyists show up it's a reasonably orderly scene. You're not really supposed to just have a sign out, airport-limo style, because somehow that is considered too blatant. So there's this funny school-dance thing that happens where a bunch of suits are walking up and down the line, looking for their guy or guys, both sides murmuring the names of various client firms. Once you find each other you switch out, and the cop who was diligently making sure you didn't hold your buddy's place for five minutes while he went to take a piss will stand there and watch and not say a damn thing.

I have a very low opinion of the Capitol Hill police, for reasons only tangentially related to the above, so excuse me if that colors my description; I'm just describing the phenomenon from the underling's perspective for anyone who cares to know about it.

Getting paid to sleep through an FCC hearing...

[BUL2294]

It's Comcastic!

Frankly, someone should open an investigation as to how many hundreds or thousands of $$$$ of cash were paid. I'll bet Comcast doesn't have 1099s for the people they paid, which they probably illegally did with CASH...

Re:

[theskipper]

IIRC, a 1099 is only required if the total amount is >$600 by Dec 31.

Using petty cash for this type of thing is interesting though. Although it's barely a rounding error in a company of their size, even a $2 pack of Bics from Staples produces a receipt. Can't imagine there's any paper trail in a scheme like this.

Comcast should lose for that

[kawabago]

Comcast should be censured for it's behaviour but it's Amerika, if you've got money, it doesn't matter what you do. That's what's really wrong with America too.

Comcast

[Funnydaddy]

With the rising unemployment in the US, Comcast could come to the rescue! Why don't they employ all the unemployed to 'reserve' spaces for their employees? What did they really hope to achieve with this blatant show of trickery?

I was in line

[GabrielF]

My colleague and I run free wireless networks in housing projects. We both schlepped to attend this event and we were both turned away by Harvard cops because there was no room. It really drives me crazy that people whose livelihood is effected by net neutrality couldn't get in because comcast paid to pack the room.

The event was run by the Berkman Center and even people who identified themselves as working for Berkman were turned away. Even a reporter who just wanted to stand in the back and take photos was hassled by the cops - I didn't stay long enough to see if they let him in. There were a lot of people who arrived around the time I did (fifteen minutes early) and insisted that someone was holding their seat, so maybe there is some truth to the part about the people holding seats for Comcast employees - but - the Harvard cops wouldn't let these people by unless they called the person holding the seat and that person came out, so unless Comcast provided their employees with the cell numbers of the seat fillers they wouldn't have gotten in anyway.

I'm so mad about this that I want to tell everyone I know to cancel their comcast service, but because of the telecom duopoly most of the people I know who have comcast would probably have to pay a lot more to switch.

Someone has to say it...

[merc]

I for one welcome our conference-room-encroaching net-neutrality-astroturfing chair-sleeping overlords.

Just a good thing Ballmer wasn't there, they wouldn't have been any chairs for THEM to sit on!

The Problem is a Lack of Ethics and Honesty

[mlwmohawk]

Ethics are a lost cause. Ethics and being unethical used to be a serious issue. Honesty and Ethics used to be the characteristic of a great person. These days, no one expects ethics, no one even values ethics. When the majority of people act ethically and honestly, there is negative feedback to unethical behavior. When the majority of people don't care about ethics, unethical behavior is the norm.

So much of a free society depends on ethics and the deal of ethics will be the death of freedom.

This IS the FCC, after all

[DynaSoar]

Do it again, but

(1) provide broad- and net-cast of the proceedings, and

(2) provide for text and voice reception to the panel for questions from the audience, local and remote, and

(3) provide a moderator whose job it is to see that the relevant questions are answered, or else specifically and overtly note that the relevant questions were non-answered with misdirection through irrelevant and worthless answers.

Announce that this is how it's going to run, and I'll give 10 to 1 that Comcast will refuse to participate. Announce that independent testing has confirmed they've lied about their "packet shaping" blockage of P2P traffic, and I'll raise it to 100 to 1.

Any day now one or another of these traffic blocking ISPs is going to blame participation in the goobermint's wire tapping program for the "unavoidable periodic slowdowns of certain types of traffic due to redirection of 'traffic of interest'" for analysis by the spooks. It's a lie that they all know will be recognized a such, but will be allowed to slip by the sheeple since it's for catching the terrorists who might want to blow up the Grand Canyon or some such.

NSA:
War Is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
We're Running a Little Behind

New Technology

[zieroh]

This is all part of Comcast's new Public Hearing Shaping technology.

Re:Why in Massachusetts?

[Em Adespoton]

Doesn't Massachusetts have some sort of a technology institute? Wouldn't the intellectuals at such an institute be excellent people to have weigh in on such a debate?

Also, I don't know about Y!, but Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all have branch offices in that area.

Re:

[Richthofen80]

Why not in Washington DC, where there are more likely to be interested parties?
You mean, Lobbyists.

All of the companies you mention have offices is Massachusetts.

As much as I'm going to get modded down for this, Comcast has been royally fucked in Massachusetts. Comcast is required to license their business with every town / city before delivering cable to them. This means that each city can set the terms of their cable service, including such pain in the ass things as 'even though you set aside channel x fo

Re:Bribery is illegal... Comcast should be penaliz

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Who got bribed? Are you replying to the right article?

Re:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Comcast paid people off the street to fill up the hearing.

Re:

[Anonymous Psychopath]

True, but bribes? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Re:

[GabrielF]

If the frat boys are showing up because they have an agenda or they are generally interested in a topic than thats fine. I wouldn't even have minded if Comcast employees had shown up en masse, but paying people who are going to sleep through the event is despicable since it prevents members of the public who have a legitimate interest in participating in government from attending.

Re:Well... no.

[wonkavader]

Coming from a background in psychology, I can tell you things don't work out the way you'd expect.

The people Comcast brought in were paid to do something they won't feel good about themselves for. People don't like that feeling, and rationally, you'd expect them to get mad at the person who paid them, but the way this ACTUALLY works is that the people rationalize their misbehavior by siding with the people who paid them.

So Comcast just bought themselves a bunch of irrational supporters. You can guess that 20% of the people they bussed in who actually think about this ever again will be anti-Comcast. The rest who think about it will support them, in a subconscious effort to not make themselves a bad person.

A pity. I'd like your scenario a lot better.