Comcast Caught Filtering Political E-Mails

Posted by Pile (62648 views) Add this story to MyYahoo Add this article to Submit article to Reddit Add story to Furl Add story to StumbleUpon [E-Mail link]

American online activist David Swanson alleges that Comcast and Symantec have blocked emails drawing attention to the so-called Downing Street memo, which activists have seized on as proof that the last Iraq war was planned in advance.

How Comcast Censors Political Content
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2005-07-16 00:16. Activism

How Comcast Censors Political Content
Or Why My Comcast Horror Story Is Better Than Yours
By David Swanson

Most Comcast internet customers seem to have horror stories, but in my humble opinion this one is a doozie and may even suggest threats to freedom of speech more significant than the jailing of a court stenographer.

I'm working on a campaign headquartered at that seeks to draw attention to the Downing Street Minutes and to lobby Congress to open an investigation into whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. According to a recent Zogby poll, 42 percent of Americans favor impeachment proceedings if the President lied about the reasons for war, and according to a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll, 52 percent think he did. But this story is nowhere to be found in the corporate media. So, our website attracts a lot of traffic.

In addition, July 23rd is the three-year anniversary of the meeting on Downing Street that produced the now infamous minutes, and we are organizing events all over the country on that day. Or, we're trying to. But we noticed about a week ago that everyone working on this campaign was having strange Email problems. Some people would get Emails and some wouldn't, or they'd receive some but not others. Conference calls were worse than usual (I can't stand the things anyway) because half the people wouldn’t get the info and know where to call in. Organizing by internet is super easy, but when you have to follow up every Email with a phone call to see if someone got it, it becomes super frustrating. Volunteers have been complaining all over the country – especially now that we've figured out what the problem was and they know what to complain about.

We didn't know it, but for the past week, anyone using Comcast has been unable to receive any Email with "" in the body of the Email. That has included every Email from me, since that was in my signature at the bottom of every Email I sent. And it included any Email linking people to any information about the upcoming events.

From the flood this evening of Emails saying "Oh, so that's why I haven't heard anything from you guys lately," it seems clear that we would have significantly more events organized by now for the 23rd if not for this block by Comcast.

Disturbingly, Comcast did not notify us of this block. It took us a number of days to nail down Comcast as the cause of the problems, and then more days, working with Comcast's abuse department to identify exactly what was going on. We'd reached that point by Thursday, but Comcast was slow to fix the problem.

During the day on Friday we escalated our threats to flood Comcast's executives with phone calls and cancellations, and we gave them deadlines. Friday evening, Comcast passed the buck to Symantec. Comcast said that Symantec's Bright Mail filter was blocking the Emails, and that Symantec refused to lift the block, because they had supposedly received 46,000 complaints about Emails with our URL in them. Forty-six thousand! Of course, Symantec was working for Comcast, and Comcast could insist that they shape up, or drop them. But Comcast wasn't interested in doing that.

Could we see two or three, or even one, of those 46,000 complaints? No, and Comcast claimed that Symantec wouldn't share them with Comcast either.

By the time Comcast had passed the buck to the company that it was paying to filter its customers Emails, Brad Blog had posted an article about the situation and urged people to complain to Comcast.

Brad quickly added Symantec phone numbers to the story on his website, and we called Symantec's communications department, which fixed the problem in a matter of minutes.

So, why does this matter?

Comcast has a near monopoly on high-speed internet service in much of this country, including much of the Washington, D.C., area. Many members of the media and many people involved in politics rely on it. Three days ago, I almost decided to put a satellite dish on my roof. There's no other way for me to get high-speed internet, unless I use Comcast.

Comcast effectively censors discussion of particular political topics, and impedes the ability of people to associate with each other, with absolutely no compulsion to explain itself. There is no due process. A phrase or web address is tried and convicted in absentia and without the knowledge of those involved.

Now, did Comcast do this because it opposes impeaching the President? I seriously doubt it. Apparently the folks at Symantec did this, and Comcast condoned it. But why?

Well, we have no evidence to suggest that these 46,000 complaints actually exist, but we can be fairly certain that if they do, they were generated by someone politically opposed to our agenda. There's simply no possible way that we've accidentally annoyed 46,000 random people with stray Emails and mistyped addresses. We've only been around for a month and a half, and we haven't spammed anyone. In fact, during the course of trying to resolve the problem, Comcast assured us that they knew we hadn't spammed anyone. And once we'd gotten Symantec's attention, they didn't hesitate to lift the block.

But it had taken serious pressure to find out what the problem was and who to ask for a remedy. We only solved this because we could threaten a flood of negative attention.

This state of affairs means that anyone who wants to stifle public and quasi-private discussion of a topic can quite easily do so by generating numerous spam complaints. The victims of the complaints will not be notified, made aware of the accusations against them, or provided an opportunity to defend themselves. And if the complaints prove bogus, there will be absolutely no penalty for having made them.

And this won't affect only small-time information sources. If the New York Times or CNN attempts to send people Email with a forbidden phrase, it won't reach Comcast customers or customers of any ISP using the same or similar filtering program.

And there is no public list posted anywhere of which phrases are not permitted. This is a Kafkan world. This is censorship as it affects a prisoner who sends out letters and does not know if they will reach the recipient or be destroyed.

What if I had tried to Email someone about a serious health emergency during the past week, but they had been using Comcast and I had been including the address of my website in my Email signature? Is this not a safety issue?

Above all, though, this is a First Amendment issue, as is well laid out in this excerpt of a statement released today by, the organization hosting the site:

"This goes far beyond the normal anti-spam measures taken by major providers and represents an effective blocking of constitutionally protected expression and the fundamental right to organize and act politically on issues of concern.

"Most spam blocking measures focus on the email address or the IP address of the suspected spammer. While there are anti-spam measures directed at the body of the email, these usually target attachments that could contain virus programs.

"Targeting the inclusion of a website url can only have one outcome: that communications about that website and the issue it is presenting will be blocked from large numbers of people and that the communications from that site's administrators and the campaign's organizers will not reach their full constituency.

"Whether Comcast's intention or not, this is effectively political and unconstitutional.

"It keeps people from getting valuable information about a campaign that is, in the opinion of many, critical to the future of this country's political system.

"It disrupts the organizing of this campaign and cripples the campaign's ability to use its most effective communications tool: the Internet.

"It damages people's confidence in this campaign since many people who write the campaign can't receive the response they expect and that the campaign has sent.

"Perhaps the worst part of this development is that Comcast has been reportedly doing this without the knowledge of the managers of this website or anyone affiliated with this campaign. In fact, no Comcast customer has received any indication that email to him or her containing this url was blocked."



employee and liberal
Posted by tom g. on 2007-10-13 17:43:53
although i stand with you on politics, i think your an idiot about your statment about comcast. you have no idea what your talking about.
comcast is not a good company
Posted by anti-tom on 2007-10-13 18:22:44
Yes Comcast can do no wrong, be a good employee and defend your company that rips people off, caps "unlimited" service at 90GB/month, is a monopoly in much of the country, and now detects political speech as spam.

Find a job with a non-evil company kthx.
We hate Comcast, but not enough to stop getting paid by them...
Posted by A Bystander on 2007-10-13 20:16:28
So let me get this straight...

Comcast is evil, etc, but it's okay to promote them through the use of Goggle adwords eh?

Did I get that right?
Posted by alan on 2007-10-13 20:52:37
tom g.: Then how would you explain what happened? Since you're an employee and all..

Bystander: This website doesn't select which ads are run, "Goggle" does. If a Comcast ad comes up it's because this page has Comcast as a keyword. Hell, I see an Ann Coulter ad from Google below the comments here. It doesn't mean this website supports Ann Coulter.
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-13 21:19:20
What ads? :)
Posted by Adam on 2007-10-13 21:25:50
I agree. All the major telecom conglomerates are up to no good lately. Information was just released on how Quest denied to participate in some of these illegal activites from the Government....

What do you do tho? I have Comcast too. I can't get anything else with comparible speeds or reliability. Not that I'm condoning Comcast activities or anything. I hate all of it as much as anyone else.

If it really pisses you off.... Support Ron Paul for President. He won't allow the Government to pander away civil rights.
You're overreacting
Posted by Shamari on 2007-10-13 21:30:31
There is no conspiracy here. The issue with emails being blocked are a constant issue and all sorts of domains will find themselves getting blocked if you get on the blacklist of filtering systems. This was just a case of slow bureaucracy in getting you off the list, and you did a good job with the calls and harassment to get them to act on it. I've worked for huge companies that have suddenly found themselves blacklisted like this, and it's a pain in the ass to resolve the situation. You were probably added to the list after a spammer spoofed your headers/IP when it sent out spam, and this got flagged.
A company like Comcast does not have the resources to effectively maintain a filtering policy against a relatively small movement like yours, without it being leaked from within Comcast, after 1 hour of it being rolled out. If you'd ever worked in a technical role in any sort of company like this, you'd know that people don't have time for stuff like this.
Uninformed opinions of the far left spring up far more rarely than those of the far right, but when you guys strike out with these ridiculous conspiracy theories, it really makes me cringe. I can't believe this made it to Reddit's front-page.
email considered unreliable
Posted by anonymous on 2007-10-14 00:42:35
It will take some new legislation to protect free speech on the internet from misguided attempts to control spam and denial of service attacks. Since email is not reliable, maybe you need your own network protocol that regularly tests for connectivity with your audience and correct receipt of message content. You can't expect the law to do that for you.
are they
Posted by window on 2007-10-14 01:52:50
your explanation still fails to address why comcast did was unable to resolve the issue and symantec was able to resolve it instantly.
Milquedud Pimp
Posted by Ayanuda Pizaqvick on 2007-10-14 07:26:46
I wonder if people will now understand why net neutrality is a very important issue. This sort of thing is not new and will continue. The sad part is that a good majority of people don't know and don't care - until their own little corner of life is impeded by this stuff.
Posted by Cezar on 2007-10-14 09:24:40
I'm sorry, but I couldn't read past when you thought that not even one person could consider a message spam. The internets are large, in addition, you admit that the purpose of your organization is to promote those reading the Downing Street Minutes. I like your cause, but to think that you haven't sent out mass emails on it that may have triggered spam filters is silly.
Title should honestly be Symantic not Comcast
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-14 11:05:16
I'm all for free speech and what you guys are doing but you admit in your story that the problem was with Symantic.
"Comcast assured us that they knew we hadn't spammed anyone. And once we'd gotten Symantec's attention, they didn't hesitate to lift the block."

Just be straight with the facts.
First Amendment
Posted by First Amendment on 2007-10-14 14:24:55
The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, my question is what did congress do here? How was anyone's first amendment rights violated? Seriously, all the people that scream first amendment whenever a company willingly or erroneously stops them from saying something need to be reminded that companies can control what you say through their products anytime they want. If fact if there was a law saying that they couldn't, THAT would be a violation of the first amendment.
Look at me look at me! Comcast made me cry!
Posted by Maj on 2007-10-14 14:40:46
You blow things way out of proportion in a "oh look at me look at me" fashion.

Telling an untruth is the same as lying.

You make exaggerated claims that Comcast filters "political emails" when in fact *your* mail was being filtered for sending bulk mail.

Free speech rules don't apply to spammers. You can talk all you want but when your crap goes out through a system owned by someone else, they have the right to shut you out.

If you don't like it do what all the other spamemers do: use a bulk mailing service.
You could spend your time on more important things...
Posted by You have a valid point on 2007-10-14 14:41:33
... It is good that you are looking critically at how comcast is spending their time.. now look critically at how you are.
Why are you using comcast email...
Posted by huh on 2007-10-14 14:51:52
Seriously. Use gmail or any number of other email free email services. Only chumps use their ISP's email address.
Posted by Marv Swett on 2007-10-14 14:55:06
"If it really pisses you off.... Support Ron Paul for President. He won't allow the Government to pander away civil rights."

How would Ron Paul change this? I like Ron Paul too, but I think you misinterpret his goals.

Ron Paul would not intervene in 1) a private company to 2) force them to promote an ideal the company didn't share. Dr. Paul is a Libertarian and is completely consistent in his application of the use government power wrt private property.

What the folks at don't understand is that this is NOT a Constitutional issue. The First Amendment only applies to the *government*, not to private entities. That is why security guards regularly make television crews leave their employer's property when they are filming a segment without the permission of the landowner.

You can stand on public property and say anything you want and neither the government nor a private group or individual can censor your speech *legally* - First Amendment applies. But if you cross the street and stand on _my_ property and say something *I* disagree with, I can call the cops and have you arrested for criminal trespass - no First Amendment protection.

Comcast's telecommunication systems are *still* considered private property under the Telecommunications Act. The US government has not nationalized these systems - they are privately held.

Comcast (and other national carriers) only have to provide limited access to other smaller ISPs and carriers. I repeat: they have NOT abrogated their private property rights under the terms of the Telecommunications Act. That means they can censor *any* speech they feel like. They have just held off from engaging in that type of behavior because they fear the Congressional reaction that would ensue if they started restricting *free* speech.
Posted by justalurker on 2007-10-14 14:59:55
Conspiracy idiots deserve it. You == spammer.
Posted by TheDPQ on 2007-10-14 15:02:35
It really doesn't take that much for something to get blacklisted. AOL and MSN (and gmail?!?) users often hit 'junk' because it deletes the email and adds that person to their unsubscribe list.

I've dealt with sending out emails for clients, and even when its people signing up directly from the website a surprising number of them are flagged as 'abuse/spam'. Get a certain % hit and your blacklisted. Its not just comcast.

Since you have articles on your site, other people might be sending out emails with your address in it. I'll have to agree that this is more due to a flakey 'spam protection' system then comcast trying to block any specific political message.

This is why i use gmail. It allows me to get emails (spamy looking or otherwise) from my contact list with no problem.
Not a conspiracy
Posted by Email guy on 2007-10-14 15:13:14
As an email administrator for a LARGE company, I can tell you first hand that it is nearly impossible to get a major anti-spam company to tell you what kind of rule sets they put into their filters.

As for the 46k number for complaints - that would be very easy to obtain if someone is spoofing your domain. To spoof a domain, you don't need to have access to the server, you just change the to/from information and anyone without a system to do forward and reverse lookups wouldn't notice the difference (end users rarely, if ever, read message headers).

Think this is just a case of what I see several times a month from various organizations we do business with. Something on the Internet (either originating from their domain, or spoofed messages, etc) causes them to get blocked/blacklisted by something and end up getting quarentined or deleted in transit. I'll be the guy who wrote the rule for Brightmail has no idea what your organization does - he just saw compiled statistics or a digest of messages submitted for spam analysis and wrote a rule accordingly.

Oh, and make sure that your mailing lists have ways to contact you and ways to unsubscribe - following those rules for mass mailings can save you headaches if you ever get blacklisted by an dns black list (used to work on spam machine for a fortune 150 company - that thing got blacklisted countless times from poorly composed messages).
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-14 15:19:22
They're coming to take me away! HA HA They're coming to take me away! OH OH They're coming to take me away! HA HA HE HE HO HO HO HUM.

I deal with jackasses like you often. On both sides of my network, sending out and receiving. For some reason you think that because your opinion in your broadcast email is the right one it's really not spam and that people really want it. There are people who do not want your crap, reguardless of the content.
Someone who can actually read
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-14 15:46:44
"I'm all for free speech and what you guys are doing but you admit in your story that the problem was with Symantic.
"Comcast assured us that they knew we hadn't spammed anyone. And once we'd gotten Symantec's attention, they didn't hesitate to lift the block."

Just be straight with the facts."

The point being made is that Comcast stonewalled for several days, finally blaming Symantec by way of not being cooperative and releasing information. Then when Symantec was contacted directly, they fixed the problem right away. To me that smacks of foot-dragging after getting caught red-handed. Please learn2read.
This has happened to me
Posted by Jen on 2007-10-14 16:07:58
I was trying to send e-mails to Planned Parenthood and the same sort of thing happened to me, Comcast censored me and would not allow me to send my e-mail. I used my hotmail account and it worked just fine. Comcast commonly does this. So, this is not an overreaction, or an isolated incident. This is an appropriate response to an ongoing issue that needs to be resolved if we are to practice free speech in this country.
idot sons of spammers
Posted by tom g on 2007-10-14 16:34:37
stop spamming and you won't be filtered

Posted by Shawn on 2007-10-14 16:58:08
Go to the SCC or the FCC and file a complaint.
Constitutional blindness
Posted by Mr. Spooge on 2007-10-14 17:07:12
Where in the Constitution do you have a Right to email? My copy must be incomplete!

There is no law or rule that regulates Comcast's email, as it is their discretion who they have as customers, and they reserve the right to filter content, per their stated policies.

You *do* have a choice - you just don't want to make it.

Comcast has no obligation to you. If you don't like their service, you are free to cancel your service.

For someone who is so adamant on Free Speech, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
What a bogus story - fitting that it's from
Posted by Kevitivity on 2007-10-14 17:18:33
Considering what a non-story the Downing St. memo was, its much more likely that his anti-spyware/spam software (symantec?) has blocked the downing st. servers because they were compromised or relaying spam or something like that. Why would Comcast block his messages, but allow everyone to view the silly Downing St. memo site? I wish you all would think more before posting this nonsense.

It's quite pathetic how conspiratorial and nutty Ron Paul supporters and Diggbats are.
Posted by No One on 2007-10-14 17:37:35
Use GPG or other encryption to encrypt your emails.

There are plugins for all modern mail clients (gmail included) to let you do it relatively effortlessly and seamlessly.

And your messages won't ever be filtered, because they're encrypted.
encrypt your emails
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-14 18:30:32
Like others have suggested previously: use GPG!

It seems that privacy protecting software like GPG (and others) can't even be given to you for free after countless appeals & carefully reasoned arguments.

Comcast's behavior is despicable yet legal AND YOU ENABLED IT.

So just STFU.
Posted by psuedo_sysadmin on 2007-10-14 18:48:15
I blame symantec, not comcast. it's their 3rd party filtering. report it as NOT spam. it's been flagged for a reason. whether that reason is legitimate should be investigated.. where did those 46000 requests come from?

and yes GPG would be wise, plain-text for the loss!
confirmed opt in
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-14 18:57:49
Hi. Fell in from Digg, and not following the conversation. I work for an email service provider and can offer some insight.

Sounds like your email database is USELESS. Why, you might ask? Read on:

>> Unless all the emails are gathered using 'confirmed opt in' with confirmation coming FROM the signup email address, you invite abuse. Or hostile 3rd party signups. Must-do-confirmed-opt-in, Period.
Posted by omegaant on 2007-10-14 19:15:07
Don't know about the rest of America, but in Denver Comcast removed MSNBC (Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews) from regular cable, so now we would have to "upgrade" to digital to watch it. That would indicate an effort to keep middle America out of the loop when it comes to understanding Bush,'s. shenanigans.

I really miss Keith - sometimes catch his rants on my computer... Comcast sucks!
You're an idiot
Posted by Technical-Internet-Smart-Guy on 2007-10-14 19:48:14
The reason that Symantec could remove you so quickly was that they controlled the email filtering service. The fact that they did proves this and also proves that Comcast didn't. No one at Comcast gives a sh*t about your emails or about you in general. They hate spammers like you hate Bush. I have no doubt your lack of Internet literacy and etiquette lead you to spam tens of thousands of people and you were blacklisted. Simple as this. Your continued lack of understanding caused you to write the above BS, which is unfortunate since I agree with your sentiments, but your clear problem with educating yourself on other topics shoots your creditability.
I work for comcast....
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-14 20:17:33
Well I work for comcast and I call bullshit... for one we are in canada. we don't give a shit about bush or your retarded rohomperroom politics. In fact , If you don't believe me, try asking the next internet tech support agent you talk to on the phone where they are from :] So I think I have made my point.

Grow up.
Posted by thinking straight on 2007-10-14 21:19:55
I understand you're mad, but grow up. This was not a personal vendetta about you or Bush or an attempt to muzzle you. Complain about the responsiveness. Complain that you were not compensated for lost opportunity. But please - the headline is so misleading. You would have done better to apply your pressure towards Comcast and Symantec to understand what happened and how to prevent it rather than this childish ranting.
Posted by amy bugbee on 2007-10-14 22:34:31
Hope we can talk to you about this and more when we are on the road. Please email me at Thanks.
the new face of debate
Posted by anthony on 2007-10-15 01:11:29
It bothers me how we've become a society in which persuasive arguments need include personal belittlement. I don't know enough about computers to either validate or invalidate the claims but I'm definitely aware of how slimey republican politics benefit mega corporations so I'm inclined to consider these grievances. However if someone's computer knowledge can provide empirical proof to the contrary, just say it; don't try to make people feel stupid for their beliefs. That's a required first step for our countries' healing.
Posted by Modemac on 2007-10-15 06:47:05
Doesn't the date on this story say "July 16, 2005?"
Give it a rest....
Posted by Tired on 2007-10-15 08:06:12
Ok two things....

First, This thing is TWO YEARS OLD.
Second, if this idiot has his own domain WHY is he not using that sites POP and SMTP for
this EMail ??
I call BS on the "comcast worker"
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-10-15 08:09:13
Given that I live in PA and have seen where Comcast started, it's in PA, and they proudly advertise this fact here as a reason to choose them for HSI. Not that anyone here cares, everyone leaves Comcast here as soon as any other provider moves in.

Maybe they have outsourced tech support to Canada, but Comcast is still an American company.

For the people who said "don't spam and you won't be blocked", can you guys even read? Comcast said they weren't spamming, so it OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT THE REASON THEY WERE BLOCKED. All caps make it easier to read and understand for ya?

Since Symantec had no problem unblocking them when directly contacted my money would be on Comcast not even bothering to contact Symantec and making up a bogus number of complaints as the reason why the emails were blocked. It wouldn't be anywhere near the first time Comcast has had stuff blocked by them for no real reason, then had to back off when caught red-handed.
Lessons to learn about email marketing
Posted by Mike Hillyer on 2007-10-15 13:38:54
These guys have some lessons to learn about email marketing. I listed a few at
Posted by CSR for a Non-Comcast ISP on 2007-10-15 16:17:36
There are certain things that filters look for that they consider spam. Not every companies list of things to look for are the same as others. It could be that Symantec looks for more things then Comcast does which is why maybe Symantec considered it spam and Comcast didn't. Different Mass Email sites and products have made comments to have non-profit groups, companies, etc. make an effort to tell people to white list them so that blocking doesn't occur as easily, plus if you are consistant in how you do things and follow certain guide lines it is easier to not be blocked, but so many ppl out there just dont' listen. I bet, David, that you had pictures in the email and different font sizes, styles, and colors, and probably had the email in a look that just screams SPAM to most ppl so you were marked as spam by so many ppl. Deal with it skippy.. you should of known better and if you get blocked by any filter it is a pain but it is your own damn fault.
First amendment? BALONEY!
Posted by Noble on 2007-10-15 19:33:56
Is Comcast/Symantec being a bunch of asshats? Yep. However, you only sound like an idiot claiming this is a First Amendment issue and/or unconstitutional. This is private enterprise choosing to block something, and while their reasons are shady, this has nothing to do with government, and therefore nothing to do with the Constitution. Seriously, have you ever read it? Where did congress order Comcast to block your emails? If you don't like it, get a different ISP and let Comcast lose money as a result of this. It sucks that they're doing this, but you're not going to get support by coming off as an ill-educated bonehead.
Posted by SEXIE CORNDOG on 2007-10-30 09:32:51
I hate Spam!! That stuff is nasty!!! It's like... salty. Go buy some real meat!! O.... I love ham. Don't 4get my wangster boyfriend.

This one time at band camp....
we ate spam.

My room mate blew chunks.
Posted by Okeyhadnuf on 2007-12-28 21:44:06
Ever hear of outsourcing? You pay someone else to do something for you, i.e. Comcast pays Symantec to do their spam filtering. What makes you think Comcast could take care of this without contacting Symantec and what makes you think Comcast was going to have any better luck getting Symantec to take care of this in a timely fashion? Any different from you with them?

I will listen to people rant and rave because we live in this free country, but my opinion of you changes bigtime degrees when you try to influence me with mistruths and very bad research. Check the temper at the door when you have a cause you believe in. Otherwise, people are not going to take you serious.

Okay, now be a good ole boy and make your retraction. At the top of the site would be nice, right where you blast Comcast.
pissed off
Posted by Dr. No supporter on 2008-01-10 16:36:58
Here is my problem with Comcast in Punta Gorda, Fl.
When ever I send an email with Ron Paul in the message, the message is either deleted and replaced with the letters "yp" or if it does go through, any time Ron Paul appears in the message the receiver gets it with "Ron Paul" underlined in blue dashed lines. I didn't put the lines there.
Comcast is up to something.
You better beieve it
Posted by Kantstanzya on 2008-03-30 23:24:32
I work for a county in Illinois and my wife works for the state of Illinois. We can not send any e-mail through COMCAST to each other at work from home. It comes back as no such person. Before, the cable company was a different company and was bought out by COMCAST. Since my address was changed to COMCAST I have been unable to send e-mail to my wife and my wife to me from home. These people who are in favor of COMCAST had better wake up. Oh, I forgot they work for COMCAST. The company that owned the cable system in the past had no problem filtering out the spam. I NEVER received any spam but I still could send e-mail to my wife and my wife to me from home.
Questionable neurotransmitters.
Posted by Threshold on 2008-12-25 09:33:16
Mr. Swanson -- post author -- Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?


Name: (change name for anonymous posting)

1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.

Powered by Percleus (c) 2005-2047 - Content Management System

[Percleus 0.9.5] (c) 2005, PCS