Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Net Neutrality Astroturfer Exposed
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there are no other search engines), or worse, coming out against Net Neutrality? CNet has a story about a shady DC lobbying group called LawMedia Group, being paid by Microsoft and Comcast, that is behind many of these attacks. That said, it's a mystery why they weren't able to pay more authoritative groups than the American Corn Growers Association or the League of Rural Voters to weigh in on technical matters. As a computer geek from corn country, I wouldn't solicit their opinion on tractor repair, let alone Internet policy."
The American Porn Growers Association is very aware of the issues... oh, wait, you said corn, nevermind.
I for one am shocked by such behavior from such benevolent corporations - they always act in the public interest!
Can someone explain to me why Comcast would be paying lobbyists to "slam Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent and promised penalties" ???
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but things like this make me understand a little bit more why someone would become one.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I think it's rather wrong to put out a campaign for spreading information and point of view while concealing the source of such being expressed, or worse, deceiving the public by attempting to make the information come from independent or neutral groups, individuals or parties. Not only is it disingenuous, it's approaching fraudulent and potentially dangerous depending on the circumstances. Just as in the case of political campaigns and the like, the parties paying for such activities should be required by law to disclose that their clients are paying for this service.
The matter of public deception is bad practice and should be exposed and disclosed wherever it exists. Expressing opinions is important, but in the case of business and political interests, disclosure should always be required. Only private individuals deserve the right to privacy and anonymity.
but I thought Microsoft was on record as pro-net neutrality.
can be found here and here.
Antitrust law doesn't prohibit monopolies. It prohibits monopolization. To run into antitrust problems, you don't have to have 100% of a market. Google is powerful enough in some segments of search that antitrust issues would not be surprising.
Why should you get interest groups that have no interest in the case you're trying to press into your boat? Because they're cheap, and because they have the ear of the politician.
Some corn growers association may not know jack about the internet, or even care about it. But they are a group of people some representative can't ignore. Especially when he's from a corn growing state.
On the other hand, getting them to forward a letter from you under their name to their rep is cheaper than trying to get a group that actually has some interest in the internet to do it. What company that deals with the internet, aside of telcos and huge players, have an interest in getting rid of net neutrality? To get some internet company to oppose it, you have to pay it about as much as you have to pay to buy it out, because they know their very existance depends on NN.
Now, imagine the reverse and you're the rep of some computer software association. In comes a letter asking you to put some pressure on your rep to allow the planting of some foreign crop that some hippies consider a "threat for our environment", but that could tenfold their crops (and revenue). How expensive would you say is it to get you to put their letter in a new envelope and send it on its way?
Of course they get dubious groups into their boat that have nothing to do with the issues. First, they don't know jack about what's going on. Second, it doesn't affect them. And because of all that, they're cheap to buy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It isn't how much they know, or how much they receive, or even how many people listen to them, it's who they can bribe (and with the current interest in American corn, that's probably quite a number) and who they play golf with (see point 1). Someone else mentioned conspiracy theories - oh, "good old boy's clubs" have conspired to ensure all sorts of things happen or don't happen since time immemorial, which is why social networking in the right circles is quite effective. What you know is unimportant compared to who you know. The only reason such theories usually lack credibility is that they usually end up blaming someone who not only knows nothing but also knows nobody for stuff that nobody would give a damn about anyway. But companies like Microsoft can certainly be expected to conspire with others to protect their empire. I wouldn't expect them to change their spots now, their old behaviours have worked so well.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there
> are no other search engines)...
Google has a search monopoly in the same way that Microsoft has an operating systems monopoly: they have most of the business. Note, however, that having a monopoly (even a total one) is not in and of itself illegal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Taking advantage of your monopoly is illegal though. Microsoft has done this and was prosecuted for it, Google has yet to do this (but the century is young).
tractor repair and internet policy go hand in hand.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
> Taking advantage of your monopoly is illegal though.
Taking illegal advantage of your monopoly is illegal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.
ISPs like Comcast are hiring groups like LMG to spoof anti-net neutrality articles using the signatures of well-known people, some of which are actually fighting for it, and they've been paying others to sit in and take up space at the hearings to keep protest at a minimum. Assholes.
That gives me an idea: For the incredibly low sum of $99.95, I will forward a letter to my Congresscritters saying ANYTHING YOU WANT. That's right. Want to get rid of Net Neutrality? It's just $99.95! Want to eliminate child labor laws? Just $99.95! Want to eliminate the need to get FDA approval for your drug? That's right, just $99.95!! E-mail me today!!
Okay. Maybe it's just beer the talking.
My blog
I can understand your point of view. You like your porn. It's understandable.
ISPs are stifling technology because they are the kid who invites you over to his house after he gets a new game. He never lets you play, but he wants you to stay and watch him.
That's the kind of asshat the ISPs are. Until we can force the ISPs to treat all packets equal, we lose.
Do you know of a technology to defeat sandvining?
They're using their grammar skills there.
PR Bloggers against astroturf
"It's the little old lady from Pasadena..."
He got the idea for the song when a car dealership became notorious for claiming that all their cars were driven by a "little old lady from Pasadena", and therefore in allegedly prime shape.
Table-ized A.I.
Astroturf accused of being Lawn Media.
"LMG is one of several firms we work with in D.C.," Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said. "It's no secret that we oppose the Google-Yahoo deal and that there's been a great deal of opposition to it by advertisers, publishers, consumers, and legal experts." Evans points out that Google has hired a constellation of D.C. lobbyists and public relations groups to tell its side of the story.
The SlashDot poster acts like this is a single issue lobby. If you believe that, then you have no concept of lobbiest firms.
Microsoft has worked against anti-net neutrality, as they would have the LEAST to gain from ISP lock in, as they have no ISP bundling deals, which you can't even say about Yahoo or Google. (Toolbars anyone?)
So how did this get to be about Microsoft? Because they hired a firm to oppose the Yahoo-Google deal?
They didn't hire them to DO ANYTHING ELSE... Move on to Comcast and other ISP nut balls that are working against net neutrality.
Speaking of tinfoil and cranial coverings, one would have to wonder what the Corn Growers Association has to do with the Iowa MS Windows Rebate?
Money is the root of all evil?
I don't think this guy was trolling, I think it was a joking reference to McCain's own astroturfing scheme where he gives points for swag to people who cut and paste his talking points into blog comments.
This space available.
Let's just find a quiet and legal way to put them under, just as is being done with the (former) MediaSentry...
Yeah, that is a little confusing. Microsoft opposed Google and Comcast opposed Net Neutrality.
But then I had trouble fitting the headline in there, and I guess that made the summary misleading. Sorry about that.
That said, it's still true that both Microsoft and Comcast are hiring PR firms to astroturf, even if the summary came out wrong.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
You fail. Better get educated.
Gee, leftists like SCLC and Jesse Jackson are part of phoney grassroots organizations? Where is DocRuby to tell us only Republicans are crooked?
They're all crooked. The art of politics in America is dealing on things you don't care about so you have clout on the things you do care about. This, I think, is the natural evolution of a representative system - Iowa farmers don't care about coastal wetlands, and Californians could give a shit about farm subsidies. So there's the basis of a deal. Oh, the farmers might care a bit about coastal wetlands, but not enough to vote against someone. Ditto with the Californians on farm subsidies.
Over the years companies and organizations have managed to insert themselves into the process by providing money to members of Congress to vote a certain way on issues they don't care about. I mean, seriously, how many of those geezers do you think really understand the stakes in net neutrality? I'll bet more than half have never used a computer.
I can't imagine a legislative "reform" which will address the root causes here, especially given Supreme Court rulings on the subject (money == free speech? Really? What does that mean for the people with no money?). The real solution is to have the government do less, so companies don't benifit so much by controling it. But I don't see anywhere near enough public support for a move in that direction. What will probably happen is another round of "campaign finance reform", which will, paradoxically, make things worse.
A monopoly has nothing to do with the number of competitors and everything to do with the disproportionate market share of the main player.
Microsoft was considered a monopoly (in the OS market) in the late 90s even though Mac OS and Linux existed.
... Microsoft = Fraud in many ways.
In most ways, but since the licenses, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, disclaim liability or suitability of the software for any purpose, there are easier targets: the dipshits who bring MS products into a business or institution in the first place. The interoperability, maintenance, security and pricing problems have been so well documented that you'd either have to be functionally living in a cave (gross negligence) or ignoring the world around you (willful negligence) or intentionally pushing Bill's political agenda (criminal mischief) or a smorgasbord of all three.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
you should add this heathen to the list.
Australia's [defacto] monopoly telco - Telstra - has a big internal promoter, who was heard (giving a talk on ABC Radio National, in a recent month) promoting the idea of Telstra offering to pay thousands of dollars to organizations, if one of their (ie, Telstra's) employees gets elected to the organization's Boards.
On one level, it's a chance for skilled Telstra people to "contribute" to their communities, but (I think) doing also so, disrupts the democracy of the organizations and makes them beholden to (and less likely to speak out against) their monopolistic telco "sponsor".
It also gives Telstra opportunities to learn of plans to invest in products & services that the big telco can supply (by way of more than recouping its "investment in the community").
these tactics used by comcast, microsoft, sony etc. to kill/discredit/make net neutrality look really scary are starting to sound like the CIA's pathetic but persistent attempts to snuff Fidel Castro.
Next thing you know they'll be paying washed out 90's MS programmers to DDos torrent sites..and get caught.I can see it now : The Pirate Bay of the pigs XD
from their response column, by a poster who has no history and joined the same day:
Most of you I am sure won't remember who Declan is... He was a prominent supporter of Microsoft in a newsgroup called "Appraising Microsoft" That group was active in the mid90's. That group was one of many spearheading the push for the justice department to "corral" Microsoft and prevent them form screwing up the computer industry. Alas as most of you are using Microsoft Windows, that group and many others failed. And as a result we have Microsoft as the operating system on the majority of computer world wide. And now we are at least 10 years behind in the software industry. Also Declan is attributed to starting and failing to stop a rumour regarding Al Gore. Declan was the sycophant reporter on Air Force One, traveling in the entourage of George Bush. It was Declan who misquoted Al Gore and ran off with the rumour that Al Gore Created / invented the internet. And although Declan has been laughed out loud at by the people who are aware of him and his writing, many of you who are not involved in the computer industry from the early days, are unaware of his actions. Declan has zero credibility in the information oped world, then as he does now. Unfortunately Declan will continue to create havoc in the press due to the fact that most of the public are unaware of his sycophantic habits. He will inexorably crawl up the butt of anyone with a buck to offer to his retirement fund. And since he writes about the information age, most people are blindly unaware of the facts and opinions that vary greatly in that arena. since most are unaware of the facts, they accept the writings of a few.
Sigh.... and Declan makes a living writing about this rubbish. Rubbish he is somewhat responsible for.....
A quick google of "declan al gore internet" gets me this, among many other results.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/10/39301
This is confirmed by the wikipedia entry, which has not been edited for quite some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declan_McCullagh&action=history
So, this guy is telling me the extent of the astroturfing? The guy who helped swiftboat gore?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
So you're using google to check on whether this anonymous article about LMG swiftboating Google by the guy who allegedly invented swiftboating is legitimate? Dude, that's so recursive it's positively fractal.
just see how big microsoft is about matters of freedom related to technical issues and the internet ?
apparently while they were filling the ground at oscon, showing a brave face, their paid cronies were attacking internet freedom in an other front.
what do you microsoft fanbois have to say about this, we really would like to hear.
Read radical news here
remember that microsoft was also participating in the fight FOR net neutrality 1-1.5 years ago, along with google, yahoo and the others.
now this, paying a company underhand for anti net neutrality fud.
excuse me, but if thats not conspiracy, i dont know what is.
Read radical news here
so microsoft paid them for an attack on google. but comcast on net neutrality. now lets examine the situation :
regardless of for what you pay them for, its going to strengthen the company and better the work they do. therefore any amount paid to that 'company' is going to make that company's work in any field, including anti net neutrality work, better. they will be less worried about revenue, they will be able to pay better slanderers and so on.
additionally, that company is attacking google, which is a major participant in the war for net neutrality, on OUR side (the free people, you and me). therefore weakening of google means weakening of the pro net neutrality forces, since they are one of the participants.
therefore microsoft is totally betraying our cause in all fronts. ALSO themselves. for if net neutrality is lost, they will be at the mercy of the teleccoms companies - remember that they have been pouring too much investment and time into internet related products.
Read radical news here
Simply incredible. I want a job there!
Net neutrality can mean many different things. It can mean neutrality towards customers. It can mean neutrality towards service providers. It can mean neutrality towards protocols. It can mean max-out-the-line usage. People need to be specific about which they mean when they talk.
As long as the only source for this is Declan McCullagh, I don't believe it. King probably hung up on him because he was being rude.
Is there any other story on this? Any confirmation?
Google is a monopoly, but it is incorrect to compare it to the types of monopolies in the past. The reality is, is that "online monopolies" are new and there is nothing quite like them. I have thought of this every day for about two years (not full-time ; ) ). This is the model I discovered:
1) Google controls the ad space
2) Google can "out monetize" any "internet service" by using their superior ad inventory
3) "internet service" does not include retail/commerce product-related sites
4) Google can therefore out-compete any up and coming web service
5) The money Google makes from the ads goes back into improving the service
6) The ads strengthen their other services, and the services strengthen their ads
7) The more services that display their ads, the more advertisers they get, and the more they can monetize services
8) Their strength grows unbounded in a feedback loop
9) The monopoly of the network is quite different and arguably superior to monopolies of lore, notably desktop/software monopolies
Examples:
Take the search space. Their ad dominance gives the funds to improve their search relevance, which grows in popularity and thus feedback into the ads.
Now they are seeking to beat wikipedia using knol, and their ad market dominance.
and Google pays "portal" companies CPM rates 15-20 times over fair market value to show their search results and ads to their users. Thus starving out any google competitors using a stack of cash.
and, yes, they do have a better mousetrap, inarguably, but it is very difficult for anyone to compete against them because of the amount of cash their ad monopoly generates, because a lot of that cash goes back into making the mousetrap better and better.
imho, they really should be broken up into 3 pieces:
1) the ad group. the ads should be made equally available to all companies, so everyone can monetize their web services at the same rate. this will help level the landscape.
2) the search group. their search is already very powerful, and, like ads, can also significantly enhance the value of other web services. so it should be carved out.
3) all the other services. news. maps. groups. orkut. etc.
what do you microsoft fanbois have to say about this, we really would like to hear.
Since those Microsoft fanbois are likely paid by Microsoft, it's not hard to imagine...
When net neutrality is completely destroyed, you won't be able to find any web pages that aren't cornographic!
Most software does disclaim liabilities and suitabilities. That part is about equal, and that part probably could be overcome in court. But if you take your easy shots first, there usually won't be any hard ones. The easy way is to focus on the difference where it is a disadvantage.
The difference being that, in contrast, the other products actually work fairly well especially in regards to maintenance and interoperability. However, in shoot outs, MS products tend to get rated so poorly that some of the licenses even prohibit publishing benchmarks. So by choosing a product that costs more, is more trouble, and works more poorly/less reliably than the established products the decision maker is signalling: 1) that they are not keeping abreast of the current state of tools in their field (gross negligence) or 2) ignoring the variety and quality of other tools (willful negligence) or 3) intentionally pushing Bill's political agenda (criminal mischief) or a smorgasbord of all three.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I'm not sure on this myself, but I've seen a compelling argument against net neutrality.
If we don't enforce net neutrality, the businesses will try to censor the net to their own needs.
BUT if we get the government to enforce net neutrality then they have their foot in the door to start censoring the net themselves.
Either way we lose, just at the moment it looks like it would take longer for it to happen without government intervention because as soon as they pass the first legislature then it starts to happen, whereas we have to wait for it to happen with ISP's.
"sudo rm -rf your-face"
Disclosure: Declan McCullagh is married to a Google employee
New slashdot layout sucks.
Hey, if he pulled that off, he sure has the credentials to know what he's talking about...
You created another sockpuppet, twitter?
You're really the biggest loser on the internet. Ever.
Everybody lobbies, even the net neutrality guys. So, how is that bad and this good?
Most people dont understand that Net neutrality lobbyists are a front for 'evil' organizations like Google. Google obviously wants to protect its own interests.
The answer to whether there should be net neutrality or none has to be more nuanced than 'yes' or 'no'.
What is your opinion on NN, as it is defined in the two definitions I called "legitimate"?
My "particular view" is rather common. I can't take credit for it.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf[pdf]
For some reason, I get the feeling that it is your "particular view" that is novel.
If your opinion is the exact opposite of the opinions expressed in the links above (i.e., you think that ISPs and backbones have a god-given right to inspect and molest traffic, and "net neutrality" means no regulation), then you are, in fact, against NN. That is, of course, unless you change the semantics to mean the exact opposite of what they are accepted to mean.
Because of Google, my corn keeps being stuck in these enter tubes! I keep putting corn in but they don't come out the other side. It's like a black hole of some kind... a corn hole, if you will.
The downside of being killed is the upside of being dead.