Slashdot Mirror


Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Isn't Real

wiredog writes "The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy is actually a student project. The 'No Net Brutality' campaign idea was one of the four finalists created as an assignment for a two-and-a-half week 'think tank MBA' program. The other finalists were a project promoting free speech in Venezuela, one supporting education reform in Poland, and one dealing with sales tax rates in Washington, DC. ('No Net Brutality' came in third. The Polish reform idea won.)"

89 comments

  1. Nice cover story. by SomeJoel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    1. Re:Nice cover story. by toastar · · Score: 1

      So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?

      Wow mindblowing.

    2. Re:Nice cover story. by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, this powerpoint wasn't really from us, therefore it is not possible that we independently going to carry out that beautifully crafted plan to achieve the goal of getting rid of net neutrality. In fact, that's not even our goal, never has been. And you know it was never our goal because we didn't make that powerpoint presentation.

      Incidentally, can we borrow this fake powerpoint presentation for our next secret strategy meeting? You know, as an example of powerpoint presentations that DO NOT reflect our plans?

    3. Re:Nice cover story. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Informative

      So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?

      Wow mindblowing.

      This was a "weather balloon". The *IAA posse is still behind this. If I was going to try something like this I would have students try it first.

      BTW, netbrutatlity.com was registered by freedomworks.org, which sure doesn't look like a student project.

    4. Re:Nice cover story. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      The *IAA posse is still behind this.

      WTF was I thinking? I meant to say the Telco's posse is behind this. Sometimes I'm a bigger asshat than usual.

    5. Re:Nice cover story. by joocemann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      Yeah... wait.. no? I totally didn't go to www.nonetbrutality.com and I totally didn't see that this was 'just a powerpoint project'.

      I'm curious why a project like this would be so involved that the student would pay for a domain name and hosting, and then (yes, i'm telling you to go to the site right now) do everything as legitimately as possible without mention of it being a project.

      I'm not saying it was/was-not done by the telecoms. But the site is real, and its intentions/purposes appear real as well.

    6. Re:Nice cover story. by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      While you're at it - it's netbrutality.com, not netbrutatlity.com.

      Also, what exactly is the point of this story? Assuming its facts are true, all it proves is that the campaign wasn't sponsored by the telcos, but by a right-wing pro-business "think tank" that's probably funded by the telcos.

    7. Re:Nice cover story. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Except all the traditional huge beasts behind communications, music, movies and tv all have the same interests, and eventually act together. When you have the same interests, and benefit from the same cultural trends, laws, etc. you don't need a conspiracy to act as a single entity.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    8. Re:Nice cover story. by Aklyon · · Score: 1

      So, telco funding by proxy, then?

      --
      I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
  2. Sure it was.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just a distraction from the truth.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  3. Um by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?

    1. Re:Um by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Well if you'd read the article you'd... erm... no, sorry, I've got nothing.

    2. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To piss people off so they'll bitch about the firehouse being better thereby piquing the interest of people who weren't aware of the firehouse. =)

      It all makes sense. Trust me.

    3. Re:Um by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Because people want a good conspiracy. They want to hear that all the problems in their lives is controlled by a small yet powerful group of people who have it in for them...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Um by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What they really want is to find the actual conspiracy theory, and stop it.

      But there are too many, so it's ideal camouflage.

    5. Re:Um by Rary · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?

      Because kdawson works here.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    6. Re:Um by multisync · · Score: 1

      To piss people off so they'll bitch about the firehouse being better thereby piquing the interest of people who weren't aware of the firehouse. =)

      Firehouse?

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    7. Re:Um by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I could tell that the original article the other day wasn't real in a glance, and I wonder why THAT found a way through. It clearly didn't have the spit and polish that a real presentation would have, nor the overall look and feel. Also being in marketing, I find it hard to believe a real marketing department would be stupid enough to come up with a campaign about "net brutality" and thinking that it would "play in Peoria".

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  4. Successful troll is successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Successful troll is successful

  5. Of course it wasn't real. by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was a kdawson story. Duh.

    Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

    That it not to say that it could not have been real, but you should not have believed it without independent verification.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:Of course it wasn't real. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

      Actually, the fact that I thought it was real just shows how sad and pathetic the state of affairs in our country has become.

      Stuff like this happens all the time, so to sit there and say "You're stupid for buying this" is either incredibly egotistical or incredibly hind-sighted, one or both.

      IOW, well played, sir, well played.

      It has been 1 minute since I last posted. I'll go play in traffic now since I can't make my post right now. Thanks, bye /., bye cruel, cruel /.

      Is this the part of the show where I make a NOCARRIER joke?

      No? Da...NOCARRIER

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:Of course it wasn't real. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No? Dam*#^&*(!(*df@)~J!JH*3bv()~()NO CARRIER

      FTFY

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Of course it wasn't real. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      It was a kdawson story. Duh.

      Then again, THIS story is a CmdrTaco story...

      Maybe he is in on it!

    4. Re:Of course it wasn't real. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

      Not real?

      http://www.atlasnetwork.org/networknews/wp-content/uploads/nonetbrutality-ppt.ppt

      That is not a Power Point presentation. It is only a mirage.

    5. Re:Of course it wasn't real. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      This is in some fashion less believable than that "death panel" rumor that's been circulating? Of the two, this one is far more believable in my opinion.

    6. Re:Of course it wasn't real. by jc42 · · Score: 1

      So how do we know whether it's this story or the previous one that's the fake?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  6. The Polish reform idea won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was an ingenious plan to future proof the kids by teaching them the secret recipe for Polish ice.

  7. ThinkProgress responds by Sarcileptic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Think Progress has updated their site, standing behind the news that "No Net Brutality" was influenced by industry/lobbyists.

    1. Re:ThinkProgress responds by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.

      I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:ThinkProgress responds by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.

    3. Re:ThinkProgress responds by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.

      You think that matters to someone whose signature indicates that he still believes the global warming deniers?
      Nah, me neither. Inconvenient facts just get in the way of what they want to believe.

    4. Re:ThinkProgress responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can stand behind whatever they want. They're just making shit up. I'll continue to ignore them.

    5. Re:ThinkProgress responds by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.

      I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."

      Are they trying to compete with InfoWars.com for some sort of "fringiest news site" award?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:ThinkProgress responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Good luck with your falsified "science".

  8. Good Slogan... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fake or not, it leads to a decent enough slogan which we really haven't had yet:

    Support Net Neutrality - Not Net Brutality.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. talon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alex jones must be getting popular if people think this is true. ;-)

  10. Response by azurex120 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Think Progress posted their own response to CNET's claims. Don't know Whose true http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/netneutrality-grover-afp/

  11. Re:This Just in! by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

    AW SNAP! I've been had. Hard. For like 8 years going now. WTFBBQSauce! For great justice! Natalie Portman and my grits are angry!

    In Soviet Russia, I have you!

    Wait, WTF was that?

    Get off my lawn. And many many more memes.

    Back to the subject at hand...if this was simply a PP think-tank style project from some college kid, then get that kid a job at the nearest monopolistic telecomm ASAP.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  12. More spin by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

    I posted this there, I bet it doesn't make it up, who knows. "If the fact that the internet was begun by DARPA grants and colleges is not a hint at the original intent then please correct me. Net neutrality should mean one thing and one thing only. That the providers of internet services are not allowed to censure, block, or constrict the flow and any information which a customer is putting over their networks. That said, it could be argued that this would not apply to spammers and hackers. That would be a narrow scope in such a case. I have payed for generally substandard internet for the last 15+ years. Very seldom is the service equal to the bill of goods the provider tells you you are getting. Does the government need control of the internet at a granular level? I think not. Do they need the ability to keep companies like comcast, time warner, at&t, verizon, etc. from limiting certain types of traffic so that they can financially benefit with one of their inferior, competitive services? I think the answer is an absolute YES! Paint this turd what ever happy color you want but it will still be crap underneath. I commend you for the attempt at spinning this though." Make no mistake, internet neutrality will fall. The corporations have very deep pockets and will lobby any dirt bag sell out politician they need to to get total control of the internet. Then we are at the mercy of them. We are at the starting stages of the same kind of thing that happened with the gas companies. We have no choice and therefore no control. The only way to stem this inevitable outcome would be to have the municipalities own the Fiber/copper to the home and force all providers to one point. In this way they are forced to compete with each other for the customer and his dollar. The down side to this are many as well. The municipality then would have to charge to maintain the lines. If they are like the DWP here in southern California they would turn this in to a revenue generator and continue to up prices for their out of control spending. This would happen even if they were to roll out a completely passive fiber network that required little to maintain or upgrade beyond the initial outlay. It would also provide a single point of attack for the nut cases we have to deal with from time to time. It would for sure bring into focus the possibility of traffic monitoring, snooping and outright spying and make it far easier for the government or the smart nefarious character. At the end of the day I don't see much good on the horizon. Mike

  13. a minor distraction by JackSpratts · · Score: 0, Troll

    nothing to be embarrassed about. actual corporate propaganda against net neutrality is even more divorced from reality.

  14. Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't anyone remember when this first started? We had everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition jumping up and down and saying that the plan by major ISPs and telcos to hijack big web pages unless they were paid not to was flat-out intolerable. We were united.

    Then came the lobbyists.

    They started with the question, "What are you going to do about it?" And then we got split into market-based solutions (boycotts) and regulation, with neither side seeing eye-to-eye. Next, they tried to redefine "Net Neutrality." When we made it, what we meant by it was, "Don't hijack our web pages!" But they said "Neutrality? They want some kind of Communist equality! We can't use QoS any more or make our networks better!" And now, most people think in terms of their version of "Net Neutrality." They assume it's like the Fairness Doctrine and that it means the government would regulate the content of web pages or some other crap.

    Doesn't anyone else remember when this started? Before the lobbyists split this into a conservative/liberal issue? Back when we all agreed that having ISPs hijack popular websites unless bribed not to was a terrible thing?

    Because I do. And I feel like the only one.

    1. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      wtf, dude? No link? Come on!

      Oh, wait, was it on one of those big web pages?

    2. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up!

    3. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      You are not alone. I can say it was before 2006, when I wrote my Myths about Network Neutrality article because already the idea was getting screwed-up.

    4. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by brkello · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This post is better than the article. Slashdot should just directly link to this post. Net Neutrality is something all Slashdot should just agree on.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    5. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by dgreer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I completely remember this debate. And my feelings haven't changed from that day to this: If you let the Government get involved in this issue, in ANY way, you will live to regret it.

      What TWC and Verizon (the instigators of that roe as I recall) wanted to do was to charge large content providers (Google, Time, CNN, etc.) to have "priority" throughput on their networks. If they didn't pay, they'd be given a lower QoS and therefore, because of the number of requests to their servers, they would effectively be throttled.

      What I pointed out all those years ago (with many years experience RUNNING an ISP) was that if you get the government involved, it will give them an avenue to moderate the Internet for political reasons. Further more, all the "kiddies" at that time were bitching about how Torrent, etc. was being throttled by Joe's Wireless company or some such, and they just couldn't understand the difference between what TWC/Verizon were doing and what Joe was doing trying to maintain a basic QoS on his limited bandwidth network.

      In the end, it appears that two things have happened: The kiddies have drowned out the voices of people who actually have a clue, and the politicians have heard their cries and have come running.

      "We're from the government, and we're here to help." -shiver-

      --
      "I don't think software should necessarily be free ... but if you pay for it, it should work!" - me
    6. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we know.  But constant education of the masses is required.

      It does take time, but after only a decade even ordinary people are starting to comprehend the undesireability of DRM.

    7. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by Manchot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was something all Slashdot agreed on until the Obama administration started pushing for it.

    8. Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? by syrinx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I completely remember this debate. And my feelings haven't changed from that day to this: If you let the Government get involved in this issue, in ANY way, you will live to regret it.

      What TWC and Verizon (the instigators of that roe as I recall) wanted to do was to charge large content providers (Google, Time, CNN, etc.) to have "priority" throughput on their networks. If they didn't pay, they'd be given a lower QoS and therefore, because of the number of requests to their servers, they would effectively be throttled.

      What I pointed out all those years ago (with many years experience RUNNING an ISP) was that if you get the government involved, it will give them an avenue to moderate the Internet for political reasons. Further more, all the "kiddies" at that time were bitching about how Torrent, etc. was being throttled by Joe's Wireless company or some such, and they just couldn't understand the difference between what TWC/Verizon were doing and what Joe was doing trying to maintain a basic QoS on his limited bandwidth network.

      In the end, it appears that two things have happened: The kiddies have drowned out the voices of people who actually have a clue, and the politicians have heard their cries and have come running.

      "We're from the government, and we're here to help." -shiver-

      Yes, *this*.

      (Quoting your entire post since someone seems to have modded you down for contradicting the groupthink.)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  15. UFOs are not real either. by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Just a way for the government to cover-up aircraft experiments.

    "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one," Albert Einstein.

  16. Yeah right... by Faw · · Score: 2, Informative

    that's exactly what THEY(1) want us to believe.

    (1) Replace with favorite conspiracy group (Illuminati, aliens, The Man,...)

  17. Re:Why didn't these "students" get ridiculed... by logjon · · Score: 1

    beginning to?

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  18. Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "Think Tank MBA" contest is not affiliated with any school or MBA program, but is run by a right-wing advocacy organization. The contestant in question is not even a student, but is an employee of another right-wing advocacy organization.

    To think, I used to read that moron's old blog. I guess I've grown up since then.

    1. Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore by ScrumHalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really wishing I had mod points right now. Seriously, this is the truth of the matter, and it is missing in the story post. Then again, I hope this story of this hoax is a hoax of a hoax doesn't run tomorrow and generate them even more traffic.

    2. Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is "reactionary" one of those words that leftists use to mean "someone I don't agree with"? I saw someone else use it recently, also to describe libertarians. Of course, the other person also confused libertarianism, Objectivism, classical liberalism, and modern social conservatism, and later called Rush Limbaugh of all people an "anarcho-capitalist nihilist", so I mostly assume he was just a moron, and I put "reactionary" in the pile of words morons use.

      Though really, it looks like you're not the sharpest spoon in the drawer either, so maybe I can continue with that assumption.

    3. Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Oh, dear, an anonymous coward compared me to a straw man!

      Go on, I've got over ten years of posting history. Surely you can come up with an actual example of my feeble intellect.

    4. Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I've got over ten years of posting history. Surely you can come up with an actual example of my feeble intellect.

      What a deliciously ironic statement! (emphasis mine)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  19. I suggest a renaming by simonbp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To "The Center for American Progress in Never Admitting That We Made a Silly Mistake Because Everything Bad Is The Fault of Lobbyists Who Are Not Us".

    I'd make one heck of business card...

    1. Re:I suggest a renaming by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I'd make one heck of business card...

      I don't think you'd fit in most business card holders, sorry...

  20. Cost? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    the PowerPoint document was prepared as a class project for a competition in Florida last month. It cost the six students a grand total of $173.95, including $18 for clip art...the contestants spent all of $173.95 on the idea, including printing and $20 to register the .com and .org domain names.

    Wait... what? I made several power point presentations for classes. My budget for the presentation was always the same: zero dollars. I didn't even pay for the powerpoint I was using. How do you spend $18 on clipart?

    1. Re:Cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stock photography/graphics combined with honest students.

    2. Re:Cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Stock photography/graphics combined with dumb students."

      Fixed.

    3. Re:Cost? by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering whether stock photo girl got the election result she wanted.

    4. Re:Cost? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Stock photography/graphics combined with honest students.

      I was and still am honest: I'm honestly not going to pay to fairly use an image I grabbed off google image to put it into a power point for a class.

    5. Re:Cost? by Klinky · · Score: 1

      It's rather complicated it looks like, DUP may have lost seats & UCUNF didn't get any more seats? I am in the USA, so know very little on the politics in Northern Ireland.

      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987776,00.html

  21. Re:This Just in! by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

    then get that kid a job at the nearest monopolistic telecomm

    I'm guessing thats *exactly* what the kid had in mind when he wrote it.

  22. Whew... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I said yesterday the content was laughably stupid. I actually was thinking that Think Progress had created it.

  23. Gullible? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, the fact that I thought it was real just shows how sad and pathetic the state of affairs in our country has become.

    No, it shows how gullible you and other 20-somethings are to believe whatever you read on the Web. Critical thinking is no longer in vogue, the "truth" is whatever the Slashdot Group Think and Twitter / Digg / Whatever pipe to you. Blogs have to be more accurate than "real" news sources, right?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Gullible? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      LOL, you're wrong on every account. Every. Single. One. Not in my 20s. Don't do facebook, twitter, et al. Don't care what you think you know, or think you know about other people. You're the problem with slashdot, you know that? The fucking arrogance on this guy.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
  24. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think Progress posts some bullshit. Now there's a big surprise. I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

  25. Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Behind every troll article you will find some sort of slashvertisement.

  26. Sounds feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Domains are practically free. A few dollars. Hosting is (if you at first assume it to be only a small project site that doesn't require above 99.9% reliability) practically free. Even a student can easily skip one night out and spend the same money for such a site. (Or - if he has friends studying CS who are willing to lend him some extra space on some server - they might get the hosting for free)

    Now, assume you like to dabble with computers (which is a given for someone who would make a project around that concept), are getting closer to graduation and want to make a small portfolio. Project sites like that seem like a great investment, especially if you enjoy the time spent working with them.

    I haven't RTFA (this is /., after all) and I haven't even followed the subject enough to know what this Telecom plan would have been all about. Even so, spending the handful of dollars and a few hours to build a site around some project about which you are proud seems like a completely normal thing to do for a modern student.

    1. Re:Sounds feasible by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Domains are around $10/year.

      Hosting, about $10/month.
      ------

      Students don't like to spend money on anything but beer and video games.

    2. Re:Sounds feasible by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Funny

      To get into most MBA programs you have to have worked for at least 3 years after you got your undergrad degree, generally doing something that's not flipping burgers. Given the program is generally 2 years and these guys are graduating and that the average US college student graduates at the age of 22, that would put these guys at 27 or so. Not exactly your typical beer and video games before anything crowd.

    3. Re:Sounds feasible by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I can agree with that. Thanks for bringing up the finer details that I had overlooked.

    4. Re:Sounds feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5/mo or less

      Heck. Some places, $5/mo and the domain name thrown in.

    5. Re:Sounds feasible by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It's hard to remember that you generally have to actually do something useful to get an MBA since everyone seems to forget how to do anything at all once they have one.

  27. It *was* on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it was on Slashdot, but I don't remember the original story and I don't have a lot of time at work to search for it. But someone with some Google-fu ought to be able to dig it up. And Save The Internet started up right away. I believe they coined "Net Neutrality."

  28. i for one by Shadukar · · Score: 1

    am glad they did not foret about poland.

  29. Whois info .... draw your own conclussions by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    Domain Name: nonetbrutality.com

          Registrant Contact:
                nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
                A Happy DreamHost Customer
                417 Associated Rd #324
                Brea, CA 92821
                US
                +1.2139471032

          Administrative Contact:
                nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
                A Happy DreamHost Customer
                417 Associated Rd #324
                Brea, CA 92821
                US
                +1.2139471032

          Technical Contact:
                nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
                A Happy DreamHost Customer
                417 Associated Rd #324
                Brea, CA 92821
                US
                +1.2139471032

          Billing Contact:
                nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
                A Happy DreamHost Customer
                417 Associated Rd #324
                Brea, CA 92821
                US
                +1.2139471032

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:Whois info .... draw your own conclussions by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      More importantly: netbrutality.com seems to be funded by freedomworks which is apparently a corporate lobby / astroturfing group.

      Registrant:
      FreedomWorks

      601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
      Suite 700 North Bldg
      Washington, DC 20004
      United States

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
      Domain Name: NETBRUTALITY.COM
      Created on: 11-May-06
      Expires on: 11-May-11
      Last Updated on: 12-May-10

      Administrative Contact:
      Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
      FreedomWorks
      601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
      Suite 700 North Bldg
      Washington, DC 20004
      United States
      2029427615

      Technical Contact:
      Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
      FreedomWorks
      601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
      Suite 700 North Bldg
      Washington, DC 20004
      United States
      2029427615

      Domain servers in listed order:
      NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
      NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  30. Re:This Just in! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    No, we all know that all the comments in /. are written by the same person. Prove me wrong.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  31. Small error in title by russotto · · Score: 1

    Should read "Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Wasn't Real"

  32. Nope, just another tired old right-wing idealogue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I said yesterday the content was laughably stupid. I actually was thinking that Think Progress had created it.

    Nope, it was Declan, a notirious, right wing Libertarian whore who single-handedly sicced the MPAA's lawyers on the earliest project for getting DVD playback working on Linux (google Declan and Livid), in an effort to create a fictitious hoax where there was none. Typical right-wing tactics...create their own hoax, then blame it on the left to discredit the left and push through their toxic agenda.

    In this case, to undermine the neutrality of the Internet infrastructure we take for granted, all with the blessing of knee-jerk idiots subscribing to the dogma that government can do no right (a laughable premis that can only be taken seriously by one who pointedly ignores decades of success in various lands around the world, including the US, and exaggerating those inevitable failures that will occur to any organization that operates for any non-trivial length of time).

  33. Because it's a correction... by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Read the first link.