Slashdot Mirror
Cable Companies Use Astroturfing To Fight Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader sends a report from Vice which alleges that a trade group for internet service providers is building support for its crusade against net neutrality by funding opinion pieces and letters that masquerade as legitimate public sentiment.
'A disclosure obtained by VICE from the National Cable and Telecom Association (NCTA), a trade group for ISPs, shows that the bulk of Broadband for America's recent $3.5 million budget is funded through a $2 million donation from NCTA. Last month, Broadband for America wrote a letter to the FCC bluntly demanding that the agency "categorically reject" any effort toward designating broadband as a public utility. It wasn't signed by any internet consumer advocates, as the Sununu-Ford letter suggests. The signatures on the letter reads like a who's who of ISP industry presidents and CEOs, including AT&T's Randall Stephenson, Cox Communications' Patrick Esser, NCTA president (and former FCC commissioner) Michael Powell, Verizon's Lowell McAdam, and Comcast's Brian Roberts. Notably, Broadband for America's most recent tax filing shows that it retained the DCI Group, an infamous lobbying firm that specializes in creating fake citizen groups on behalf of corporate campaigns.'
A classic case of corporate interests spending lavishly to buy influence on issues where their interests run counter to those of the public at large. Who was the tool here last week who insisted that this was not a problem?
The Adblock however does.
Since it hasn't been the "filthy, dirty South" since the introduction of reliable indoor plumbing.
It not working takes out the incentive to moderate and log in, though.
PR in the US is often just propaganda. It is another avenue through which wealth can be used to exert undue influence over policy by shaping public opinion, deceiving, astroturfing, etc etc. It is justified under Free Speech, but there is no concern for equality: if you have more money, your voice (or the people you pay to spread "your voice") is much more likely affect change. In my opinion, this is wrong.
I recommend reading the book Deadly Spin by Wendell Potter which shows just how insidious this practice is. The author used to be a top PR executive at several insurance companies but "found his conscience" and is speaking out against it.
So only 5 to 10 years ago?
This is Chattanooga, it's still got some questionable air quality, and back in the 70s, it was abysmal.
Though this would be geography, not just industry. It's an unfortunate geographical location.
That said, the internet is great, and comes from a municipally owned utility. While the water and sewer suck, and at least one of those is privatized.
I thought it was just a bunch of libertarians and/or technologically illiterate businessmen.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Is this news? This has and always will happen until it is made an illegal practice.
Astroturfing is when organizations pretend to be grassroots, community organizations but are clandestinely funded by corporate interests. There is nothing clandestine about the funding for Broadband for America; it's a PR and lobbying organization that consists of a lot of big businesses and some little businesses:
http://www.broadbandforamerica...
I don't see why people get their panties in a knot about companies presenting their point of view publicly; you can listen to their arguments and either agree with them or disagree with them.
This weekend, I think I am going to hire a Dingo to watch my kids...
As long as it is clear who is making these claims against net neutrality, there is nothing terribly wrong with it.
There are, of course, issues. There are issues with politicians and governmental bodies refusing to listen to certain groups because of conflict of interest or inherent bodies (e.g. funding or other industry ties). There are issues with the industry having an inequitable amount of funding to pursue lobbying. (In essence, they are using revenues generated by consumers to lobby against the interests of consumers.)
But as long as it is clear where the message is coming from, such as the composition of a group's membership and where it obtains its funding, they have as much right to present their perspective as anyone else. It is really up to the recipient of these letters to assess the validity of the claims based upon the evidence and their independence. (For instance, I would consider any survey presented by an industry group to be heavily biased since the wording of such surveys or their target demographic can distort the results.)
It is government of the [common] people, by the [fake] people, for the [rich] people. Sounds legit.
Sadly, this is the only thing that might actually work.
In addition, even when for-profit companies claim to act as "consumer advocates", that isn't automatically wrong. For example, I think when Uber and Lyft try to destroy the taxi cartel, they are also acting as "consumer advocates".
"Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple greedy goons. These are people of the trade group world. The common clay of the new Wall Street. You know... morons.
.... f**k no!
So glad I live in the UK
Depends... Maybe they would find a way to those videos into profit
The segregated South was progressive? LOL.
Nah, feeling superior to an entire half of a nation simply because of where they are located, pretending like they are all one homogeneous block who all think and feel the same way, looking down on them, then patting yourself on the back for how amazingly progressive and unbiased you are is so much better.
You're one of those lemmings who needs the notion of "protected groups" to define for you how you should feel and about whom you should feel it. You really have no true understanding of your own of what prejudice really is and why it's wrong, because you are obviously eager to apply your own brand of prejudice against anyone not previously defined for you as a "protected group". That is called identity politics and politicians love it because it makes divide-and-conquer so easy. It's practically a vote factory! And here you are, enabling and embracing it, just so you can feel like your own particular bigotry is legitimate. Disgusting.
Of what? NASCAR? Out houses? Trailer parks? Buck-toothed rednecks?
It not working takes out the incentive to moderate and log in, though.
Running your own adblock means you provide your own incentive. You log in and moderate if you think it's worth doing. If not, you don't. No carrot-and-stick method needed.
I don't get it. Is there a mistake in the summary? 2 million is not the bulk of 3.5 billion (out by a few orders of magnitude). I also followed the "$2 million donation" link but I couldn't see these numbers on the web page.
This sort of thing is going to continue until the only way the public can fight back in violence, which will be terrible for everyone. :-(
Of what? NASCAR? Out houses? Trailer parks? Buck-toothed rednecks?
Wow, if this is what you think the South is like, I'd hate to see what stereotypes you believe about other countries.
Google gives millions to groups that -- surprise, surprise-- fight for "net neutrality". So does Netflix. What does "net neutrality" mean? We shouldn't be surprised that these groups fight to make it easier for Google and Netflix to make money without having to share it with the cable companies. This is how business is done. The only thing naive about this article is that it pretends that only the cable companies are astroturfing. The EFF is one big astroturf factory for the Google.
It is what it is like. Along with the rampant homophobia and not-too-subtle racism.
The reporter has a massive slant and I suspect a political agenda when he slams the DCI group as "infamous". Clearly he is a democrat that wants to demonize all things corporate and all things Republican.
I am surprised more do not see the whole "net neutrality" thing for what it really is. Content providers don't want to pay for the bandwidth they use to make money on. It would also, much like current "regulated" utilities create a monopoly were price would be controlled and competition would be none. That's way all these companies don't want this because they do not want to be locked out of markets where regulation would decide who the "main" providers are.
If the cable and telco companies want to scrap net neutrality
and apply traffic controls by packet inspection, they should
lose every semblence of common carrier status and be held
personally(1) liable for all traffic passing through their pipes.
"Can you say, 'shitfest', little one?"
--
(1) Corporations are people after all, right?
Bravo
Let's be clear. Net neutrality originally means "Leave the Internet alone". because it's been working fine for many years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
BUT... Mr. Obama and the FCC came up with a plan to seize control over the Internet, and they called their plan "Net Neutrality"; the SAME NAME, but entirely different meaning. They like everybody to believe its about protecting you from the mean ISP, but they don't mention everything ELSE that it does.
Under the FCC's "Net Neutrality", the FCC would have governing authority over the ISPs and over some of the types of data that flow on the Internet.
The ISPs would be required to record your internet activity and keep it for a specific amount of time, that way, government agencies could simply ask them for it without any warrant, and you would not even be aware of it.
ISPs would not be able to throttle your bandwidth back by 20% when you access Netflix. Instead they will be able to charge you 20% more money to access it.
The FCC would also be able to apply their rules at will onto any ISP, without oversight. It would be directly under the authority of the President. And if you think he is abusing his executive orders now, you ain't seen nothing.
Obama will be able to force international treaties on the American people. It's technically illegal for him to do that, but with the Internet under his control, it will happen anyway. Soon, you won't be able to express your opinion because it offends somebody in another country. You won't be able to speak against Islam, or government. Legally Obama is required to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and so these treeties he enters into are not binding on American's on American soil, because a lot of provisions violate that, but he is handing control of the Internet to others all over the world.
There are several false flags claiming "Net Neutrality" is for you, but it's not. They want you to visit the FCC web site and fill out a petition, but it's a trick to win support for THEIR version of "Net Neutrality". Even a group of people claiming to be "Anonymous" started a "Reset the Net" campaign, but they want you to visit a web site and register. Anonymous NEVER does that, hince the name.
Folks, we are out of time. You need to immediately seize control over your own communications, become your own ISP and bypass or at least piggy back without the knowledge or control of government or ISPs. You need to encrypt communications (trust the math). Air Chat is one such option. Groups of people established packet radio relays for the Occupy Wall Street movement, so do some research.
We are Anonymous.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
just like their partner's in crime, the demonrats.
Think next time, before you vote, children!
put everything on video in HD and online as a lesson to future idiots
Nah, it would just get copyright flagged by NBC Universal.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
And I bet you call yourself "educated"
What I call myself doesn't alter reality. I could call myself the King of France and the South would still be a shithole.
Have gnu, will travel.
This explains the occasional anti-net neutrality post you see in these net neutrality discussions. No one—and I mean no one—other than someone with a financial interest would ever oppose net neutrality.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
I think the issue is that customers are stupid, customer support is expensive, and most people use far less data, than they legally could, until Netflix. ISPs realized, they could just say 'unlimited internet', and people wouldn't call to ask questions, and they wouldn't get close to using unlimited internet, until Netflix came along.
In spite of the claims of high bandwidth needed for 'innovation', TV and piracy are the only two popular, high bandwidth applications that have emerged. TV and pirated materials were already proven demand for bandwidth, so I would argue that no new uses for high bandwidth have been found, and thus no innovation.
ISPs should be required to sell access to their local networks, to avoid paying to send stuff over the internet. I should be able to buy Comcast New York City network access, Verizon Los Angeles network access, or AT&T Chicago network access.
That assumes that the internet companies are interested new ways of business, instead of merely increasing control and demanding more money.... The last year has made me think 'nationalize the bastards'.
Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet [that was] sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material
And you would still be a bigot.
Adblock isn't available for every browser. Especially mobile browsers.
I was reading an exchange on reddit between someone posting for an anti-gmo event and pro-gmo people criticizing the guy.
The anti-GMO guy pointed out that he recognized the nicknames of the pro-GMO guys from earlier threads. He went on to say the he was suspicious that they were cranks or paid corporate astroturfers.
I'm not taking a side on the GMO thing, but I was shocked that everyone in that thread seemed naive about the existence of corproate astroturfers.
This post was good for reminding people that they exist.
Hosts are better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk (coded in C, loads w/ OS,
And, "souled-out": Let me turn you on to something FAR better on multiple levels http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy - she's a freebie, & recommended as "best of breed" by MalwareBytes' hpHosts @ the top of their website -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
(They're a respected member of the security community for those "not in the know" & the code's been vetted + proven SAFE & CLEAN by their staff)
Some might see it as CYA by the cable companies. In the end though it will be seen as corruption as money cuts deals that have nothing to do with competition or free market trade.
I know that racist white people who have half a brain love the idea of reverse racism. I know people like you think that it makes sense to call someone who dislikes your groups racism and bigotry is also racist and bigoted. You feel that you should be entitled to your own racist opinion, that it is ok to judge someone by the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. It's not ok, and defending your bigoted culture by using this rhetoric is a fallacious blame the victim type argument, period. Identity politics are on both sides of the aisle, yet it is the conservative south who use it to create hatred, fear, and misunderstanding. Let's be clear on this, because it is not the same. You're entire post is one big circular argument.