Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable Companies Use Astroturfing To Fight Net Neutrality

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-you-can't-trust-huge-corporations-who-can-you-trust dept.

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.'

142 comments

  1. Chattanooga of all places by Noxal · · Score: -1, Troll

    Seriously, since when is somewhere in the filthy, dirty South a bastion of progress when it comes to broadband?

    1. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since it hasn't been the "filthy, dirty South" since the introduction of reliable indoor plumbing.

    2. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So only 5 to 10 years ago?

    3. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:Chattanooga of all places by NotDrWho · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Seriously, since when is somewhere in the filthy, dirty South a bastion of progress when it comes to broadband?

      You obviously haven't been there since the 1860's.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The segregated South was progressive? LOL.

    6. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Seriously, since when is somewhere in the filthy, dirty South a bastion of progress when it comes to broadband?

      u jelly, yankee?

    7. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of what? NASCAR? Out houses? Trailer parks? Buck-toothed rednecks?

    9. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is what it is like. Along with the rampant homophobia and not-too-subtle racism.

    11. Re:Chattanooga of all places by darrellg1 · · Score: 1

      Bravo

    12. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I'm both straight and white. I'm not part of a protected group nor do I agree with the notion of protected groups. Doesn't change the fact that the South is a regressive shithole.

    13. Re:Chattanooga of all places by darrellg1 · · Score: 1

      And I bet you call yourself "educated"

    14. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I call myself doesn't alter reality. I could call myself the King of France and the South would still be a shithole.

    15. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      you forgot the swarms of out of work niggers on welfare.

    16. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you would still be a bigot.

    17. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You gonna cry more? Do I need to get Bucktoothed Betty to come to your trailer park to give you a blowjob?

    18. Re:Chattanooga of all places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  2. Not disabling ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The "ads disabled" checkbox isn't disabling ads.

    1. Re:Not disabling ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Adblock however does.

    2. Re:Not disabling ads by tbuddy · · Score: 1

      It not working takes out the incentive to moderate and log in, though.

    3. Re:Not disabling ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Not disabling ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblock isn't available for every browser. Especially mobile browsers.

  3. Money in Politics by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Money in Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was the tool here last week who insisted that this was not a problem?

      Probably Tom Wheeler in "disguise".

    2. Re: Money in Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't understand is that when a company lies on its ads, it gets fined, but when it lies via other means, nothing gets done, and it's even considered free speech by some. Why? It's all the same to me. There should be no free speech for companies.

    3. Re: Money in Politics by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      What I don't understand is that when a company lies on its ads, it gets fined, but when it lies via other means, nothing gets done, and it's even considered free speech by some. Why? It's all the same to me. There should be no free speech for companies.

      They get away with it because individual citizens are not held accountable for lies. Lobby and activist groups on both sides of issues can pretty much send out any message they want, and both are guilty of misleading.

      But that's not the real problem. The real problem is many individuals that just believe which-ever group they initially feel comfortable with, and don't think critically, get the facts, and decide for themselves. Everyone thinks they are an expert, but they can only repeat headlines. As long as the lemming vote exists, the lies will serve their purpose.

    4. Re: Money in Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. All official speech by a company is business. It should always be illegal for any party to be intentionally deceitful in business.

    5. Re:Money in Politics by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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?

      But who (other than Congress) would actually believe such a thing is "public sentiment"? The very idea is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind (that is to say, nobody but Congress) would believe this garbage.

    6. Re: Money in Politics by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      There should be no free speech for companies.

      There is no free speech "right" for companies. Companies don't have rights.

      When SCOTUS recently ruled, in effect, that corporations have a right to free speech, it seemingly (and very bizarrely) seemed to ignore the fact that government already regulates corporate speech about 100 different ways.

      It also meant, in effect, that money = speech. An obvious corollary to that is: some people are more "equal" than others.

      In my opinion this was the worst Supreme Court decision in living memory, and a future court or administration will inevitably overturn it.

    7. Re: Money in Politics by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Besides, if money is speech then that throws into question some of our other laws.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:Money in Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alen, charliemopps, jdlanovic among others.

  4. kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    just let this pass, then after a few months kill all the managers and owners of this company - put everything on video in HD and online as a lesson to future idiots

    1. Re:kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, this is the only thing that might actually work.

    2. Re: kill them by Teranolist · · Score: 1

      Depends... Maybe they would find a way to those videos into profit

    3. Re:kill them by captjc · · Score: 1

      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
  5. They all do this by rabbin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They all do this by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Astroturfing should be outlawed as a form of fraud IMO...

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    2. Re:They all do this by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With all the bullshit they are surrounded by, is it any wonder the American people make such poor choices? Whenever someone blames the voters for the state of the union, this is the stuff I think of.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:They all do this by stenvar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Who gets to decide then which speech is proper and which speech isn't proper? Should we have a "ministry of truth" that determines "for the people" what speech is astroturfing and what speech is not? Should churches and unions be allowed to spend money to speak nationally on political, moral, or financial matters? Should newspapers and media companies, being wealthy corporations themselves, be allowed to engage in political speech? What about citizens grouping together, pooling their money, and then using the pooled money to speak? What organizational form should that take, if not a corporation (usually not-for-profit)?

      I certainly do not want a political system in which only a few kinds of organizations (media companies, churches, unions?) have the right to engage in large scale political speech while everybody else merely has the right to vent in forums, if that. People like you complain a lot, but you don't have a good answer.

    4. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find out their paying actual citizens, customers or employees to go online and write emails to politicians, the FCC, and whoever else, or using those same people to send letter via USPS, so it has a legit address and name in order to peddle their bullshit. Watch that will be next, to get reported.

      A little off topic and probably something /. know, Hillary Clinton and other politicians created censorship groups (there were 7 or 8 probably more now) who are 'concerned citizens' who watch, read, listen, to all forms of Media, so they can then send a couple thousand letters to the FCC, and politicians to push censorship. They are legit citizens but politicians and the FCC don't seem to care, and in fact know these letters are from those groups, between them and the press news media blaming everything on everyone besides themselves.

      This tactic should be of concern when it comes to other subjects and issues, this "letter" is nothing new, but these companies have the resources to use this as a means to falsify what the public wants by using the public to peddle its nonsense.

    5. Re:They all do this by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps just mandate disclosure of major financial supporters? Speak all you want, but be required to have 'this campaign funded by' in small print at the bottom of the advert.

    6. Re:They all do this by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Here's one that's easy: outright lying. Unless you're arguing that fraud shouldn't be illegal, because it's just an expression of free speech. Astroturfing is a form of fraud: you're trying to present views as coming from someone else. If the cable companies want to say 'net neutrality is bad because it will cost us money', then that's fine. If they lie and pretend to be a consumer group, then that's not.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:They all do this by stenvar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's one that's easy: outright lying. Unless you're arguing that fraud shouldn't be illegal, because it's just an expression of free speech. Astroturfing is a form of fraud: you're trying to present views as coming from someone else.

      Broadband for America is quite clear about who their backers are: http://www.broadbandforamerica... And they didn't present themselves as a grassroots organization, SFGate (Hearst Corporation) did.

      But the trouble with demanding truth in free speech is that somebody needs to determine what "truth" is. Either the executive or the courts have to adjudicate. Who do you think will be at the receiving end of determinations of untruth? What do you think the government position would have been on the truth of such statements like "Blacks and whites are equally capable", "Women and men are equally capable", or "Homosexuality is not a disease"? It's minority views that benefit most from being able to speak up against the majority opinion; tolerating lies and deception is the price we pay for that.

    8. Re:They all do this by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's really quite easy - ban money from politics. No politician can ever earn money privately. They have to declare their worth before they become politicians, and can not leave with anything more than the accumulated wages they earned during their life in office. All subsequent earnings are subject to investigation should conflicts of interest be alleged. The media has to actually engage in journalism and cover issues with the minimum possible level of bias - any failures result in censure or worse. The problem now is that if an entity has money they can use that money to directly influence politicians. That is utterly pathetic, and causes so much grief in the US (and, indirectly, the rest of the world). For a country which bangs on about how awesome democracy is, it sure seems to have no problem watching the democratic process be quickly eroded by swathes of corporations. No, money is not speech. Money is money and speech is speech. Wrapping something up as a "free speech" issue does not mean it should be revered in hushed tones like some embodiment of the American ideal - if it's bullshit call it out, otherwise you end up in this tragically disgusting state of affairs where the largest wallet dictates what everyone else has to do, and the only good happens when a one-in-a-million alignment of massive evils cancel each other out and a trickle of progress seeps through. The world weeps for the US - other developed countries have their issues with their political systems, but most seem to be able to keep this separation far better than in the US.

    9. Re:They all do this by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Yes.. this. And we can mandate all donations to anything be made public so we can go on another wich hunt and run someone out of a job when they donate to something we don't like. That way every one will think like us- at least in public they will. Snd thats all that matters right?

    10. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Astroturfing shouldn't have any affect on popular opinion. Why would I care what a bunch of other people allegedly think? The danger is that our elected representatives will mistake this crap for popular opinion itself.

    11. Re:They all do this by stenvar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's really quite easy - ban money from politics. No politician can ever earn money privately.

      We live in a representative democracy. Why would I want people like that representing me?

      The media has to actually engage in journalism and cover issues with the minimum possible level of bias - any failures result in censure or worse

      I think you have just perfectly characterized how the Soviet Union worked.

      The world weeps for the US - other developed countries have their issues with their political systems, but most seem to be able to keep this separation far better than in the US.

      Well, thankfully I don't have to live in those "other developed countries".

    12. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      How will Apple survive when their army or 'tufers isn't allowed? The zealots are too dumb to do it themselves.

    13. Re:They all do this by sasparillascott · · Score: 1

      So well said rabbin.

    14. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No politician can ever earn money privately. They have to declare their worth before they become politicians, and can not leave with anything more than the accumulated wages they earned during their life in office.

      All of this exists right now. It has nothing to do with the actual "money in politics" troubles we have.

    15. Re:They all do this by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Fraud is not illegal unless it directly taks advantage of someone in an illegal way.

      I have no problem with ISPs selling fast lanes if they do nothing to hamper speeds below thst in which their customers purchase. To me, as long as my connection's up to limit or any traffic from or destined to my network is delivered in good faith, i could care less if netflix or google or whatever pays for something to reach me faster than the speeds i purchased. The problem happens when the ISP ssells me 8 meg speeds and limits it to 2meg based on a third party payment or not. This is the fraud because as long as they block or limit, they are never delivering what they sold me. And no, the words "up to" are not magic and absolve them of that. When they intentionally limit the speeds, the connection can only be "up to" those limits. 2meg is up to 8meg but when they limit it, it can never be more than up to 2meg.

    16. Re: They all do this by Night64 · · Score: 1

      Fast lane? Do you know how QoS works? The only way possible is, when you have a congestion, which packets will you drop? If you have "fast lanes", you drop all the other traffic, except the one in classified as " fast lane". Actually, this term is deceptive. The car metaphor doesn't apply. There is no "lanes" in data communication. There are only queues, and space for one packet at a time to flow. If there's space for all packets, no problem! But when there is a congestion (and we have it all the time) priority traffic goes first, the rest goes when priority is not using. Hope I've made myself clear, but you can see in Wikipedia to know more.

      --
      Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    17. Re:They all do this by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 0

      Remember when the iPod came out about 2001 and all the internet links of photos were somehow always.returning an iPod photo? You clicked on a link for a picture of J - Lo and it returned an iPod picture. Even displaying an false file size to fool you??? THAT was the reason they became "so popular" when it was just another MP3 player. And people started to refer to all mp3 players as iPods... damn. Zealots paid zealots... Sorry I don't own any Apple "products" even if you paid me.

    18. Re:They all do this by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 2

      Forget the small print. Big, easily read text with a voiceover.

    19. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Who gets to decide then which speech is proper and which speech isn't proper? Should we have a "ministry of truth" that determines "for the people" what speech is astroturfing and what speech is not? Should churches and unions be allowed to spend money to speak nationally on political, moral, or financial matters? Should newspapers and media companies, being wealthy corporations themselves, be allowed to engage in political speech? What about citizens grouping together, pooling their money, and then using the pooled money to speak? What organizational form should that take, if not a corporation (usually not-for-profit)?

      I certainly do not want a political system in which only a few kinds of organizations (media companies, churches, unions?) have the right to engage in large scale political speech while everybody else merely has the right to vent in forums, if that. People like you complain a lot, but you don't have a good answer.

      It isn't a matter of whether what someone is saying is factually correct, it is whether they knew it to be false at the time they said it. It is a lower bar than having to prove that what you are saying is true, and I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that there is any benefit to allowing people to knowingly defraud their fellow citizens. Outright lying to push a political agenda (or in any type of advertising for that matter) should be illegal.

    20. Re:They all do this by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      The problem I have with the "fast lanes" are that most ISPs are monopolies or duopolies in their areas. They already have little incentive to innovate. After all, what are you going to do? Go without Internet? Of course not, so keep those monthly checks coming for as much as the ISPs demand.

      Given the monopoly/duopoly fact, what is preventing ISPs from turning "fast lane/faster lane" into "slow, congested lane/fast, big money lane"? What's preventing them from ignoring any speed increases to the normal traffic that doesn't pay them for special treatment while they make sure that the companies that pay them get super-high speed access? And will there be exclusive deals? If Amazon signs up with Time Warner Cable in my area as the exclusive Internet video provider (besides TWC's offerings and by doing so paying much more than normal "fast lane" access, of course), what would this mean if I wanted to use Netflix? Would I need to move to a different town just to use Netflix?

      The answer is that nothing is preventing them from doing this. If it makes them money, they'll do it. Speeding up the normal Internet won't make them money so that will be left to languish. If ISPs get their way, any website worth visiting will need to pay every ISP fast-lane acess fees. This would make operating your own website prohibitively expensive so only the big companies would be able to do it. And thus, corporate status quo will be maintained.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    21. Re:They all do this by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just make politicians have to wear patches on their suits indicating who their donors are. NASCAR style.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    22. Re:They all do this by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 1

      Are you astroturfing here, or just trolling? I've never heard this story.

      But uhh, if you're asturfing, I'll be happy to spread this if I can get a cut. I mean, provided Apple doesn't replace my messages with ads for that hot new sexy language they got, called Swift. So dreamy. #Jobs

    23. Re:They all do this by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about citizens grouping together, pooling their money, and then using the pooled money to speak? What organizational form should that take, if not a corporation (usually not-for-profit)?

      Let's turn that around for a minute: Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation, including things like limited liability and favorable tax treatment?

      If all the groups advocating for this "organized" free speech were general partnerships where each member was actually responsible for the group's actions and kept on a level playing field with individuals, that would be one thing. But that's not what's going on here! Instead, the assholes who control these groups want special treatment that places them above individual citizens.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    24. Re:They all do this by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's how it already works for individuals! In fact, that's exactly why these SuperPACs and whatnot exist: so that the people who control them can gain an unfair advantage over Joe Schmuck who has to stand accountable for his political speech.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    25. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, thankfully I don't have to live in those "other developed countries".

      You are exactly the type of underinformed, opinionated American that gives the rest of us a bad name.

      Having lived for some time in Germany and England, and travelled throughout most of Europe and Asia, I can say with some experience that there are numerous places much better off than the United States when it comes down to income, healthcare, quality of living, and the ease with which you can start an company.

      Let me repeat that: and the ease with which you can start a company.

      It is an ugly American myth that it is "harder to start a company" in (insert non-US country here). That may be true in some places, but it is demonstrably not true in much of Europe and Canada. In fact, people in the US often find it hard to leave their jobs in order to create a startup because they lose their health insurance and have to buy privately or do without. This has been mitigated to some degree by Obamacare, but it is still an issue that does not plague entrepreneurs in the UK or Germany. Regulations are similar, taxes are much simpler there (Particularly sales tax! Try calculating sales tax for orders taken in one of the fifty states, or one of the dozens of regions of New York State where the rate varies from county to county and in some cases town to town), and barriers to entry are comparable to the US.

      The US is a nice enough place to live, if you're priveleged to have an upper-middle or beter income, better-than-average health insurance provided at no cost by your employer, and not live in an isolated or blighted area, but it is by no means as nice as vast swathes of Europe and some parts of Asia.

      The reason for this is that those areas are much better governed, because they have sane political climates ensured by a limit of campaign funding and controls to prevent people like the Koch brothers and Corporate interests from buying elections wholesale, which in turn limits the amount of corporate whoring their leaders can engage in. Unlike the US, where the Supreme Court has sold out its democracy in Citizen's United like a cheap whore turning tricks on Saturday night.

    26. Re:They all do this by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      What I remember is 95% of all radio show, newspaper, etc contests having iPods as the prize. We used to joke that more people won iPods than actually bought them.

    27. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the lies conservatives tell....we need something more than what we have.

      Money is not speech. So you show me your large scale system that isn't restricted to a few kinds of organizations WITHOUT GIVING BILLIONARES AN EDGE, and I might consider it.

      Otherwise I'll take the narrow range because billionares seem to turn into sociopaths.

    28. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really quite easy - ban money from politics. No politician can ever earn money privately.

      We live in a representative democracy. Why would I want people like that representing me?

      If they're getting their money from somewhere else, it's not you they're representing.

    29. Re:They all do this by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      What happens when they only upgrade the "fast lanes"? Imagine if they had gotten this ability 20 years ago. We'd have plentiful and cheap access to "normal lane" Dial up.... Oh, and the Fast Lanes of cable or DSL.

      Then there's the other problems with your post. Assuming Google or Netflix DID pay for "faster" access, do you really think they'd deliver it to you faster than the connection you payed for? Why on earth would they do that? You have to pay to upgrade.....

      I think you don't know this issue very well. Or you're being intentionally dumb to confuse the issue. :D When was your ID made? Heh.

      Actually, it kind of makes me wonder how many of the posts here are real. Have I wasted time arguing with Astroturf?

    30. Re: They all do this by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. I guess they cannot use QOS then. I mean it is simple really. I said as long as they do not hamper my communications. So their fast lanes have to be speeds in excess of everyone else' and in addition to everyone else. QOS may be part of the final solution, but if it matches what I said, then it will only be to manage packets at speeds above the connection I purchased.

      Here is more to what I don't have a problem with. They sell internet as normal, Netflix and Google pay for the fast lane, they install additional capacity and allow Netflix and Google to flow faster than the speeds they sold me into my connection. Everyone else is limited to what I purchased and they do nothing to slow my connection down in the process. In the end, my internet doesn't slow down ever when everyone gets on at once because they have the additional capacity necessary for Google and Netflix.

    31. Re:They all do this by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Let's turn that around for a minute: Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation, including things like limited liability and favorable tax treatment?

      There is nothing "privileged" about that status: it's available to everyone for just about any purpose. It is widely used by almost every political group and organization because it's the right form of organization. Barack Obama has numerous such organizations created for the purpose of supporting him.

      Instead, the assholes who control these groups want special treatment that places them above individual citizens.

      Any citizen can use these mechanism easily and enjoy the same protections; incorporating costs next to nothing. If you don't use these legal protections for your non-profit or for profit activities, that's your own fault. Don't blame other "corporations" for your own laziness.

    32. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elected Representatives? Let's paraphrase Charles Foster Kane:
      "They'll think whatever I pay them to think."

    33. Re: They all do this by Night64 · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not possible too. You see, they regularly sell more bandwidth or connectivity than they have. With Net neutrality when Internet bandwidth becomes overused, all customers' service tends to be degraded equally without failing completely. But if you are implying that they can only sell "fast lanes" if they are forbidden to overselling net capacity, then it's all right I guess. But that will not happen, ever. At least not in the real world.

      --
      Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    34. Re:They all do this by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      If by 'any citizen' you mean 'anyone who can either pay the thousands of dollars to have a lawyer help them do the paperwork' or the 'anyone who can takes months figuring out the forms on their own'. Then yes.

      Which by the way is the same thing as the 'any citizen' when it comes to bankruptcy. I lost my job at one put in my life and couldn't pay my bills any longer. So the sane thing would be to apply for bankruptcy status, but it's not like it's just a form you can fill out. Instead it's a series of court documents that need to be made and a legal process you go through. When I wanted to do it I found the absolute cheapest I could get a bankruptcy done for was about $1000 USD. I couldn't even pay hundreds of dollars in bills a month, where in the world am I going to get $1000 USD? So yes, it's something 'any citizen' can do... It's something 'Any citizen with sufficient access to the means of production' can do.....

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    35. Re:They all do this by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation, ... If by 'any citizen' you mean 'anyone who can either pay the thousands of dollars to have a lawyer help them do the paperwork' or the 'anyone who can takes months figuring out the forms on their own'. Then yes.

      The only reason to incorporate is because you want to accomplish something with a bunch of other people, a group, so the burden on each individual is small. My local running club is a corporation, and we are collecting the amazing amount of $20/year from our members.

      If you are a loner who can't figure out how to fill out some simple paperwork, your problem isn't that rich people are keeping the means of production from you or prevent you from incorporating, it's that you are a loner who can't accomplish elementary tasks. That's not sufficient reason to spoil things for the rest of us and make us as miserable as you seem to be.

    36. Re:They all do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Who gets to decide then which speech is proper and which speech isn't proper? Should we have a "ministry of truth" that determines "for the people" what speech is astroturfing and what speech is not? Should churches and unions be allowed to spend money to speak nationally on political, moral, or financial matters? Should newspapers and media companies, being wealthy corporations themselves, be allowed to engage in political speech? What about citizens grouping together, pooling their money, and then using the pooled money to speak? What organizational form should that take, if not a corporation (usually not-for-profit)?

      I certainly do not want a political system in which only a few kinds of organizations (media companies, churches, unions?) have the right to engage in large scale political speech while everybody else merely has the right to vent in forums, if that. People like you complain a lot, but you don't have a good answer.

      I have a great answer if you knowing lie for financial and political gain it is fraud, and depending on if it is national or local the appropriate law enforcement agency levels charges and the person at the top responsible for the crime that gave the ok to commit the crime goes to jail, and people that knowingly also committed the crime go to jail. And this covers any formal group of people such as corporations, churches, unions, small company's, non-profits, etc. Also we make the sentencing the same as we do for organized crime and it already would come under the Rico act.

      This is no different then any other organized crime syndicate at work. They just have better connections and learned how to play the game better. Some of them even hire security consultants for wet work. (Don't believe me look up mining and railroad history in the US.)

    37. Re: They all do this by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. The devil is in the details I guess but yes, that is what I am saying. If they can sell services where the fast lane does not degrade it, then I do not have a problem with it. If I decide to save money and buy a slower service and Netflix decides to up the speed for my connection when I'm connected to Netflix, that is alright by me.

      The bottom line is that if they reserve capacity for the fast lanes, it better be capacity above what they sold to you and me. Otherwise, I believe it to be consumer fraud to purposely slow our connections to below what they sold us in order to maintain that fast lane. No matter how you slice it, up to 8 megs or whatever the speeds of your connection is supposed to be can never be up to that limit if they purposely and intentionally slow your connection down.

  6. Ah so that explains it by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I thought it was just a bunch of libertarians and/or technologically illiterate businessmen.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Ah so that explains it by smartr · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend asking the libertarians:
      A. Do you think Comcast sucks, not just for terrible quality support, but for extorting money from the people you already paid them for the privilege of communicating with a la Netflix? If you desire access to the fastest connection available, Comcast is your provider in most of the country. Should not paying for the highest bandwidth access contractually cover your connecting with whoever you damn well please without Comcast extorting money from the endpoint you are communicating with?
      B. Comcast is given exclusive rights to use those lines through local governments. This is the case with pretty much all the cable companies. How do you feel about this collusion?
      C. The wires and airspace frequencies are given a free pass through private property. Why shouldn't private property owners use the wires on their land how they wish?
      D. Do you think Comcast sucks? Do you have any actual plans that have a chance in hell of working besides telling people to move across the country or swap to a slower connection?

  7. News? by h4x0t · · Score: 1

    Is this news? This has and always will happen until it is made an illegal practice.

    1. Re:News? by ficuscr · · Score: 1

      I think making it illegal will be difficult. I look at it as reinforcing our need for good news/information sources so we can hopefully see through the bull shit. Unfortunately as we see a rise in propaganda and "AstroTurfing" we are also seeing the demise of independent quality news media. Very scary that these monolithic companies are also the ones that bring most of us the news. When we can't even determine that "Cable Companies Use Astroturfing To Fight Net Neutrality" because no one reports on it, and the reporting simply reflects these corporations stance on issues, then our democracy will really be kaput.

  8. that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by nhstar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lately I find that, more and more, the mentality is "Either you're with us, or you're EVIL!" and this is just proof of that... Instead of presenting a divergent view, it's easier to plaster such organizations with hate and malicious intent, forgetting that the corporations are only doing what they're chartered to do: using every resource to increase wealth for their share-holders.

      I'm not advocating that this is the way it should be, just stating that, legally, this is the way that it is. Corporations aren't ~allowed~ to consider "the greater good" over that profit, so long as they're not doing greater harm. And I mean actual harm, not just perceived or "being kept down by the man" harm.

      $0.02

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    2. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that governing bodies like the FCC or your Congress-person can only work with opinions that they know. You can't take a poll of public opinion every time you want to make a decision, and polls are horribly unreliable anyway.

      The people that have to make the decisions only hear from the people that are concerned enough about a problem to contact them and personally tell them what they think. However, most actual concerned citizens are not paid to provide their opinion and find it a hassle to have to tell someone every time they agree or disagree with something (on the Internet, I know, but most sites now require you to sign up to leave a comment and who wants to do that all the time?), and there's no guarantee that enough people who feel the same way will get on board (ex: voting). On the other side, the corporations are more than willing to pay many people, or even more preferably a company that employs many people for this exact purpose, to voice the company's opinions en masse.

      This is the entire problem with lobbyists. Their opinions don't always or even usually represent the common interest, but when they're providing the majority of the opinions that the people that get to make decisions get to hear, the people that get to make the decisions come to believe that they are also representing the majority (see the problem with polls earlier).

    3. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by dinfinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, the story here is that things like "Broadband for America, a coalition of 300 Internet consumer advocates, content providers and engineers" don't sound like "Broadband of America, an organization sponsored mostly by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and the likes."

      Attaching the former is disingenuous, as it mischaracterizes the organisation as being some kind of collective of consumer-oriented institutes. Of course, technically it doesn't say that, but most people are too oblivious to read between the lines of such a statement. So clearly, people become misinformed due to tactics such as these. What do you suggest we do to fix this misinformation?

    4. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 2

      forgetting that the corporations are only doing what they're chartered to do: using every resource to increase wealth for their share-holders.

      Note that that isn't automatically in conflict with the interests of the rest of society. For example, Uber and Lyft advocate for increasing their own wealth, but in the process they also advocate breaking up taxi cartels and lowering transportation costs.

      forgetting that the corporations are only doing what they're chartered to do: using every resource to increase wealth for their share-holders.

      Not all corporations are doing that. Corporations are just legal entities by which citizens work together. Many corporations are not-for-profit, and both not-for-profit and for-profit corporations may have goals and priorities other than increasing wealth.

      If a bunch of people really don't like some politician's political views, they can form a corporation (not-for-profit usually, but not necessarily), pool their money, and run ads against those political views. Well, they can now, they didn't use to be able to. That's what Citizens United was: a not-for-profit making a film critical of Hillary.

    5. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Right, I was a bit confused by this as well. When did we suddenly forget what Astroturfing was?

      This is exactly what corporate regulatory affairs departments are for. Every company and charity out there does this. The corporations owners/shareholders have 1st amendment rights to. They're free to donate to whatever lobbying groups they think they should.

    6. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Attaching the former is disingenuous, as it mischaracterizes the organisation as being some kind of collective of consumer-oriented institutes

      Yes, it's "disingenuous", but it's not Broadband for America's disingenuity because they didn't write that; that's how the SFGate byline characterizes BFA, so you should blame SFGate.

      What do you suggest we do to fix this misinformation?

      Shut down SFGate or the Hearst Corporation? Nuke all of SF from orbit ("it's the only way to be sure")? Create a politburo or a Minitruth? I dunno, you tell me what you're willing to do in the name of "fixing misinformation".

      Personally, I'd do nothing. Although SFGate writes a lot of nonsense, and lots of people (hello there) seem to be eating up that nonsense, ultimately, I believe in free speech, including the ability of people to counter nonsense spewed by big corporate entities like the Hearst Corporation (SFGate).

    7. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      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.

      There is a difference between presenting your point of view publicly and manipulating public opinion. These types of groups do not exist to give a fair and open view of their position. They exist to sway your opinion through appeals to fear and emotion (You'll pay more! You'll lose your freedom!). They will distort, withhold information, and pay off experts all in order to cause you to think a certain way.

      So it's not really a matter of two or more views being honestly presented for people to evaluate. It's a matter of interested parties trying to got people to think a certain way, using deception, obfuscation and half-truths to do it.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    8. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      Corporations aren't ~allowed~ to consider "the greater good" over that profit,

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/... Granted, in retrospect, this looks like it turned into a good marketing move, but going into it, the history of such things would have indicated this was going to be little more than a money pit.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    9. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 2

      They exist to sway your opinion through appeals to fear and emotion (You'll pay more! You'll lose your freedom!).

      I don't understand what you're trying to say. The question of whether we want or don't want net neutrality is about how much we pay and how much freedom we have, on both sides of the argument.

      It's a matter of interested parties trying to got people to think a certain way, using deception, obfuscation and half-truths to do it.

      And which of the two sides is using "deception, obfuscation, and half-truths" is determined by who? You? The courts?

    10. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      so you should blame SFGate.

      Don't make this about who's to blame. This is about public misinformation actively promoted by corporate interests and how and whether to counter it. Whether that SFGate, BfA or a combination of those two drives the misinformation is irrelevant.

      Personally, I'd do nothing.

      That says enough about you. But thanks for answering the question honestly.

      I dunno, you tell me what you're willing to do in the name of "fixing misinformation".

      How about defending an article exposing said misinformation? (Yes, The Fucking Article)

      As opposed to implying that what's going on is just "companies presenting their point of view publicly" and people "[getting] their panties in a knot about [it]".

    11. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      forgetting that the corporations are only doing what they're chartered to do: using every resource to increase wealth for their share-holders.

      Corporations aren't ~allowed~ to consider "the greater good" over that profit,

      Except that CEOs can do practically ANYTHING and justify it as "increasing wealth for the share-holders".

      Here we go:
      1) Fire everyone, sell everything, liquidate like it's 1999. This increases the bottom-line of the company and makes it easy to increase the wealth of the shareholders (effectively removing the risk of not knowing what the stock is worth, do all that liquidation and you have a definite value the stock can be compared against)

      2) Go into debt, hire a shit-ton of scientists, designers, artist, whoever to invest in the product so that next year/decade they'll be able to corner the market, bring in more money, and increase wealth for the shareholders.

      3) Dodge all taxes as it leaves more money for the shareholders

      4) Pay all the taxes as it removes the risk of the government coming in a busting up the company, shattering the wealth of the shareholders.

      5) Pissing it all away on hookers and blow. "Hey, I'm a high-powered businessman, I make you the money. Walk away, leave me in charge, and you'll get your quarterly gains (as long as the economy is still booming)."

      6) Axing all of the top skill and people with connections in the business. They're just doing lines of blow. It's not like we really need that guy whose mother is running the government regulator, I'm sure she'll be professional. Removing this overhead increases wealth for the shareholders.

      All of that happens and in some cases is even the smart thing to do. If you think corporations are somehow LEGALLY REQUIRED to curb-stomp you, then you have no flipping clue what happens in the business world.

    12. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by Dr.+Donuts · · Score: 2

      I don't think that people get upset about companies presenting their view. What they get upset about is the outsized voice the corporations can afford to buy. The corporate view is given far greater weight than the views of the public at large in political discourse. Since corporations have far more money than the public to spend on lobbying and advertising, and throw on for added measure campaign contributions in an effort to sway politicians to the corporate view, the result is quite predictable in that laws get passed and regulations written that favor corporations over the public interest.

      Since our political process is representative, corporations can largely ignore the public and apply direct pressure to the political representatives themselves.

      Of course, this is why there are many calls to reform lobbying and campaign laws to prevent those with greater financial resources from being able to essentially buy that outsized voice.

    13. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      How about defending an article exposing said misinformation? (Yes, The Fucking Article)

      You would defend an incorrect accusation? Vice is accusing BFA of astroturfing when BFA in fact did not astroturf; their accusation of astroturfing is based on an incorrect statement in SFGate's article.

      Whether that SFGate, BfA or a combination of those two drives the misinformation is irrelevant.

      I see. So because Vice picks up an incorrect accusation of astroturfing by SFGate, BFA becomes an astroturfer. Well, thanks for clearing that up. I think we had that sort of reasoning in the McCarthy era.

    14. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The corporate view is given far greater weight than the views of the public at large in political discourse.

      "Is given greater weight" by who? What does that even mean?

      Since corporations have far more money than the public to spend on lobbying and advertising, and throw on for added measure campaign contributions in an effort to sway politicians to the corporate view, the result is quite predictable in that laws get passed and regulations written that favor corporations over the public interest.

      So, what you want is what we might call a "people's republic", a democratic system in which mainly "the people" have a voice, not corporations or other special interest groups that might advocate views counter to the interests of "the people".

      There have been several attempts to create democracies that; I suggest you look up what happened to them.

    15. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      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.

      Excuse me, but this is NOT "companies presenting their point of view publicly." You know how I can tell? Because Comcast felt the need to create a separate[ish] entity called "Broadband for America" for the express purpose that the name "Comcast" wouldn't be directly attached to the goddamn speech!

      If Comcast wants to speak, then "Comcast" should speak for its own damn self!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Vice is accusing BFA of astroturfing

      It never says that anywhere. Unless they changed the article, the only accusation I find is in the headline: "CABLE COMPANIES ARE ASTROTURFING FAKE CONSUMER SUPPORT TO END NET NEUTRALITY".
      Anyway, if you really want to get into this: the writers of the article in SFgate are probably also very much responsible for (or at least very influential in) the characterization of the BfA below that article.

      I see.

      No, you don't. You want to sit back, allow the public to be misinformed (and lulled into inaction) due to word trickery from people that have financial interests in certain corporations and bitch about articles that try to shine a light on such word trickery. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that using the word 'astroturfing' is debatable here, but knocking the article and the people upset about the word trickery (and their panties) is just counterproductive. And that is what this thread is about.

    17. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations aren't ~allowed~ to consider "the greater good" over that profit

      That is bullshit. Corporations are allowed to do what they want, including considering the greater good. The shareholders don't always allow them and prefers them to increase profits at all costs.
      They have no legal obligation to do so. I know several corporations with other motives than increasing profit.

      Just because the norm is to be a complete dick doesn't mean that that they aren't assholes.

    18. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by Dr.+Donuts · · Score: 1

      Is given greater weight by the politicians or regulators that the corporations are lobbying or donating to. It means that the corporation view is considered first or given more importance than competing views.

      I am not advocating, "wanting", or expressing a desire for any particular form of government. I was pointing out the current situation with regards to lobbying and campaign financing leads to corporations having an outsized voice with politicians and regulators compared to competing interests such as the public at large.

    19. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by rk · · Score: 1

      The GP should say "publicly traded corporations" not just corporations in general. Being a private corporation, it can be run pretty much by whatever mandate the owner(s) want to, as long as what is done is not otherwise illegal. Newegg is privately held.

    20. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      You want to sit back, allow the public to be misinformed (and lulled into inaction)

      Yes, I do want to do exactly that. I want to sit and allow the public to be misinformed by Democrats, by Republicans, by unions, by corporations, by teachers, but mobsters, by prostitutes, and anybody else. That's what free speech means. And although people may be tricked into believing something incorrect, that is far better than any of the alternatives. I don't know whether you have experienced the alternatives, I have, first hand.

    21. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Because Comcast felt the need to create a separate[ish] entity called "Broadband for America" for the express purpose that the name "Comcast" wouldn't be directly attached to the goddamn speech!

      No, they did it for the express purpose of being able to speak jointly with a lot of other individuals and groups holding the same opinion.

      You know, for the same reason Barack Obama created "Organizing for Action".

    22. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Is given greater weight by the politicians or regulators that the corporations are lobbying or donating to. It means that the corporation view is considered first or given more importance than competing views.

      Show some actual evidence for that statement.

    23. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Nobody was implying that in this instance free speech should have been curtailed.

      Again, this is about you saying this about TFA: "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."

      By (mostly incorrectly) deriding TFA, the people writing it and its readers, you are actively aiding the misinformation that Vice is trying to combat in TFA. That is a definite step beyond defending free speech, my friend.

    24. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Vice is spreading the misinformation: they are misrepresenting BFA as an astroturfer. It's a bald-faced lie on their part.

      If you are talking about the arguments about net neutrality itself, Vice is spreading misinformation there as well. They present it as if it is a foregone conclusion that net neutrality via FCC regulation is a good thing for consumers. Given the corruption and past failures of the FCC and telecoms regulation, Vice is either utterly stupid, or they are in the pocket of some powerful special interests. And frankly, so are you.

    25. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Vice is spreading the misinformation: they are misrepresenting BFA as an astroturfer. It's a bald-faced lie on their part.

      Quote, please.
      Also, this is a tu quoque. You seem to be implying that the article mentioned in TFA is somehow not misinformation. Which it is. And I quote: 'Yes, it's "disingenuous"'

      If you are talking about the arguments about net neutrality itself

      Nope. I was talking about you deriding an article that tries to make people a little bit more aware of how corporate interests are being 'masked' as messages from consumer advocacy groups.

      Given the corruption and past failures of the FCC and telecoms regulation, Vice is either utterly stupid, or they are in the pocket of some powerful special interests. And frankly, so are you.

      Your premise doesn't even remotely support your conclusions here. But I am pretty interested in how you propose achieving net neutrality, if not via the FCC or 'telecoms regulation'.

    26. Re:that's not "astroturfing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, this is a tu quoque.

      No, it is not. You asked why I didn't defend Vice. I'm not defending them because they are wrong, and they are arguably lying (i.e., they are wrong despite knowing the facts).

      Nope. I was talking about you deriding an article that tries to make people a little bit more aware of how corporate interests are being 'masked' as messages from consumer advocacy groups.

      They aren't being "masked". Vice claims they are being masked and they are wrong. BFA isn't astroturfing because they are clear about who their members are and where their money comes from.

      Quote, please.

      Look at BFA's web site; they tell you who their members are:

      http://www.broadbandforamerica...

      They aren't claiming to be a "grassroots" organization, hence they aren't astroturfing.

      But I am pretty interested in how you propose achieving net neutrality, if not via the FCC or 'telecoms regulation'.

      I'm not even sure net neutrality is a good idea. It's your and Vice's firm belief that it is, but you haven't made your case. Such regulations ultimately just shift costs around (since neither investors nor the corporations are going to pick up the cost), so one group of Internet users will end up subsidizing another. Why is that better than what we have now?

  9. Dingo Babysitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This weekend, I think I am going to hire a Dingo to watch my kids...

  10. As long as it is clear ... by MacTO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

    1. Re:As long as it is clear ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which industry group are 'you' shilling for?

  11. The principle of the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... fake citizen groups ...

    It is government of the [common] people, by the [fake] people, for the [rich] people. Sounds legit.

  12. Where is this masquerade exactly? by timrod · · Score: -1

    I don't quite get how this counts as a masquerade of any kind. Anyone who knows anything about net neutrality - Chairman Wheeler included - would know that the ISPs do not want to be reclassified as common carriers. The letter by Sununu and Ford is clearly written by two members of Congress who are deep in the pockets of Big Telecom. At no point does it call Broadband for America a "consumer advocacy group" or suggest that they're consumer advocates in any way. The only mention of consumer advocacy was added by an SF Gate editor to explain where the letter came from. The SF Gate even mentions that both Sununu and Ford are members of Broadband for America. If anything, it looks like the SF Gate didn't do the research and labeled Broadband for America a consumer advocacy group. However, look at how they wrote it:

    "Broadband for America, a coalition of 300 Internet consumer advocates, content providers, and engineers."

    It sounds to me like whichever editor greenlit that letter for publication had no idea who Broadband for America were, so they went to the organization's website and looked at some of the people who are part of it (BforA has that on their website), then looked up Wikipedia articles for those people. They weren't willing to do the digging for an opinion piece.

    1. Re:Where is this masquerade exactly? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      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".

  13. like rain on your wedding day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    the internet is great, and comes from a municipally owned utility

    much cognitive dissonance. wow.

  14. What did you expect? by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    "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.

    1. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marry my daughter

      But I'm more of a "Hell, I like you", "You can come over to my house and fuck my sister" simple goon.

  15. America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... f**k no!

    So glad I live in the UK

    1. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we do have more choice in the UK do you really think Virgin, BT & Sky won't like the idea of charging websites more (like they tried to do to the BBC because of the iplayer service).

  16. bulk? / Typo? by blibbo · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re: bulk? / Typo? by blibbo · · Score: 1

      Scratch that, I guess I misread it; sleepy eyes and sleepy brain

    2. Re:bulk? / Typo? by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Its 3.5 million (not billion).

      The $2 million is mentioned on page 26 of the tax filing.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  17. The US is effed by runeghost · · Score: 0

    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. :-(

  18. BFD-- The others do the same thing by cornicefire · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Massive slant by NetNed · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Massive slant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Content providers pay for their bandwidth.
      You and I pay for ours.
      But now it seems our ISPs want to charge the content providers for our bandwidth.

    2. Re:Massive slant by NetNed · · Score: 1

      At peak times netflix accounts for 30% of all traffic on the internet. It isn't like there is a magical bandwidth fairy that can up the capacity of a ISP's network the second it gets taxed. I think the whole idea of net neutrality and a more free, open internet are total opposites. And since when did the internet become a fundamental right of all US citizens?

      Shockingly, with all the NSA issues that have abounded over the last year, why would anyone think getting the government involved would led to more open and free anything?

    3. Re:Massive slant by DaveSewhuk · · Score: 1

      Content providers don't want to pay for the bandwidth they use to make money on.

      If the bottleneck is at Netflix to the internet connection this would be true. If packets drop at the ISP fence because they cannot deliver them, then the problem is the ISP. I suspect Netflix watches where the packets drop and it isn't on their end. If they can send them they payed for them. That in a nutshell is the definition of net neutrality.

    4. Re:Massive slant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At peak times netflix accounts for 30% of all traffic on the internet.

      So? They're paying for it, we're paying for it, and the vast majority of us have had bandwidth caps forced on us (with no regulation or meaningful debate) so ISPs are presumably already in control of their bandwidth usage. Now they should be able to double-dip so we can ultimately have increased costs passed on to us as consumers in some cases and our quality of service arbitrarily diminished in others?

      Somehow the phone system didn't collapse under the tyranny of common carrier status and FCC regulation, so I'm cautiously optimistic a modicum of fair play enforced on a group of regional monopolies might not be the end of the world either.

  20. Neutralize this, Commander Spork! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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?

    1. Re:Neutralize this, Commander Spork! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight, you ol' astroturfers, you!

  21. NET NEUTRALITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:NET NEUTRALITY by JockTroll · · Score: -1

      You are not anonymous, and never have been. Whenever one of you loserboys is caught, he rats on the others while crapping his pants and crying like the little sissy he is. Do you want change? Dump those stupid Guy Fawkes masks, put on an Obama mask and an explosive jacket and allahuakbarkaboom yourself in some corporation's offices. You will kill some office drones AND cause more social rift that will lead to instability and street violence. They cannot rule on the Net when everybody is out there putting each other's eyes out with screwdrivers, can't they? Stabbings, necklacings, curbstompings and roadside decapitations are exactly what you need. If you're not up to it, eat vaseline and die.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  22. by funding opinion pieces and letters that masque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just like their partner's in crime, the demonrats.

    Think next time, before you vote, children!

  23. I someone is paid ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... to produce such material, doesn't that make them a lobbyist? Don't they have to register as such and divulge that fact when producing any correspondence, advertising copy, or press releases and editorial comment? IANAL, but the regulations applying to the big boys on K Street can be easily circumvented if thy don't also apply to individuals who take a couple of bucks to sign and send a boilerplate letter to government officials. And such a loophole needs to be plugged.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. I knew it! by Andrio · · Score: 1

    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.
  25. I think the USA Internet should get some changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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'.

  26. from the depths of Hell, I stab at thee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  27. This fixes THAT (better than anything else) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    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,

  28. Browser addons = INFERIOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    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)

  29. Astroturfing Happens by assertation · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. This fixes THAT (better than anything else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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,

  31. Browser addons = INFERIOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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)

  32. Cable Companies Use Astroturfing To Fight Net Neut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.