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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bravo
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"
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.
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?
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.
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.