Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable Companies Duped Community Groups Into Fighting Net Neutrality

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-need-to-read-the-fine-print dept.

walterbyrd (182728) writes Last week, it transpired that the big cable companies were bankrolling fake consumer groups like Broadband for America and The American Consumer Institute. These 'independent consumer advocacy groups' are, in truth, nothing of the sort, and instead represent the interests of its benefactors, in the fight against net neutrality. If that wasn't bad enough, VICE is now reporting that several of the real community groups (and an Ohio bed-and-breakfast) that were signed up as supporters of Broadband for America were either duped into joining, or were signed up to the cause without their consent or knowledge.

37 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. while we're bitching about cable companies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    where the fuck is the alacarte programming options? you bribed the fcc into allowing you to encrypt all video signals and go all-digital.. so now that every customer must have a company-provided receiver, recorder, or cable card... you no longer have ANY EXCUSE for not offering what customers demand -- the ability to pick-and-choose each individual channel or network they want and to only pay for those and not the hundreds of others which are pure junk and would never stand on their own if their existence depended upon viewer choice.

    (satellite companies have nothing standing in THEIR way, either, for offering alacarte programming)

    1. Re:while we're bitching about cable companies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can get all the shows I want without paying any premium or renting their shitty hardware, and they can't do anything about it ;)

      Take whatever you can get from them, my friend. They'll certainly take all they can from you.

    2. Re:while we're bitching about cable companies.. by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More popular stations help subsidize the cost of less popular more niche stations. Also, a la carte wouldn't help your bill; the pricing for a la carte would ensure that you are still paying as much or more than you are for bundled tv.

    3. Re: while we're bitching about cable companies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A la carte would mean individual channels will be priced much higher. It's very likely your bill will remain the same or increase.

      Broadcasters, like the one i'm employed at, send their signals to cable and satellite companies. A la carte would lower are viewers by a fair bit, equating to less ad revenue. That will force us to toss niche channels, and cause the remaining channels to be priced much higher.

    4. Re:while we're bitching about cable companies.. by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have plenty of excuse:

      1) We don't want to. Fuck you.
      2) We don't want to. Fuck you.
      3) We don't want to. Fuck you.

      And lastly: We don't want to. Fuck you.

      What benefit does alacarte give the cable companies that they would provide it?

    5. Re: while we're bitching about cable companies.. by Pope · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "500 channel universe" of niche channels didn't pan out. The History Channel is now about pawn shops. There's simply not enough actual original content to supply the number of channels out there by genre, and certainly not enough money to start making those shows.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:while we're bitching about cable companies.. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      More popular stations help subsidize the cost of less popular more niche stations. Also, a la carte wouldn't help your bill; the pricing for a la carte would ensure that you are still paying as much or more than you are for bundled tv.

      Actually, stations HAVE been moving to a la carte offerings. If you pay attention, a lot of stations which used to put their popular shows on one network and have speciality channels have been shoving their popular shows onto the lesser channels.

      This means that the consumer not only gets to hear about the other channels, but it also means if you want to keep watching new episodes, you need to buy BOTH channels. History and Discovery are both guilty of this, forcing new shows onto the other channels.

      So instead of being able to buy just one channel, each has adapted so you need to buy 2 or 3 each, thus negating any savings you would've gotten otherwise.

      Not to mention that the niche channels now have to appeal to a greater audience, so the general quality level of programming has gone down because what once was a WWII only channel needs to carry content that appeals to the mass audience in order to get subscription money.

      This applies especially to the specialized reality shows like Deadliest Catch, Sons of Guns, Ice Road Truckers, Pawn Stars, American Restoration, and many others where they start focusing on drama more than the actual topic at hand. Because the general public wants more drama, not just seeing people build/catch/tear down/etc stuff. Heck, series that have tried to stay close to their roots (say, Mythbusters) have gotten VERY little airtime - each "season" is only 4-5 episodes now.

      It's why the call for a la carte has deropped - towards more per-program style purchasing rather than per-channel. Which may or may not improve matters as it may allow shows to return to their roots, or they may go greedy and try to dumb it down even more.

  2. ooh ive played this game before. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    other things that are known to happen in american democracy with seemingly little if any recourse:

    Oil company dupes community groups into fighting EPA regulations
    Major food company dupes citizens into fighting a tax on soda
    Cigarette company dupes consumers into thinking smoking is a right, not a crippling addiction
    President dupes country into fighting country with no WMD's

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Actually none of that happened.
      People weren't duped. What happened was that paid shills posed as communities fighting those things.
      There isn't a community thinking that Snowden is a traitor and that we don't need more insight into what NSA does. There are however a couple of shills that wants to create that appearance.
      No-one is duped by it, but politicians who wants it that way will point at the shills and say "Look what the community wants."
      It works the same way like staging a riot just to motivate using force to get rid of peaceful protesters. Just because you staged violence doesn't mean that the real protesters were violent.

    2. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Arguably, it's a bit of a hybrid phenomenon: neither pure misinformation nor pure purchase:

      A large number of these assorted 'community' interest groups; are both relatively impecunious and relatively minimally informed, or interested, in the details of issues outside their mission area. It would be relatively trivial to, say, tell the group representing rural hospitals in Texas (one of the ones mentioned in TFA) that what's good for Comcast is good for rural internet access (this might even be true, since a time-honored technique for bargaining with the FCC is to promise to provide coverage to some totally uneconomic rural areas in exchange for the right to squeeze the much more numerous customers in some more profitable and denser markets. Going all the way back to the Communications Act of 1934, telling the FCC that you'll wire Podunkistan is approximately the equivalent of telling them that you love them for who they are, and generally about as honest.)

      It is also the case that telcos and cable outfits, as with most large corporations, have 'philanthropic' arms, and here the 'bought and paid for' aspect takes on a greater role than the 'duped'. Some outfit that does gang-prevention for at-risk youth or some similar more-or-less-unrelated-to-broadband mission really has no business signing up pro or con; but if their operating budget is peanuts, and Comcast is kicking in part of it, it would be only polite to return the favor, no?

      The one other aspect to keep in mind, specifically with telcos and cable companies, is the role of their employee structure: If you want to build infrastructure, nationwide, you need a lot of workers, including a lot of blue collar, tradesmen, and the like. Even if, in the long run, those workers might be better off in a more competitive climate(more laying cable and new service rollouts, which benefit the linesmen and splicers and bucket trucks, less buying fancy appliances from Cisco and Sandvine to wring more revenue out of legacy infrastructure), those workers can still answer "What has Comcast done for me?" a lot more easily than "What has Netflix done for me?", or any of the other internet-using companies, who tend to have relatively small, largely high-skill white collar, employee bases concentrated in a few specific locations.

      This 'roots in the community' aspect is a nontrivial advantage: Somebody like Google or Netflix has customers in the community; but customers tend to be disorganized, and to perceive only small benefits, per company(though public backlash on net neutrality has been fairly strong, by the standards of policy wonkery, so they aren't totally ignorant of the value of the internet); but they only have employees, presence, relationships with local charities and Little League teams and such, in a few specific areas, if at all. A cable company or telco, though, has (although the name on the HQ may have changed a few times) been employing linesmen, trenchers, and service, maintenance, and field-tech people of all levels from 'guy with shovel' up through 'skilled tradesman' and 'local guru on freak issues with cable head-ends' for decades, and a fair few of them: Cable started rolling out ~1950, POTS predates 1900. Unless you are an utter failure at PR, or just a real, real, asshole, turning that into relatively broad-based influence over local 'good causes' should be an easy and natural process, however counterproductive you are to the long term interests of your customers.

    3. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cigarette company dupes consumers into thinking smoking is a right, not a crippling addiction

      Why can't it be both?

    4. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or at least some consumer protection law which prevents companies from engaging in blatantly deceptive marketing campaigns.

      However, fake 'grassroots' foundations seems to have become the norm.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      But that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he invented the glorious system of capitalism! (beware of sarcasm)

    6. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hello, there. I'm part of that community you deny exists.

      I think Snowden did something damned near treason. It's obvious that he broke the law and jeopardized aspects of national security, but the issue of mens rea is still in question. No evidence has been presented (other than his word and the government's assertions) that he was or was not acting for the benefit of society. Resolving that question is one of the primary functions of a trial, which is why I think a trial should be held. As it stands now, the victim of a crime has been denied due process, and the Slashdot hivemind is happy about it.

      I also think smoking is a right, in the more general case that I believe people should be permitted to mutilate their bodies however they wish, at whatever personal expense they wish. That might mean using alcohol or other drugs, or engaging in risky behaviors like skydiving, automobile racing, or bacon eating. However, I also believe their costs to society should be suitably offset so that their choices do not cause harm to society as a whole, and their damaging activities should be isolated appropriately so that uninvolved bystanders cannot be harmed.

      I'm not a paid shill. I just think a little bit before jumping on board with everything the dear hivemind thinks.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Along with corporate "astroturfing" in the blogs and message boards of various sorts, I'm afraid. We've never been completely free from concealed or fraudulent advertising, but the fake "grassroots" campaigns have gotten out of hand. Even the "Tea Party" was apparently founded as an astroturf campain, with the concealed funding by Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers. The Guardian did an excellent article about it at http://www.theguardian.com/com...: it might have been very, very difficult to print that in any of the Rupert Murdoch owned American newspapers.

    8. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because in this context the "right" is ensuring that your crippling addition can be done in ways that harm / potentially harm others, violating their rights.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    9. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by RyoShin · · Score: 2

      I'm not a paid shill.

      Then you are naive, at best. Even if he came back to the states today, there is no possible way for him to get a fair trial. It would be a huge miracle for such a trial to even be public, given our government.

      Consider that it took one person eight years to get taken off the no-fly list after being put on for what is reportedly a government mistake. Part of the reason (if not the entire reason) for that was the continued insistence by the Justice Department that they couldn't reveal why she was on the list, even just to her own attorneys, because it was a state secret:

      Holder and Clapper argue that U.S. national security could be seriously or significantly harmed if Ibrahim or her lawyers are provided with classified information about whether she was the subject of an intelligence or terrorism investigation or about the standards for inclusion in a database called the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) could harm national security.

      This is how our government reacts for a single individual who has been unable to use air travel because of the mistake of a lone public worker.

      While he did technically break many laws, it was justifiable because of the sincere good it did in revealing just how unconstitutional our government acts, which is the first step necessary to making it stop. In order to prove that it was justified, he would have to present evidence of the wrong-doing of the government. Do you honestly believe he wouldn't be completely stonewalled and railroaded by the Justice Department, Congress, and whoever was the President? Even if the documents are now in the public eye, they can still be withheld from trial; nevermind the mountain he would have to claim to extricate extra documentation from the NSA proving how much shit they do.

      The only way for Snowden to come back with any hint of safety is a Presidential Pardon; I'll know our nation has finally grown up and stopped being scared of the invisible monster under its bed once that happens, if it ever does.

    10. Re:ooh ive played this game before. by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

      Snowden committed a crime to expose a MUCH GREATER crime. He's a hero, and a patriot. He loves the country, not the government, no the administration. He sacrificed for you, and for me. He should get a FAIR trial, by a jury of his peers, and all the evidence should be exposed to public scrutiny.

  3. Hey, I'd be for it! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think that bringing broadband to America would be pretty cool. I've heard good things about it...very slowly... from parts of the world that do have it, and it seems like we really ought to as well.

    I'm just confused about why Comcast, of all people, would be in charge of operating such an initiative, given their apparent opposition to good internet connections...

  4. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More investigative journalism is the shot in the arm that America needs right now and maybe Snowden did a good thing.

    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except 1) No US paper would listen to Snowden 'forcing' him to go to the Guardian UK. 2) It's not 'investigative journalism' when someone hands the reporter everything he needs... it's just lazy journalism as usual. Except in this case the reporter gets a book deal too.

  5. Re:Americans are idiots ! by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, he was only elected once.

  6. How is this legal? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Oh, right, of course ... corporations are people with free speech, and entitled to actively lie to us.

    Right, that totally makes sense.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:How is this legal? by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, right, of course ... corporations are people with free speech, and entitled to actively lie to us.

      What? That is utter nonsense. Corporations are not people!

      Corporations are "Very Rich People". A class with little or no relation to "people".

      VRPs have the inalienable right to do whatever they very much please and it is legal by Axiom*.

      *: The axiom being: "Legal is what very rich people decide it is at any given point."

  7. Thanks Nerds... by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
    Thanks for really screwing up the promise of the Great Internet! Worldwide connectedness, people around the globe coming together, mutual sharing of ideas, peace and love, etcetera. And the internet had such promise, in the beginning.

    Now, it's just a way to eavesdrop on us, track all we do and where we go. I know there are many smart nerds out there still fighting the good fight for freedom, but it seems it's not enough to hold back the ones who think controlling the populace through technology is their God given right as Masters Of The Universe.

    1. Re:Thanks Nerds... by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
      You're damned right that I'm using a broad brush here. I'm using it because it applies broadly. Where have God-damned morals gone? Just because someone can code on a computer does not exempt them from being moral. Just because someone pays a brilliant programmer to insert code that does not serve the greater good of humanity does not mean that programmer can just ignore the possible damage his program will inflict upon his fellow human beings.

      But as long as that programmer's getting paid, it's okay, right? Hey, it'll be someone else's problem to deal with, right?

  8. According to the courts, that's sadly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget, fox news sued for their right-to-knowingly-lie and won in court.....

  9. Re: Americans are idiots ! by Assmasher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The irony here is that I think Obama has been tremendously disappointing, and yet he's light years better than the idiot that came before him...

    --
    Loading...
  10. I really have no choice... by Vermonter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really, really want to be against net neutrality, because free market and such, but when I look at Time Warner and Comcast, they are the best argument *for* net neutrality. I guess it comes down to who I trust more, the government, or the cable companies.... and it's kind of a tie at zero... Now if the FCC would decide that the infrastructure could be used by startups, allowing for actual competition, then we might get somewhere.

    1. Re:I really have no choice... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really, really want to be against net neutrality, because free market and such

      Well, then let me disabuse you of that notion.

      There is no 'free' market, and there never has been. The 'free' market is predicated on the belief that all players will act honestly, and make informed choices based on available information. This is a completely false assumption, and has been proven so time after time.

      It completely ignores human nature whereby someone will always lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their own ends -- this is what we see here.

      Industry players will always form cartels and collude in anti-consumer behavior -- price fixing being the prime example.

      Without someone to keep corporations in line, the market would steadily skew to all of the power being in the hands of a few.

      There is no such thing as a 'free' market, and there simply never has been. It's a utopian myth which can never be true.

      People who go around spouting about the 'free' market are either naive, self deluded, or actively lying.

      What proponents want is a situation in which corporations are free to do as they choose, under the premise that, in the long run, consumers will have perfect information and be able to make informed choices.

      A 'free' market is incapable of addressing things like pollution, product safety, and ethical behavior. In fact, it's almost designed to encourage it.

      When Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations", he wasn't writing a rule book, he was making a series of observations. The problem is things have become so skewed, that what we see is an ever-increasing trend where corporations hold all the cards.

      Governments who actively support de-regulation have been putting more and more power into the hands of corporations. By allowing industries to 'police' themselves (which isn't what actually happens) they can do as they see fit, for their gain, and to our detriment.

      Economics isn't a science, and it isn't based in fact. It is an ideology of how things should work assuming impossible conditions and premises. And, like all ideologies, it is inherently blind to its own flaws, and taken as a matter of dogma to be true.

      Taking steps towards a 'free' market has the net effect of removing restrictions on corporations -- which are typically there because we've already seen examples of grossly bad behavior.

      The US has been steadily creating (and forcing other countries to adopt) a global oligarchy whereby the corporations call all of the shots. For instance, the TTIP:

      The consultation has been called largely to assuage growing pressure from civil society groups concerned about the rights being granted to corporations under the guise of âinvestor protectionsâ(TM), and the system of private tribunals - the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism - that allows corporations to sue governments when they feel that these rights have been breached by a government policy or court decision.

      Basically, governments are no longer free to set evidence based policy if it would impact the bottom line of corporations which are the ones causing harm in the first place. They can be over-ridden by these private tribunals which exist to protect the interests of investors and corporations, to the detriment of the rest of us.

      This is an oligarchy, and definitely NOT a free market. You could not transition from an oligarchy to a 'free' market by simply removing the laws and regulations governing corporations -- this would not magically create a free market, it simply removes their obligations to society, and frees them to do as they please.

      The free market is a complete and utter myth. It has never existed. And the reason society has had to develop laws and regulations around their behavio

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  11. It's Downright Un-American! by barlevg · · Score: 3, Informative

    oblig. FoxTrot

  12. Re:Read the article first! by Desler · · Score: 2

    Do you suffer from aspergers? There post is what those of us with functioning senses of humor call a joke.

  13. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dick meeting kettle is not as fun as it sounds.

  14. Re:Idiots by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean no wonder they elected GWB four times right? OK, he has had more of a tan these last two terms, big difference!

  15. Re:LOL @ gullible fools by kilodelta · · Score: 3, Informative

    A pretty good swath of the population of the U.S. is essentially as dumb as a box of rocks.

    So it's pretty easy to see how they could be manipulated into supporting something that was not in their best interest.

  16. And this is why I never sign petitions by IronChef · · Score: 2

    When someone on the street asks me to sign a petition, the answer is always no. It doesn't matter how worthy the stated cause is:

    - Free, nutritious school lunches for whales
    - Not grinding minorities into paste at the border
    - Municipal high-speed internet

    You don't know what you are really signing until you read the fine print, and the fine print under the fine print.

  17. Vote with your wallet by SpiceWare · · Score: 2

    it's the only thing the cable & satellite companies will understand - basically cut the cord and buy your content à la cart on DVD, blu-ray, or a streaming service.

    I set up a Mac mini DVR at the end of 2012 for off-the-air content - based on my last scan there's 115 channels available via antenna here in Houston. Once I got everything working (my HDTV predates HDMI so I had to get a solution to convert HDMI to Component Video) I then cancelled DirecTV in January of 2013. I buy cable series on blu-ray and iTunes, as well as watch some series on Amazon via my PS3. I've saved over $2000 since then (what I used to pay DirecTV less content purchases).

    I'm using the prior generation of these networked HDTV tuners. Since they're networked I can watch live TV on my MacBook Pro as well as on my iPhone and iPad.

    more info in my DVR Project blog entries.