Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Groups Accuse FCC of Helping Net Neutrality Advocates File Comments
jfruh writes Conservative groups opposed to net neutrality have a beef with the FCC, claiming the commission helped pro-net neutrality advocates file comments on the subject without similarly helping opponents. In other news out of this camp, it turns out American Commitment, an advocacy group with ties to the Republican billionaire Koch brothers, sent out 2.4 million letters to Congress opposing net neutrality but only collected about 814,000 signatures. The group then generated three letters to Congress for each person signing the petition, one letter to each of the signer's two senators and one to each signer's representative.
Isn't that their whole ideology, that the world isn't fair?
814,000 is just over a third of 2.4 million (2,400,000). That's a damned good return rate on a mass spamming. It's kind of pathetic that so many people would support the Koch brothers in their efforts to make sure that internet dissent finally stops screwing with their business model, but I don't see why this is interesting news. As for the petition being sent to the senators, again, how is this news? Every PAC does this. You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's name to each of their representatives. Sometimes they send one to the POTUS as well. The summary seems to be implying that there's something dishonest about this; if true, it's dishonest whether it's the Koch brothers or Earth Defense Alliance. I'm personally rooting for Earth Defense Alliance, but let's not get carried away looking for malfeasance in common practice.
That's kind of what you do. Why would you send a letter or email to only one of your two senators?
Every online form I've ever seen lets you write to your two senators, your house rep, and frequently also the white house or other applicable office. They take your input on the online form and either print and mailvit or aggregate it and send the comments and signatures to the people's congressional representatives.
Nonono. Group of luddite imbeciles opposes net neutrality.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
then we must be against it! Fire up the astroturfing machine!!!
Like many things based in science or technology, I think the conservatives simply do not understand the call for net neutrality. But they do understand that many people with liberal tendencies are for it, therefore, they must oppose it. I'm (somewhat) convinced that there are people at Fox News or similar conservative outlets that stir up and create controversy where there is none, just to get their base frothing at the mouth...which equals more ad revenue.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Is basically what these people are - or want to be. Reading the wikipedia article on the subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... ), it's hard to distinguish the behavior of the current conservative groups in question and the unscrupulous landowners who lived along the Rhine:
"They hindered commerce by imposing unauthorized tolls and tariffs and at times by sometimes ransoming or hijacking the goods outright..."
Free market my ass: the real goal of all these crony capitalist "conservatives" is rent-seeking (man, that's another good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...)
That's all Dems got.
"Conservative groups" Oh the bad bad boogie men! Its stupid biased like this that turns people away. So if you want to alienate people, but all means keep it up.
I am a conservative and I many I know who are as well who are all for net neutrality because big government forces and supporters have granted communication companies an oligopoly. A MUST better solution would be to break up these government created monopolies and allow for competition in the markets.
This is corporatism, which is closely linked to those who support big government and more regulations, creating more barriers to entry and destroying the free market.
Initial apathy in looking for help turned in to shock of an outcome and now crying and being a sore loser after the fact while attempting to pass the blame from themselves to the FCC.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
This is utter bullshit. The GOP used to be more of a classical liberal party, but has become nothing more than the political arm of Wall Street.
Fuck them. I'm done. I'll never vote for another one.
Since the only groups interested in defeating net neutrality are big business wanting to pillage their customer's wallets, why should the FCC have helped those with larger budgets than the FCC?
The internet NEEDS net neutrality, enforced with exceedingly high financial repercussions for violating the terms. Like a million dollars for every "BIT" that is impeded or accelerated by the offending company.
How many oxygen producers (trees) did it take to accomplish this goal of having giant piles of letters thrown away once the post office was finished hauling them around to the whitehouse and congressional offices?
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.
Are we really supposed to believe 814.000 Americans signed a petition to prevent them from using their internet as they see fit? Never mind the fact the triplicated the single signature purpose, this is flat out unbelievable.
American Commitment, an advocacy group with ties to the Republican billionaire Koch brothers, sent out 2.4 million letters to Congress opposing net neutrality but only collected about 814,000 signatures.
They're trying to Koch block Net Neutrality, or am I pronouncing that wrong.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The koch brothers are some of the biggest scumbags around, end of story.
Any time something said to criticize the right mentions the Koch Brothers as a menace, it's probably BS.
In this case, the BS consists of:
1) The "is tied to" claim. If it was actually run by the Koch Brothers, they'd say so. If you read the links, you'll find that the "tie" is that the founder previously worked at a group with Koch funding.
2) No comparison to other signature campaigns to say whether other signature campaigns send letters to multiple people as well. And really, what did you expect them to do, have three separate campaigns for "collect signatures to your senator", "collect signatures for your other senator", and "collect signatures for your representative"?
> a web form is not you writing letters.
So if I type my comments into a web form, I'm not writing. If I use a quill pen and parchment, that's writing, I presume? What about a mechanical typewriter?
> You are being the useful idiot, allowing someone else to have their say over and over again. At the very least such astroturfing should be ignored by politicians.
It's called AGREEING. Often, my personal position on an issue is a expressed well by an EFF author, who also took the time to cite verifiable facts. It's not fraud or misrepresentation to say "I agree with this statement ". I think it's important for our representatives to know that position is held by many people, not just the one person who wrote down what we're all thinking. I might therefore sign the letter which represents my thoughts, while adding any additional comments that I wish to express.
Most often, I write my own separate comments rather than signing a letter I agree with, but that's just because I enjoy doing my own research and citing the sources that I think are best. If someone else agrees with me and wants to add their name to what I wrote that accurately represents their opinion on the matter.
Better get used to it when all the GOP fund-raising sites suddenly disappear from the Internet.
Have gnu, will travel.
For a group that just loves to scream "democracy!" and "republic!" they sure don't want the wrong sort of people having a say in their government, what with fighint tooth and nail to reduce early voting, vote-by-mail, and now, apparently, making it harder to file opinions with government agencies.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Because the air traffic controllers were unskilled labor in your world?
Who is John Cabal?
You bet I'm intellectually incapable of understanding this issue: I have no idea what net neutrality rules will do to Internet speeds, costs, or investments in the US. And if you think you do, you're a bloody fool.
That threads not as slender as you think it is:
http://www.publicintegrity.org...
Supports: Conservative candidates
Location: Washington, D.C.
Founded: April 10, 2012
Website: americancommitment.org
Social media: Facebook page, Twitter profile, YouTube channel
Finances: Not available
IRS Form 990 filing: Not available
Principals:
Phil Kerpen (president, founder): Kerpen is the former policy and legislative strategist at Americans for Prosperity and previously worked at Club for Growth. He is chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition and a Fox News opinion columnist.
Profile:
American Commitment was founded in April 2012 by former Americans for Prosperity strategist Phil Kerpen. The group’s website says it is dedicated to individual freedom, limited government and economic growth. It has generally supported Republican candidates running for federal office.
Americans for Prosperity is known as a Koch-brothers-backed, politically active nonprofit, but Kerpen denies American Commitment is linked to Americans for Prosperity. When asked by the Washington Post if billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch were funding American Commitment, Kerpen would not answer, saying only that he takes the privacy of all American Commitment donors very seriously.
In mid-July, Kerpen said the nonprofit had raised $7 million. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, American Commitment is not legally required to publicly disclose its donors. But the Center for Responsive Politics discovered that the group had received a $1.6 million grant in 2011 for "general support" from another nonprofit, the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, American Commitment spent nearly $2 million on ads that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of federal candidates in the 2012 election. That includes $1.4 million spent in Arizona's U.S. Senate race on ads supporting Republican Jeff Flake or opposing Democrat Richard Carmona.
Many of American Commitment’s ads have avoided federal disclosure because they do not explicitly advocate for or against a candidate, and because the ads aired more than 30 days before a primary or 60 days before the general election.
For instance, between June 28 and July 10, American Commitment aired seven different television ads in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and North Dakota, all opposing Democratic candidates. Another series of ads opposed the farm bill and its food stamp provisions criticizing three House Republicans: Steve King of Iowa, Frank Lucas of Okahoma and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri.
The group also made large ad buys over the summer in Florida, where it spent $1.1 million opposing Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, according to the Orlando Sentinel, and in Ohio, where it spent $1.2 million opposing Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, according to the Washington Post.
American Commitment also runs NoMandateTax.com, which opposes the Affordable Care Act, KeystoneXLNow.com, which supports the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, and WarOnCoal.com, which opposes President Barack Obama’s efforts to decrease hazardous emissions from coal-fired plants.
They also operate ALECpetition.com, which urges people to “reject anti-ALEC bullying.” The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, is a partially Koch-backed, unofficial lobbying outfit that is run by mostly Republican state lawmakers and corporations that work together to write and promote “model legislation” that often makes it into the nation’s statehouses.
ALEC’s tax-exempt status has come under scrutiny for having written some of the most contentious legislation in the country, including voter ID bills, anti-union bills and stand-your-ground gun rights bills. The Center for Public Integrity has been tracking AL
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's why the man said: "40 years later, and the only trickle down I've seen has been brown and stinky."
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Koch BROoooooTHEeeeeeeRrrrrSSssssssss!!!!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Wow. It must have been like that scene at the end of "Miracle on 34th Street".
Well, I have to admit, this is a good way to reduce the value of writing your congressman to absolutely nothing.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
> The web form has no area for typing your own comments.
False. You like to just completely make things up out of thin air, don't you? See that box labeled "Add your public comments" on their forms?:
http://action.americancommitme...
I see a lot of whining about how the FCC worked with groups in favor of the new rules. I don't see one whit of proof that those opposed to the new rules asked for help. Maybe they are just jealous that the people on the other side thought to ask for assistance, and it never occurred to these clowns to do so.
First, I want net neutrality. I'd prefer if it came through market competition rather then government fiat because I worry that that will lead to the FCC regulating the hell out... and that could lead to the internet being less of a free place. But I want our data to flow neutrally through the internet.
That said... the FCC really has no right to take sides in any political debate. That isn't their place. They are not to be advocates of any position. They are to enforce the law. They're police officers for communication. They are not community organizers.
Beyond that, I'll just make the comment that while I do think data should be neutral there should be some flexibility for VoIP and other types of data that require low latency. Compared to something like bit torrent or netflix streaming... you just don't need low latency for that. You just need bandwidth. If your data is delayed by half a second but it is all going into a cache then who cares.
I do NOT think this should be a paid service where you get your communication slowed down if you don't pay and get a faster channel if you do pay. Rather, I think that the communication should declare its needs to the network. And that communication protocols that do not need low latency should voluntarily declare that they are happy with high latency.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It would have been better if they weren't skilled. Then it would have been trivial to man thier stations when they walked off the job and left innocent people at risk in the air without any traffic control.
And yes, anyone crying about Reagan and the air teaffic controlers is either stupid and purposely doesn't kbow the entire situation or sadistic and thinks its perfectly fine to risk other people's lives for personal gain. Neither one is needed in society.
They're all being disregarded anyway, what are they complaining for?
Twinstiq, game news
don't want the competition, got it.
that the other side is not a bunch of evil greedy robbers that will kidnap and eat your children. that;'s why they keep on pretending for th eneed to be "balanced". It helps them to pretend that they have a legitimate leg to stand on.
So you agree, Raygun unnecessarily risked American lives to further his anti-American ideal of Big-Boss-Is-Right Capitalism?
Well, that was a breakthrough!
Why do you want to ignore reality in order to impose your fantasies?
The air traffic controllers walked off the job with planes in the air and passengers on them. They decided to violate existing laws and strike and in the process placed quite a few people's lives in jeopardy. Supervisors- without much experience actually doing that job and others not specifically involved in the strike- had to take over and the government had to send air force personnel to some airports in order to land the planes safely.
Why you want to twist this shit and ignore those things is beyond me. You are not cute or funny calling Reagan- Raygun, all you are doing is showing the world what kind of imbecile you are. Please just stop it and learn something for once.
I agree that the lack of consumer choice is definitely to blame for this. I also think declaring ISPs as common carriers would keep the net neutrality we always had for years without government stating ISPs must treat packets equally regardless of sender.
This was my letter to the FCC during the net neutrality public comment period:
As long as telecommunication companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the return on the investment entrusted to them by their shareholders, they have no choice but to shape the direction of the internet in ways that will do so. Market forces that can often help keep that responsibility in check with the best interests of the public at large are absent in telecommunications, as most of these companies, and certainly the largest of them, enjoy little to no competition in the areas they serve. Even in markets that have more than two telecommunication providers to choose from, there is very little in the way of competitive behavior. While this may smack of collusion, the obvious truth is that none of these incumbent providers wish to engage in an expensive price war that races to the bottom, and a services war that races to the top. They are able to avoid competitive practices in the absence of pressure from start-ups or municipally-operated internet service.
Access to the internet is now a part of modern life in the United States of America. It is used to find a job, get an education, select and consume goods and services, and above all...communicate with others and our government. The fact that this very letter is available to those members of the FCC who are inclined to read it, along with countless other U.S. citizens, is made possible by the internet.
And that internet, which has created jobs and wealth from within our borders and without, has succeeded and thrived under the unspoken principle that all data regardless of its nature or point of origin will be delivered uninhibited to its intended recipient. This unspoken principle is of course, Net Neutrality. Some of our members of congress, well-meaning though they may be, are under the mistaken belief that Net Neutrality is a new idea. In fact, the internet has been neutral since its inception. Given its unprecedented and inarguable success, supporters of Net Neutrality simply wish to keep the internet the way it is and always has been.
Internet service providers state that senders of large amounts of data, like Netflix, place an undue burden on their systems and the only way to recoup the cost to deliver that data is to charge a higher amount for what they call an “internet fast-lane”. Pricing structures are already in place though to deal with the sending and consumption of large amounts of data however, without the need to discriminate. Netflix pays for the data it uploads on a megabit per second (Mbps or bitrate) basis during peak times, and even distributes video at lower quality for those ISPs unable to deliver video at the higher bitrates. Consumers also have the option pay extra to the internet service providers to deliver data at higher bitrates, and often do. These are marketed and sold under package names like Blast, Turbo, or simply High Speed. So Netflix and the like already pay more for higher bitrates, and consumers already pay more for higher bitrates. What the telecommunications industry is doing with “internet fast-lanes” is clearly double-dipping.
Reclassifying internet service providers as common-carriers solves these problems. It will increase competition by lowering the bar to entry for newcomers looking to focus on delivering the best service at lowest price. It will make internet access more affordable to more Americans for their daily basic needs, and bringing the speed and price of that service on par with other nations of the world. It engenders the long-held principle that data should not be discriminated against based on content or sender by creating a barrier between the creator of that data and the transport and delivery of that data. This allows for the continued growth in the technology sector, and fosters innovation by small businesses that may one day become the next Facebook, Google, or Netflix.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
I thought this was something that spanned across both side of the aisle, I guess I was wrong. However, now that I think about it, it seems like everything, down to what color Skittle is the best, is being made into a liberal vs. conservative these days.
Yet surely you can perceive what lack of net neutrality rules will do. They will raise speeds for providers with deep pockets and slow everybody else to a crawl. Is it not more useful to consider that than to call people who make your knee jerk fools?
I am well aware of how Mr. Limbaugh interprets the phrase "network neutrality", and that is, in a word, preposterously. I prefer that people inform themselves what the actual wording of the proposal is, rather than listen to what one-dimensional tools of either political false pole expounds in the form of propaganda.
Nope, they wanted more pay, less hours (32 hour work week) and to be separated or an exception from the civil service laws/rules.
The reasons stated for busting the union was about safety.. What fantasies people invent.
Your foolishness is in believing that there are "deep pockets" anywhere other than customers. All net neutrality can do is shift money between Internet users. So, if your Internet service gets cheaper (either you pay less for the same service, or you get better service for the same money), someone else's Internet service necessarily gets more expensive. That's in the best case; chances are it will actually simply impose some degree of monopoly pricing on people.
What would happen in the absence of net neutrality? One possible outcome is that Internet access would just end up being free, but you pay for high volume service on a case-by-case basis. For example, you can get Virgin Mobile mobile phone service for $6.98 and add unlimited Facebook for $5. Under "net neutrality", all you're going to be able to buy is a full "neutral" data plan, which currently start at $35.
The only knee jerking here is the "stick it to the big corporations" kind of knee jerking. I'm saying: I don't see how net neutrality is going to be better than doing nothing; people haven't made a good case for it. Right now, it looks more like a big handout to geeks and big tech companies to me.
Help? They set up a website. Just because we know how to type a URL into an address bar and not the search bar and know to read the page to find the comment section, doesn't mean they gave unfair help. Just because they made sure that their website is working properly in what it's suppose to be doing, doesn't mean they helped the other side. Besides, isn't making sure the minority is heard affirmative action? Aren't republicans against affirmative action?
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
That's a petition on Obamacare. The American Commitment "petition" on net neutrality is here.
http://stopinternetregulation....
It is as I describes, and does NOT feature a comments box. So you are the one who is factually wrong and "making things up out of thin air."
Apology?
For decades, the "Federalist Complaint Center" was the forefront of social conservative censorship, and placing businesses in control over all radio and TV stations more or less preventing competing voices by regulation.
The instant the FCC proposes something the least bit fair, its a fucking conspiracy. But these are the same people who hate the government, except when the government is shooting at anti-capitalist, or even just plain old non-conservative actiivists.
You equated a private group spending their own money to advance their belief/opinion with a branch if the federal government spending our tax dollars stacking the deck for one side of a purportedly fair debate on net neutrality.
I bet you thought by tossing the Koch brothers into the mix we wouldn't notice your attempt at a false equivalency.
Better luck next time.
Ken
Right. They walked off without one second of warning, no prior negotiations and no days to prepare.
Oh, wait, that is false.
What DID happen was Raygun saved his bacon by putting overworked, out of practice supervisors on the desk, replacing supervisors with persons entirely unfamiliar with ATC, and then ramming through at least 4 unqualified ATC's.
Our Near Strike Events are WAY up and the burnout rate is even WORSE than it was.
so, what do we know? Another republican drinking the Kool-aide won't change the history.
Less hours, so the burnout and failure rate would go down. Which, surprlsingly, is exactly what happened Post-Strike when Raygun initiated the national slowdown until he could work in his scab labor.