Slashdot Mirror
Secretive Funding Fuels Ongoing Net Neutrality Astroturfing Controversy
alphadogg writes: The contentious debate about net neutrality in the U.S. has sparked controversy over a lack of funding transparency for advocacy groups and think tanks, which critics say subverts the political process. News stories from a handful of publications in recent months have accused some think tanks and advocacy groups of "astroturfing" — quietly shilling for large broadband carriers. In a handful of cases, those criticisms appear to have some merit, although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning. An IDG News Service investigation found that major groups opposing U.S. Federal Communications Commission reclassification and regulation of broadband as a public utility tend to be less transparent about their funding than the other side. Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
I think the notion that some people are trying to manipulate and subvert the net neutrality discussion is ludicrous. the idea that you could distract somebody from important issues by raising unrelated issues that catch their attention - absurd. Reminds me of the climate change debate. climate change is obviously manufactured to promote certain interests. The science just isn't there. Don't you agree?
This is just ISPs v. Content Producers, each fighting over who can bribe Congress more. (Siding with content producers is basically everyone else who cares about the issue and has time or money to spend on it, which is probably less than 0.01% of everybody.)
Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
And who exactly are they and where is your proof of their limited transparency mechanism? Do you have actual specifics or simply vague FUD?
Sometimes I wish the US had a government appointed Mother to deal with morons like these, incapable of not acting like little children. Yes, very clever, you gave Sally a cookie to say Jimmy has cooties so Jenny won't like him anymore. Well done.
Even with the misleading propaganda efforts, the public in general overwhelmingly supports Net Neutrality. If this issue were put to an actual vote, I have zero doubt that it would win by a landslide. I have yet to meet a single tech-savvy person that supports paid prioritization, even among conservatives. Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter. If it did, we would be some kind of democracy or something. Heaven forbid.
What's next -- a debate on Sewers Neutrality? ("You're shitting the wrong color, haul it to sea yourself").
Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
And who exactly are they and where is your proof of their limited transparency mechanism? Do you have actual specifics or simply vague FUD?
We rate the groups based on objective measures in this story.
Grant Gross
IDG News Service Washington correspondent
Grant Gross, Washington reporter, IDG News Service
http://www.drikimo.com/vb
Given the "wars" that are going on... (Net Neutrality, Hacking, spying, injection, etc...) why not start a 2nd "internet" ... that is private. You want to join, you obey the rules. Failure to obey the rules, and you are locked out.
good article
http://infonet00.blogspot.com
Startup costs are certainly significant, though in certain areas over builders (competitors) have been able to install new fiber networks at a cost lower than incumbent is spending tearing out the legacy network and replacing it. Where the incumbent has copper, that gives them little advantage competing for fiber service.
The other side of the problem is that in most areas the local government has given the incumbent a franchise - a legally protected monopoly. It's tough to build a competing network when it's illegal to either attach lines to the existing poles or install new poles in the right of way.
To some extant, this is government outlawing the direct effect of what they outlawed previously. Where competition is legally allowed, like some parts of the Austin area, competition exists and customers get better service then elsewhere.
You can always take the info at face value, or not. Who cares who says it? You simply do what is technically correct, and the problem sorts itself out. Now the problem with money is the people who take it have too much influence on policy. In a week and a half the Americans will have the great opportunity of cleaning their house of ALL the old rubbish, or just sweep it under the rug one more time. Then we will see what happens to net neutrality, amongst other things.. Unfortunately, I expect to see yet another vote for business as usual, and this "controversy" will just be another circle jerk since the voters have let big money decide how it's done.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There, fixed your headline for you.
Wouldn't "critics say" that about a discussion of any other idea as well?
I also seem to recall, that the Slashdot crowd generally supports anonymous speech — indeed, the consensus is, we have a right to remain anonymous, while speaking...
Why wouldn't that same right extend to people talking (and spending money, which is the same thing) in opposition to "net neutrality"? Why must they be unmasked (and shamed) with prejudice, while those talking on other matters enjoy all the anonymity they care to maintain?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Even with the misleading propaganda efforts, the public in general overwhelmingly supports Net Neutrality. If this issue were put to an actual vote, I have zero doubt that it would win by a landslide.
So what? That in and of itself doesn't make any proposition worthwhile.
One wonders if you realize a government-imposed "net neutrality" would in reality be a few thousand pages of tortuous regulations that purport to define "net neutrality" but in reality do nothing more than cement the status quo.
Answer me this: if "net neutrality" had been imposed 10-15 years ago, how could today's smartphones been fit into the business model that imposition would have set in stone?
"Net neutrality" is going to stomp innovation in the head. Goverment-regulated industries go nowhere. Look at how staid the US telephone market was until it was deregulated and AT&T broken up. Within just a few years cell phones started appearing.
Look at how air travel was a big deal everyone dressed up for under government regulation. Now, you just hop on a plane (TSA willing - ANOTHER government fuck up...) and go. For a helluva lot less than the equivalent price of 30 or 40 years ago.
I have yet to meet a single tech-savvy person that supports paid prioritization, even among conservatives.
You might do well to remove yourself from the intellectual echo chamber you seem to have ensconced yourself in.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter. If it did, we would be some kind of democracy or something. Heaven forbid.
So what if net neutrality would pass if voted on by the public?
"although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning"
Right. Says who?
A small group defending special interests, trying to create the impression of popular support, that's astroturfing. I bet the companies who do it hate how common the word has become, and how people have become familiar with the concept. I'm sure they would complain that it's "overused". I disagree, I think it could be used a lot more, and all internet forums with any redactional integrity should be on guard for this.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Well, you almost got that right. Try, "advance the interests of monopolists and degrade the status quo for consumers." Where is your solution? Elect Wolf R?
Not that hard. Separate rules for voice and data communications. Don't let the carriers aquire each other to reduce choice. Require carriers to treat competitor data sources equally. (In other words, if Verizon provides tv programming, it must provide Netflix programming at the same speed and with same protocols. This is basic anti-trust procedure.) Allow competitors to sue each other and regulators. Fair competition requires laws and regulations, just like football, and methods for companies to challenge rulings and procedures.
You are conflating a lot of problems here. The judicial branch of our government was used to break up a monopoly under anti-trust laws, thereby restoring regulated market competition. If you think all regulations disappeared after AT&T was broken up, you are deluded. The telephone industry remained a "Government-regulated" industry. Instead, anti-trust laws, court orders, and yes, government regulations broke up a private monopoly on voice communications. The push by Comcast and Verizon against net neutrality is a step towards restoring private monopolies on digital communications. That's what most of the "sheep" in favor of net neutrality see. They don't believe net neutrality is going to stomp innovation in the head, because innovation has been thriving on the Internet (in case you haven't noticed) with net neutrality. The only thing that stomps innovation in the head is a monopoly.
Again, government regulation was changed, not eliminated, to restore competition for air routes. If you knew anything about the airline industry, you would understand that this continues to drive airline prices. The airline industry is still highly regulated in many ways.
How people are sucked into the idea that we need to give the aristocracy more power is beyond me. Sure, let's tell our leaders not to care what the public thinks. What could go wrong? If there is some great reason not to abide the will of the majority, let's have it. Are the rich minority being unfairly oppressed by net neutrality? Otherwise, your contemptuous attitude is based on a bunch of empty assertions.
If you wonder if I'm just pointing out problems with no solution, check my Homepage.
Join the IParty!
The ultimate irony might be that fast lanes in and of themselves are actually a good idea. Of course when I speak of fast lanes I mean prioritization for services in general, not specific websites. Basically the ideal would be a completely independent panel of network engineering experts, without connections to ISP's or content providers would determine which services could be significantly improved via prioritization (any sort of streaming weather it be videos, webcams, or game streaming) and which ones would be virtually unchanged without prioritization (email). In short any sort of service that would be subject to buffering would be given a boost and the focus of any sort of fast lane would be about reducing latency to reduce buffering, never limiting or providing extra bandwidth (max bandwidth allowed should always be left to the websites themselves, limited of course by the end users max bandwidth). Of course the chances of finding such a panel is about as likely as finding a unicorn with a talking frog as a best friend. Furthermore the chances that such policies wouldn't be abused by our beloved ISP's are downright impossible. It's all but guaranteed organizations like the MPAA would pull out all the stops to make sure protocols like bittorrent would be sent to the bottom of the heap, which would suck for open source software as when you're downloading a multi gig file like a Linux distro a well seeded torrent will almost always beat a traditional HTTP or FTP download. Not to mention that Network management is complicated enough already, and one of the strengths of Net Neutrality is that things are simplified. Basically could work but the chances that it would isn't worth the risk if you ask me.