Comcast Proves Need For Net Neutrality By Trying To Censor Advocacy Website (fightforthefuture.org)

Reader mrchaotica writes: As most Slashdot readers are probably aware, the FCC, under the direction of Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai, is trying to undo its 2015 decision to protect Net Neutrality (PDF) by classifying ISPs as common carriers. During the recent public comment period, the FCC's website was flooded with pro-Net-Neutrality comments from actual people (especially those who heeded John Oliver's call to arms) as well as anti-Net-Neutrality comments posted by bots using the names and addresses of people without their consent. The fake comments use boilerplate identical to that used in a 2010 press release by the conservative lobbying group Center for Individual Freedom (which is funded by Comcast, among other entities), but beyond that, the entities who perpetrated and funded the criminal acts have not been conclusively identified. In response to this brazen attempt to undermine the democratic process, the Internet freedom advocacy group Fight for the Future (FFTF) created the website Comcastroturf.com to call attention to the fraud and allow people to see if their identity had been misappropriated. Comcast, in a stunning display of its tone-deaf attitude towards free speech, has sent a cease-and-desist order to FFTF, claiming that Comcastroturf.com violates its "valuable intellectual property[sic]." According to the precedent set in Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer , websites created for the purpose of criticizing an organization can not be considered trademark infringement. As such, FFTF reportedly has no intention of taking down the site.

"This is exactly why we need Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, "If Ajit Pai's plan is enacted, there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like Comcastroturf.com that are critical of their corporate policies," she added. "It also makes you wonder what Comcast is so afraid of? Are their lobbying dollars funding the astroturfing effort flooding the FCC with fake comments that we are encouraging Internet users to investigate?"

Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?

Comments

Re:Why would they? They will not.

[grcumb]

The Netflix incident was traced to a dispute over peering on a transit partner, not an issue of an ISP slowing traffic as so many have claimed.

So yeah, that was fake news.

No it wasn't, and stop using bullshit phrases to shut down the conversation. Netflix had to go to a peering partner because Comcast refused to discuss in good faith a direct linkage at the bandwidth levels that Comcast's own customers required. Then Comcast starved the peering partner by refusing to provide the proper throughput, even when the peering partner offered to pay all expenses related to it.

Comcast turned down offers of reasonable recompense and instead attacked the quality of the service in order to promote its own OTT video offering.

In short: They degraded another service in order to make it appear worse than of their own. This behaviour is exactly what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent.

News. Not Fake.

People who honestly question the need for Network Neutrality simply don't understand how an internet works. They latch onto a single convenient datum and ignore the system itself. Those who dishonestly question it are just assholes.