Slashdot Mirror
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?
Can there be a better example? How about if they had actually blocked the site on their network? This is just a knee jerk take-down letter. Yawn.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The story really has nothing to do with the network neutrality debate. It's standard corporate shotgun trademark protection; most anyone else using the Comcast name in their site like that would get the same response.
As you say, the real point of outrage would be if no Comcast customers would be able to access the site. But they have not done that, they have issued a legal request which they would have issued with ANY amount of network neutrality rules in place.
So then what does it matter if those rues are gone? This is exactly the problem with NN proponents; they have NO REAL IDEA what the rules are they are calling to stay in effect, and imagining they have all kinds of benefits that do not actually exist.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?
Well, throttling my non-Comcast VoIP provider would be one. Especially for cellphones that can use WiFi instead of the cell phone network in areas with lousy reception.
I certainly don't want them degrading a VoIP call to 911 or another emergency service (poison control, etc.), and in spite of the minuscule amount of bandwidth VoIP takes, Comcast has been happy in the past to throttle it to uselessness.
And what are my other options? DSL from my local telephone company? Satellite internet via AT&T's DirecTV? They also have a vested interest in making sure only their voice service works.
So, yeah... let's start with 911 service, and go from there.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Net Neutrality is a huge misdirection... it's getting people to accept that we are stuck with incumbent providers and have to get big brother to come save the day with regulations. If people demanded competition, we'd actually stop seeing a game of cat and mouse and none of us would care if Comcast decided to blackhole Netflix or put a 10G data cap on customers. The people paid for the last mile infrastructure with endless rounds of broadband initiative grants and corporate welfare, it's time the last mile is opened up to competition. Countries like the UK and Japan have competitive marketplaces with twisted pair copper or fiber plants and many ISPs have jumped at the opportunity to provide Internet connectivity to residential customers with lower rates and higher speeds. The moment ISP X decides to act against the interest of their customers, those very customers would have the choice to move to ISP A, B, or C... it's that simple.
We don't feel the need to tell Kroger or Publix that they have to carry Heinz ketchup and can't forbid Hunts from selling in their stores... if they don't carry the brands we want, we simply go elsewhere. It doesn't have to be complicated.
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount. They could make it take forever to reach any site which said anything bad about the company or provided any competing services.
If you do not think this would ever happen, just look at what happened to Netflix for Comcast users in February 2014.
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority (minus a few exceptions which are not related at all to the provider's ability to make more money). ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet. Or just internet websites that give the ISP's more of a financial benefit.
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
That may be your highly desirable goal. My goal is not to allow Netflix to have anymore traffic priority then Hulu, or HBO, or XFinity. The internet is what it is because newcomers were able to come and play with a minimum barrier to entry, to me protecting that is of the utmost importance. This is not analogous to the war on drugs. This is more like complaining that a law against price gouging is curtailing the price gougers freedoms.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
I would argue that it doesn't have to be this way, but it should be as long as most people have only one choice of broadband provider. You want this world where people have choices. Then we need some form of line sharing agreement so that I actually have a choice to make.
Also, this version of the internet has been tried before. It's what AOL was doing, and people left it in droves as soon as they could.