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
If he's not been paid off somehow, then there's a deal in place for when he leaves the FCC for some nice, well paid, well heeled position with some ISP megacorp.
He's made it clear that he's not having any counter argument to the point of holding his hands against his head and screaming "LALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!" as he runs from interviews with journalists. Later, when they catch him going to lunch he'll have his goonish bodyguards pin the stray ones against the wall so they can't ask questions.
This is fair and good point. At some point in the future it must be addressed (if that's even possible).
That doesn't mean that the principles behind Net Neutrality shouldn't be upheld, however. If ISPs A, B, or C collude then it all becomes moot without regulations.
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.
That would be a great analogy if I had to go through John, Nancy, Fred, and Martha's yards to get to Kroger or Publix. But I don't. You know why? Because the government decided to build roads. They bought the land and built the infrastructure that we all use to get around. Then they put rules in place on how those roads could be used and created an enforcement group to police them. Well in this case the government licensed the road to a few companies with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide. They didn't and gave lame excuses why they couldn't but refuse to cede control of the roads and the government isn't asking them to. All while acting like they are doing you and me a favor by letting us use "their" road. This is why the internet needs to be placed under a government mandated monopoly and strict traffic rules put in place. I hate government overreach but I hate Comcast more.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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.
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.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.