Slashdot Mirror


Investigation Demanded Over Fake FCC Comments Submitted By Dead People (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Fight for the Future has found another issue with the fake comments submitted to the FCC opposing net neutrality. "The campaign group says that some of the comments were posted using the names and details of dead people," according to the BBC. The exact same comment was also submitted more than 7,000 times using addresses in Colorado, where a reporter discovered that contacting the people at those addresses drew reactions which included "I have never seen this before in my life" and "No, I did not post this comment. In fact, I disagree with this comment." Fight for the Future also knocked on doors in Tampa, Florida, where the few people who answered "were shocked to hear that their name and address were publicly listed alongside a political message they did not necessarily understand or agree with." An alleged commenter in Montana told a reporter she didn't even know what net neutrality was.

14 people have already signed Fight for the Future's official complaint to the FCC, which calls for notification of all people affected, an investigation, and the immediate removal of all fake comments from the public docket. "Based on numerous media reports, nearly half a million Americans may have been impacted by whoever impersonated us," states the letter, "in a dishonest and deceitful campaign to manufacture false support for your plan to repeal net neutrality protections."

Fight for the Future says they've already verified "dozens" of instance of real people discovering a fake comment was submitted in their name -- and that in addition, more than 2,400 people have already used their site to contact their state Attorneys General demanding an investigation. They note the FCC has taken no steps to remove the fake comments from its docket, "risking the safety and privacy of potentially hundreds of thousands of people," while a campaign director at Fight for the Future added, "For the FCC's process to have any legitimacy, they simply cannot move forward until an investigation has been conducted."

140 comments

  1. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your denial of reality is impressive.

  2. Chicago voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those dead people are fine upstanding Chicagoans. I will not let my city be besmirched this way.

    1. Re:Chicago voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those can't be Chicago voters- they only voted once!

  3. Re: Over web site comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those votes don't matter. The President is elected by the electoral vote and not by the people.

  4. Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know what it is about network neutrality but every single time there is anything about it, it brings out the slashdot anon trolls en masse.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Weird behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake News! Trolls! Bots! Russia! LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!1

    2. Re:Weird behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AKA, Comcast's propaganda troll squad.

    3. Re:Weird behavior by sjames · · Score: 2

      It may be the same dead people who commented to the FCC.

    4. Re:Weird behavior by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Maybe sitting at your dining room table in Chappaqua instead of in the Oral Office will be a good thing for you.

    5. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Because any comment that questions the Net Neutrality dogma gets modded down to -1.

    6. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1, Troll

      The problem with that theory is that they aren't actual comments on the subject matter but rather troll posts. If you can make a legitimate argument for why an ISP should be allowed to make google.com slower than bing.com then please present it.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And get modded down to -1? Why bother?

      I'd say we should have as few rules as practical, and that we shouldn't enact real rules and police them with real internet police because of some imaginary scenarios involving google.com.

      Real problems can be addressed with fewer, more narrowly focused rules that respect all the interested parties, most especially the public. But the Net Neutrality side is too dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge anyone else's interests.

      Declaring anyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll" because "what about my imaginary google.com scenario" isn't really a way to have a discussion.

    8. Re:Weird behavior by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If you can make a legitimate argument for why an ISP should be allowed to make google.com slower than bing.com then please present it.

      They haven't read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, so they don't understand that a Free Market arises when Government acts as a neutral third party and enforces trust and market access, creating a level playing field that anybody with the Capital can walk out onto and Compete.

      So asking them for a legitimate argument is not going to end well.

    9. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd say we should have as few rules as practical

      I agree. This is a very simplistic rule that is quite practical.

      we shouldn't enact real rules and police them with real internet police because of some imaginary scenarios involving google.com.

      Except it's a very real scenario: After Netflix pays Comcast, speeds improve 65%

      But the Net Neutrality side is too dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge anyone else's interests.

      Whose interests does it refuse to acknowledge? I don't understand how it could be for anything but extorting sites to fork over cash like comcast did to netflix.

      Declaring anyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll" because "what about my imaginary google.com scenario" isn't really a way to have a discussion.

      That's not what I'm doing at all. If you read the comments above my original, none of them are actually about net neutrality but rather political troll posts.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      This is a very simplistic rule that is quite practical.

      It's a rule that was made up to solve a problem that was imagined. We should have rules that are designed for real problems. But we can only consider one rule, because of the Net Neutrality dogma.

      Except it's a very real scenario: After Netflix pays Comcast, speeds improve 65%

      If you wanted to talk about a real case, then why did you make up the imaginary bing.com, google.com scenario?

      How about a rule that only applies providers like Comcast in monopoly or near monopoly situations? And everyone else in non-monopoly situations is free of such rules. You could even make it considerably harsher than net neutrality, to make monopolies disadvantageous. That would start to address the real issues instead of the imaginary ones.

    11. Re:Weird behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with this, but counter with the fact that access to pit, pipe, pole, etc is heavily regulated and designed to keep out new players denying residents the opportunity to vote with their wallet.
      Remove *all* obstacles that prevent new players from rolling out fiber, whether municipal, state or federal, THEN remove net neutrality.

    12. Re:Weird behavior by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Maybe if ANY of the trolling shills posted anything other than anonymous cowards.

    13. Re:Weird behavior by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

      The Comcastroturfers.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    14. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      How about a rule that only applies providers like Comcast in monopoly or near monopoly situations? And everyone else in non-monopoly situations is free of such rules.

      What would be the benefit of limiting the rule in such a manner and who would it benefit?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    15. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Who benefits by keeping the NSA from mandating back doors in all encryption schemes? Who benefits from VPNs being legal? Who benefits from giving accused criminals the presumption of innocence? Who benefits from any limitation on government power or authority?

      Free people benefit.

      Rules that would encourage and reward competitive, non-monopoly Internet environments specifically benefit people who want more choices of ISPs. And anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when providers decide to invest and expand rather than deciding the ROI is too small to be worth the regulatory risks.

    16. Re: Weird behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when private companies aren't able to hold them hostage for a ransom.

    17. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Free people benefit.

      How would they benefit more than if net neutrality is in effect?

      Rules that would encourage and reward competitive, non-monopoly Internet environments specifically benefit people who want more choices of ISPs.

      How does this reduce the competitiveness of the market?

      And anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when providers decide to invest and expand rather than deciding the ROI is too small to be worth the regulatory risks.

      There literally is no regulatory risk involved in net neutrality. The only thing it does is prevent connections from being slowed down between the customer and the ISP based on the origin/destination.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    18. Re:Weird behavior by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Imaginary scenario? Comcast is throttling all encrypted connections today. Go fuck yourself.

    19. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      There literally is no regulatory risk involved in net neutrality.

      That's the problem with making policy based on storytelling. In the story, Net Neutrality is all good, with no bad things. There's a villain, the evil Comcast, trying to slow down google.com (for reasons the storyteller never really explains). And the only ones who can save the day are the heroic regulators, one dimensional characters of pure good, dedicating their life to righteousness and protecting the holy google.com packets. The heroes win, nothing ever goes wrong (in the story), and they all live happily ever after. The End.

      Reality has regulators who expand their mission once they start. Real networks have oversubscription problems and congestion and real network operators don't think they should have to talk to the Internet police every time someone complains. A wireless operator doesn't think phone calls should lose out to people streaming Netflix at 4K, and wants to prioritize voice packets without asking Washington DC for permission. An operator who never treated any packets different from any others doesn't think he owes regulators even a minute of his time. A company VP is calculating ROI and he doesn't use "they all lived happily ever after" in his projections.

    20. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Please show which provider is slowing down google.com packets to help bing.com. If I happened, it's not imaginary.

      Honestly, I'm for a lot harsher regulations on Comcast than Net Neutrality. Their monopoly needs to be ended. Net Neutrality doesn't address the real problem: monopoly providers and local governments that enable and support them.

    21. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Reality has regulators who expand their mission once they start.

      Sure sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.

      Real networks have oversubscription problems and congestion and real network operators don't think they should have to talk to the Internet police every time someone complains. A wireless operator doesn't think phone calls should lose out to people streaming Netflix at 4K, and wants to prioritize voice packets without asking Washington DC for permission. An operator who never treated any packets different from any others doesn't think he owes regulators even a minute of his time. A company VP is calculating ROI and he doesn't use "they all lived happily ever after" in his projections.

      Literally nothing you have mentioned is related to net neutrality. You can still have a congested networks and prioritize based on the type of traffic. In fact, the only thing you cannot do is prioritize based on the origin/destination. It's sounding more and more like you don't actually understand what net neutrality is.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    22. Re:Weird behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't complain about one speculation, then utilize your own.

      Sorry, Kohath, you aren't special. If you can tell stories, so can everybody else.

    23. Re:Weird behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sounding more and more like you don't actually understand what net neutrality is.

      Meet Kohath, who makes a dedicated, professional effort, to not actually understand.

    24. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's sounding more and more like you don't actually understand what net neutrality is.

      Ok, please link the official government Net Neutrality rules.

    25. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You can't complain about one speculation, then utilize your own.

      Why not? Everyone else does.

    26. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      there's little point in linking the legal text but here's the plain text explaination: https://www.fcc.gov/general/op...

      Bright Line Rules:

      * No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
      * No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
      * No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

      Do note that the "no throttling" rule doesn't exclude the possibility of traffic prioritization.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    27. Re:Weird behavior by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That's the PR version and even that seems to clearly disallow a wireless service prioritizing voice traffic over someone streaming Netflix at 4K.

      There's also nothing mentioned about enforcement mechanisms.

    28. Re:Weird behavior by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I suppose you do not understand much about traffic shaping because you can absolutely prioritize VoIP over video streams without violating net neutrality. It can be as simple as prioritize a port number. This isn't rocket science, bro.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Slashdot are missing the point by Hasaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you are looking at is an attempt to discredit Net Neutrality. These stories are attempting to create an impression that the only people who support net-neutrality are cranks and liars. They might be true, undoubtedly, there are cranks and liars who support net-neutrality, just as there are, undoubtedly, cranks and liars who oppose net-neutrality.

    Nearly any large issue has cranks and liars on both sides. However, there is clearly an attempt underway to associate support for net-neutrality with cranks and liars.

    1. Re:Slashdot are missing the point by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The bot-driven fake submissions are in support of ENDING Net Neutrality. This was not a false-flag operation. These posts likely came from the DCI Group ( https://www.dcigroup.com/ ) which was hired by the National Cable and Telecom Association via Broadband for America see: http://www.zdnet.com/article/a... and https://news.vice.com/article/... .

    2. Re:Slashdot are missing the point by nnull · · Score: 1

      What you're looking at is an organized group that is being funded to change peoples opinions. These companies are now popping up all over the place and they don't even hide what they do anymore. Some of them are already becoming affordable for even peons to use. Soon I'm sure my competitors will try to use them against me and this will be the norm in dealing with anything in real life.

      Basically a pay for your own propaganda machine, they don't care who they hurt and they don't care who you support as long as you give them money. Some people think they're bots, I think they're actually real people they hire, plenty of people that will do it. The sad part is, these companies are growing really well because of it and they try to justify their existence with fancy videos at how benevolent they are.

    3. Re:Slashdot are missing the point by h4x0t · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about?
      This story is regarding fake comments that are posed against net neutrality.
      There is no argument against net neutrality other than private control and private money derived from public loss of freedom.


      I feel what I am witnessing from you is a campaign to discredit the support of net neutrality by obfuscation of the meaning of the term net neutrality(neutral pipes on the net).

  6. Trump trolls using fake information? NoooOo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I find it impossible to believe such an upstanding businessman as Trump would allow false information to disrupt the glorious free-market enterprise that he's trying to sell the internet off to.

  7. That's racist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dead people are people too!

    1. Re: That's racist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those dead people are also victims too, of death.

    2. Re:That's racist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right! Dead people have just as much right to have their opinion ignored by Ajit Pai as living people do.

  8. Pass a law by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.

    1. Re:Pass a law by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.

      They do, then punt enforcement and rule making to an agency.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Pass a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.

      Don't hold your breath, the decision to repeal was made months ago by paid off republicans.

    3. Re:Pass a law by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.

      Or better, "If we actually want the public to have more control over their laws, we should get to vote individually on every issue." While it's true, we could spend forever wishing for better representation. But, that doesn't discount that right here and now, we have this avenue for our voice, and it's getting marginalized by malicious actors in an obvious way. If we don't stand up and fight, but just sit around wishing the world were different, then we'll quickly lose the few rights that we have left.

    4. Re:Pass a law by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Government "by the people" matters a lot more than whether Netflix has to write a check to Verizon.

    5. Re:Pass a law by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I think administrative law is the greatest threat to a free society; that is when you have lawmakers giving administrative agencies of unelected officials broad arbitrary control over an aspect of government with little to no accountability (Operation Fast & Furious anyone? IRS scandal? Etc...) and if an agency is called into question it takes a lot of pressure to get the DOJ, let alone Congress, to do anything meaningful. That's my two cents.

    6. Re:Pass a law by guises · · Score: 1

      These rules are made by elected representatives, just indirectly - the FCC exists because congress created it to do this, and congress can overrule the FCC on any issue it chooses.

    7. Re:Pass a law by kenh · · Score: 1

      If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.

      Seriously? Because the public can be whipped up into a frothing mob over an esoteric thing like Title II Oversight of Internet Providers that means that we really need the guiding hand of people like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Rep. Hank Johnson or Rep. Nancy Pelosi? (Feel free to add you list of "out there" representatives from the Right)

      --
      Ken
    8. Re: Pass a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're putting the cart before the horse, we need representative government first, then you can discourse over the methods.

      Oh, weren't planning on doing that? Then sir, I denounce your unfree government, as a tool of oppression and tyranny.

    9. Re: Pass a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, your two specific examples were ones where considerable examination and investigationâ went on, and the results, apparently unknown to you, were that nothing substantively offensive occurred? And they were operational matters, not administrative lawmaking anyway.

      Not exactly persuasive. In both of those cases, Congress wasted months on them, and they had to reach to make reports that when look at them are tortuous examples of phony criticism.

      At least give us something where somebody found real wrongdoing. Like Pigford. Or ACLU v. Ashcroft.

      Not partisan hand-wringing filled with crocodile tears.

      That just discredits you for picking such things to complain about, not because you lamented how Congress exerted themselves over nothing, but because you mistakenly think they failed to pursue it with vigor.

    10. Re: Pass a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing free about a representative who makes claims, gets votes, and completely goes against what they campaigned on. These people are bought by corporations and do not have the country's benefit in mind. We need ways for the people to hold their representatives truly accountable. We need to be able to fire the motherfuckers.

  9. Re:Trump trolls using fake information? NoooOo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big assumption. I'd look at lobbying firms representing companies that are publicly or privately resisting net neutrality. And I mean privately in that some companies publicly support it and privately lobby against it. Those with something to gain by prioritizing internet traffic. You know who you are. Start in Silicon Valley.

    But a blanket charge of Trump trollish behavior makes no sense given the real names and addresses used.

  10. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I hear ya, my friend. Keep on fighting the good fight! If we can save just one child from harm by defeating this net neutrality it will all be worth it.

  11. Entire BUtterfield clan supports by UziBeatle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      THis is interesting coincidence::
    https://www.comcastroturf.com/
    enter Butterfield as search term
    End up at
    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/searc...?

    With results of 17 Butterfield surnames all reporting
    exact same text . All submitted their FCC filing
    on exact same date. Huh.

    I"m sure there is nothing to see here so safe
    to assume FCC will just accept them all as legit.

    --
    Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
    1. Re:Entire BUtterfield clan supports by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      That's all just Stoot and his progeny. He petted a LOT of trees to attain his accomplishments. He works hard.

  12. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by rednip · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Russian government continue to pay their trolls to keep the GOP in power. Once Putin is finally thrown out, much of their noise will abate.

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  13. Re: The truth the Democrats don't want you to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. No its not.

  14. Re: FCC Comments From Dead People - Fake Narative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Incorrect, (most) moderators are simply expressing their distaste for offtopic thread-jacking (which you yourself are now guilty of attempting). This article is about FCC comment fraud; and while I do see OP's point about false-flag/vandalism, they decided to draw parallels to race-related issues (which is arguably unnecessary, and serves to distract from the issue at hand). They then went on to insinuate that anyone that talks about the actual issue must be seeking some sort of scandal, and suggesting that anyone that does not agree with their points (however correct they may be) lacks a brain. Therefore, we downvote it to prevent well-intentioned, but easily distracted, folks from wandering off into redundant tangent threads that contribute nothing to the discussion about FCC comment fraud.

  15. DCI Group for Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a company called DCI Group, this is not their first or last fake consumer front groups.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021952
    Seems to be Verizon funding this one.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Talk:DCI_Group

    e.g. 2001, they create a fake group called "ATL", does this sound familiar?

    "I get letters from dead people
    In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that ATL was behind a “carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement” behind Microsoft. “The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces—details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day.” Although FLS-DCI has not publicly claimed responsibility for generating the letters, they are consistent with the company’s own description of the word produced by its “letter desk” service: “all unique, but conveying your desired message.”

    "According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah’s Attorney General at the time, Mark Shurtleff, received letters “purportedly written by at least two dead people . . . imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly. The pleas, along with about 400 others from Utah citizens,” included at least one from the nonexistent city of Tucson, Utah.

    1. Re:DCI Group for Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... 2001, they create a fake group ...

      I was going to complain that government apathy means this type of fraud will be repeated.

    2. Re:DCI Group for Verizon by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      From what I am getting from all this is: THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don't follow trends, don't believe the hype of the media, if it does not follow common sense than most likely it isn't worth spending time on. If you believe be in it, stick to your beliefs. If you want companies to control the information that you get, then you deserve everything that comes to you.

      Do I want an internet that is neutral to content? Hell yes! Do I want it as a public utility that will get bogged down with a bureaucracy? Not only no, but HELL NO.

    3. Re:DCI Group for Verizon by hey! · · Score: 1

      Do I want an internet that is neutral to content? Hell yes! Do I want it as a public utility that will get bogged down with a bureaucracy? Not only no, but HELL NO.

      Do I engage in false dichotomies? HELL YES.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:DCI Group for Verizon by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Do you understand compromise. HELL NO.

    5. Re:DCI Group for Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is what they have done considered a Federal Crime? It is identity theft, and fraud, at a minimum.

  16. You can't make these up by mi · · Score: 5, Funny

    The below ones seem perfectly genuine and drive the point home with well-reasoned arguments:

    • Hey, Indian cocksucker, you don't belong here. Leave the country now. Do not fuck with my Internet connectivity. You're a real jagoff.
    • I support strong net neutrality backed by Title 2 oversight of ISPs. Also, Ajit Pai, you're one weird little man. You seem like the Jehovah's witness that even the other Jehovah's witnesses find off-putting. You seem like the guy no one wanted in the Frat, but your dad was a legacy. Also, this is just a hunch, but I bet you're pretty doughy with your shirt off. Not, like, FAT fat, but just fat enough to be gross. Also, you talk with the cadence of a 90s valley girl, it's really weird. And stop quoting the Big Lebowski; you're not a freshman film student, you're a fucking adult. Anyway, to reitereate, I support net neutrality backed by Title 2 oversight of ISPs, and over-sized novelty mugs are for guys with small dicks.
    • No one gives a fuck about your giant coffee mug, you arrogant pencil-dick. I want the internet to remain neutral, and support net neutrality backed by title 2 oversight of ISP's. Go fuck your whore mother like everyone else has. Just looked it up and Ajit Pai is married. Bless that woman's heart for being with him. Don't really know she allow's her body to fuck that guy. Really seems like a bad time. Please leave net neutrality alone and not block my shit. I like to see a specific types of dick and if that is slowed or blocked i'm just going to be really sad. I'm sure most of you have a liking to types of porn. Thanks
    • WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU CUNTS THINKING!!!!! HOW CAN YOU MAKE INTERNET FREEDOM ABSOLUTE! DO YOU KNOW WHO DOES CONTROL THE INTERNET? CHINA!!! FUCK YOU PAI, I HOPE RUSTY FORK GETS JAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT

    Browse FCC for more.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  17. Don't know by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >"An alleged commenter in Montana told a reporter she didn't even know what net neutrality was. "

    Actually, based on my dealings with "every day people" I estimate that perhaps as many as 98% of people either have no idea what net neutrality is or have highly inaccurate information about what it is. But this seems typical on any highly technical or abstract subject.

    1. Re:Don't know by ABEND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's call them Everyday Americans. They have been conditioned to reject any programs with Orwellian names such as "Net Neutrality." "Net Neutrality" is very reminiscent of The Fairness Doctrine. "The Fairness Doctrine" was re-visited in 2008 as a way to suppress talk radio shows (cf, minority media) such a "The Rush Limbaugh Show."

      --
      In all seriousness:
    2. Re:Don't know by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Thankfully the telcos are educating the public, at least they do in Europe.

      1) Telco offers free music streaming on mobiles, knowing full well that this violates Net Neutrality
      2) Customer is happy
      3) Europe says "You can't do that"
      4) Customer is pissed, blames Net Neutrality and/or Europe
      5) Telco says "told you so" to the legislators.

      If you're one of the unhappy customers by the way, remember that companies like these only give out freebies if they have to, i.e. if there is any real competition. But the real reason they don't want Net Neutrality is so that they can tax internet giants, refrain from expensive upgrades of their infrastructure by throttling certain services, or by throttling a certain class of services when they themselves offer a similar service. None of that is in the interest of the customer.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of our mobile providers was trying to introduce different pricing for ip packets based on their destination. For example http access would be pretty cheap, but mail and other competing chat protocols would cost about the same as SMS-text-messages.

      Our Dutch politicians would be personally harmed by this, so they went and introduced net-neutrality in record time, it was amazing to see how quick this came to be.

    4. Re:Don't know by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      It's sad. When we all first heard about the despicable cash-grab telcos were planning in order to make us all pay more, everyone here hated the idea.

      A decade or so of lobbyists later and we're split along party lines over what to do about it.

      But in case everyone has forgotten, please remember that most people absolutely abhor the idea of ISPs charging protection fees to the internet at large to avoid having their sites hobbled.

  18. Re:Correction: Democrat Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assinging blame on anon's is stupid. If someone bases their argument on who's to blame for posting comments, they are either very dumb, or think you are.

  19. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God bless idiots!

    Oh hang on he's been indicted for tax evasion

  20. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I agree, except for the part about Putin being thrown out. I was under the impression that the economic consequences of corruption he brings would doom Russia. Indeed I can see it has hurt them short and long-term, and his actions have also brought economic sanctions. However, he's somehow managed to trick Russian people with propaganda, enough to keep some level of popularity despite terrible economic conditions. Russian people, like my American back-country neighbors, blindly support the strongmen that abuse them.

    With the rising price of oil, some of that economic pain will ease. Now is the time I thought he'd have been ousted, but with the success of his propaganda machine in electing Trump, I'm wondering what evidence we have of Putin's impending demise?

  21. Putinbots abound by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 0
    This comment on the previous thread applies to this one as well:

    Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards" sprouting pro-Putin and pro-Trump talking points.

    And in effect anti-net-neutrality.

    Adjust your skepticism accordingly. They're rattled -- there's been a strong uptick in Putinbot activity in the last few days, which makes me wonder if pro-Western forces are getting closer to the truth on Kremlingate.

    In the absence of Slashdot waking up to themselves and getting rid of "Anonymous Coward", you'll have to wade through a lot of Putinbot spam in the meantime.

    1. Re:Putinbots abound by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      I normally would leave this alone, but this is so egregious I just can't help myself.

      First, we have a moderation system to handle this situation. A spam army of anonymous cowards doesn't garner many eyeballs around here, as AC starts with a disadvantage, and most people read at +1.

      But more to the point on this specific case: There's only roughly 60 total posts on this article (as I begin typing). If every single post was some Russian-paid advocate, it would barely rate "spammed hard". I realize this community has dwindled over the years, but anything less than 300 posts for a thread is hardly a discussion 'round these parts. Your 3rd grader's lunch bunch could spam this tiny discussion from their smart phones and do a better job of dominating a discussion this size.

      And lastly - what absurd connection can there possibly be between Putin's Russian government and Net Neutrality regulations? Why the heck would they give a rat's butt about internet regulations in the US?

      The entire discussion is just silly. Pretending for a moment there are paid advocates rummaging from discussion to discussion pimping the Trump position on Net Neutrality, why in the world would we think that it is Russia that is paying the freight? Or even Trump for that matter. He was a notorious spendthrift during the campaign, utilizing free media attention rather than anything paid. So now he's gonna go with a paid army to push some position that doesn't require much in the way of public opinion for him to accomplish?

      No, if there are paid advocates shilling against net neutrality regulations, it is going to be the internet carrier companies that are paying the freight. They are the only ones who care enough about this issue. Just like the other side is going to be funded by folks like Google and Netflix, because they have a dog in the fight. Putin? He doesn't gain anything either way.

  22. Anyone do the same check on PRO NN posts? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Has anyone bothered to do a check on a sample of pro-net neutrality comments to see if similar problems exist there, or are only anti-nn comments worth investigating?

    1. Re:Anyone do the same check on PRO NN posts? by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      Has anyone bothered to do a check on a sample of pro-net neutrality comments to see if similar problems exist there, or are only anti-nn comments worth investigating?

      I'd be interested too, but please post all the relevant information, like methods and percentages. Who cares if there were 1,000 fake comments, I want to know for both pro & con: # total comments, top 5 most common text, of each of those, the percentage given by date & time, percentage of validated comments - for & against

      Maybe shorthand would be: any pattern that has been deemed suspicious, check for that pattern on the other side and show which happened more frequently.

      Granted, I doubt I'll be disappointed, all the evidence I've seen thus far leads me to believe these were bots

    2. Re: Anyone do the same check on PRO NN posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone bothered to do a check on a sample of pro-net neutrality comments to see if similar problems exist there, or are only anti-nn comments worth investigating?

      Nah, they're too busy having fits over troll comments from some website or another. See mi and SuperKendell. Both mysteriously copied the same sample quotes of low-level commentary and are frenetically insisting on using them and only them to evaluate the discussion.

      I wish I could say I was surprised.

  23. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at North Korea, it doesn't matter how abusive the regime is just as long as it pumps out enough propaganda and stifles dissent. Coming to a Western nation near you soon! (already available in some regions, check stock for more details)

  24. 14 People Signed "Fight for the Future" Letter by ngc5194 · · Score: 1

    That seemed small to me given the number of people signing petitions these days. The reason for it is that these are the people who signed the letter when it was originally drafted. There's no provision to add your own name to this letter, which is kind of too bad, because I'd sign on to it if I could. In this day and age, I wonder if having "only" 14 signatories to a letter (who aren't well known in some relevant field) detracts from the power of the message.

    1. Re:14 People Signed "Fight for the Future" Letter by Cederic · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, 2400 requests to an AG to investigate sounds notable.

      I don't know how engaged people in the US are with their AGs though so maybe that's just a couple of hours worth of inbound email.

    2. Re:14 People Signed "Fight for the Future" Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a petition, this is 14 people signing an official letter of complaint. They're people who've had their identities used to fraudulently support a policy they disagree with. It has a lot more weight to it than some online petition anyone can sign.

  25. Re:The issue goes both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah. The "both sides do it" lie.

  26. Re:Hunka hunka firsty post by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    The FCC needs to filter out emails from San Junipero.

  27. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. More laws mean more protection. And, good point about marriage. One of the proposed changes to the marriage laws here in CA was over 1,500 pages of new regulations and fees. They were designed to make marriage more equitable which is a good thing.

  28. If the... by Chessucat · · Score: 2

    ...Dead can vote, then the Dead can comment!

    --
    "I'm a dirty white tomcat, enter my world..."
    1. Re: If the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And walk, and also be feared!!!

  29. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dead people want an investigation?

  30. Re: FCC Comments From Dead People - Fake Narative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this goes unchecked I'm going to do the reverse next time myself. I can spin up bots in and to post.

    They probably screwed up their exponential backoff and dos'd the FCC site or finished the run and said nuke the site.

    Clearly, the next war will be fault by the dead.

  31. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Terrible economic conditions? The Russians still remember the 90ies. Compared to that the current conditions are merely inconvinient.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  32. What do you have against dead people huh? by golodh · · Score: 4, Funny
    Do you want to imply that vitaly challenged people should not be allowed to make themselves heard?

    Dead people are already being discriminated against already on a massive scale. For example they aren't even legally allowed to own property anymore, but must work through internediaries like foundations, trust funds, banks, and lawyers. And now you want to rob them of their voice too?

    That's crass vitalism, that is!

    This is something we from the grassroots action group "Dead does not mean buried !" take a stand against !

    Beside which, we prefer the term "differently alive", thank you very much.

    1. Re:What do you have against dead people huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right - even dead people deserve better Internet than what Comcast provides!

    2. Re:What do you have against dead people huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead people are already being discriminated against already on a massive scale. For example they aren't even legally allowed to own property anymore,

      Yet when I go grave robbing everybody gets uptight about it!

    3. Re:What do you have against dead people huh? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You kid, but I helped collect signatures to get a ballot initiative qualified for a State election. The general rule of thumb is that you need to collect at least 2x as many signatures as is required to qualify because when the State verifies the signatures, half of them are going to be fake, duplicate, or unverifiable. 3x if you want to be assured of qualifying.

      And these are signatures collected via face-to-face interactions. Is anyone really surprised that comments submitted essentially anonymously over the Internet are full of fakes?

    4. Re:What do you have against dead people huh? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Do you want to imply that vitaly challenged people should not be allowed to make themselves heard?

      Well, if the dead want a voice in government, they need to do what everyone else does - vote!

      And don't tell me they can't do that, because there are plenty of dead people who vote already. Either political party will give you lists of those dead people who voted in the last election.

    5. Re:What do you have against dead people huh? by Megol · · Score: 1

      I'm all for the silent majority making their voices heard. Could make it harder for politicians to make stupid claims of support...

  33. FCC no longer legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All laws, decisions and rules made by the FCC are now hereby null and void.

    Enjoy, hackers.

  34. Re:Hunka hunka firsty post by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    I don't see why people are upset over what these dead people said.

    They should see the comments that dead people are leaving at slashdot! The FCC is getting it easy for some reason.

  35. Re:These are leftists demanding an investigation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Ooggly Boogly boogly woogly boogly SOROS booglywoogly!

    Your exchange rate is now cursed for 7 years, say goodbye to your savings because you get negative interest! SOROS

  36. Re: FCC Comments From Dead People - Fake Narative by Aighearach · · Score: 0

    This is slashdot, threadjacking is a cromulent strategy, and often popular.

    I'm guessing there is some other reason. Maybe the comment was racist flamebait, and that's why it got moderated as flamebait?

  37. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    This is Hillary Shills not Putin Shills.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  38. must be a better db? by chris_osulliva · · Score: 1

    great list.. sortable alpha fname, mname, lname.

  39. Re:These are leftists demanding an investigation by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that "Leftist" is a shibboleth for those who consume conservative talk radio . If you believe what Rush and Glenn Beck have been telling you, you've been trained to attack these strawmen on sight. At least after you go out of your way to prop them up.

  40. Re: FCC Comments From Dead People - Fake Narative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fought...

    Lol

  41. Finding one's own name in the mess by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know how to easily search through the mess to find instances of my name being abused?

  42. Why make your own AstroTurf, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    when you can just steal somebody else's?

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  43. Stupid move by manu0601 · · Score: 0

    What a stupid move from net neutrality opponents.

    It would have been easy for Trump appointed FCC to remove net neutrality because "we won elections and we are legitimate to act on that". Now with obvious cheating, the change will never look legitimate.

  44. Re:Correction: Democrat Trolls by TroII · · Score: 1

    Does the sound like a Trump supporter to you

    Yes, it sure does. Believe it or not, some Trump supporters are pro-Net Neutrality. They want to be able to keep shitposting rare pepes and flooding fake Macedonian-operated "news" posts onto Twitter all day long.

  45. Is that everyone on their school bus? by kenh · · Score: 1

    14 people have already signed Fight for the Future's official complaint to the FCC

    Seriously? FOURTEEN people?

    SMH

    --
    Ken
  46. Re:The issue goes both ways by kenh · · Score: 1

    Ah. The "both sides do it" lie.

    Ah, the old "Dismiss the fact that both sides do it by calling it a lie" line...

    Are you sincerely arguing that every "Pro" Net Neutrality comment is unique, and was submitted by an actual person, who only submitted one comment?

    --
    Ken
  47. Re:When there's evidence of dead voting. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    It's the degree of accessibility. An online form is several orders of magnitude easier to take advantage of. The same kind of tactics, at the same scale, for voter fraud requires millions of people.

  48. I see (comments from) dead people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the basis for a movie.

  49. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably better and easier to get government out of the marriage business. Cause it ain't any of theirs. A regulation is a chain around your throat and tax is theft.

  50. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I agree, except for the part about Putin being thrown out. I was under the impression that the economic consequences of corruption he brings would doom Russia. Indeed I can see it has hurt them short and long-term, and his actions have also brought economic sanctions. However, he's somehow managed to trick Russian people with propaganda, enough to keep some level of popularity despite terrible economic conditions.

    Putin has (at least given the impression) that he has made Russia strong again. Russians experienced weak governance and poor economic conditions in the 90's and early 2000s. Whilst the poor economic conditions were always there, they at least had a powerful government prior to Gorby.

    I have no illusions that Putin is a tyrant who got where he is through deceit and intimidation, but a strong leader is something that Russians like. I doubt he's as popular as he claims (106% approval rating or something as stupid), but I also doubt he's that unpopular either, so even with the worst case scenario with Trump, I cant see Putin going anywhere. Especially with the support of the oligarchs who really control Russia these days.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  51. Re: FCC Comments From Dead People - Fake Narative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did you expect from a jew owned forum?

  52. More Wells Fargo "fake people"? by VirtualJWN · · Score: 1

    So another example of if you cant get support for something, just fake it. Works for polls. HAH

    --
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
  53. This is not a vote by volkris · · Score: 1

    It needs to be emphasized: this is not a voting process.

    In the US regulatory process, a regulator like the FCC is bound to follow the laws passed by our representatives in Congress. Once the chambers pass a bill, that's the end of the vote counting, and the rest is implementing the legislation as passed.

    At this point in the regulatory process, a regulator is to address concerns that are brought up regardless of how many people voice each concern. It doesn't really matter whether five people or five hundred bring up a concern: it's still just one concern.

    Sure, it's a bad thing that peoples names were false attached to these comments. It bears some investigation. But let's be clear that since this isn't voting, it's not like the scheme will have screwed up a vote. The outcome will be just as legitimate even if everyone submitting duplicate comments--honest or not--wasted federal resources in deduplicating them.

  54. The dead have risen and they're voting Republican! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another thing the Simpsons predicted...

  55. Re:These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical neocon focusing on concepts like loyalty and guilt instead of logic and reason. Pull in the military for some more rabble. The same military that's been sent into stupid fights for decades. The same military that doesn't get taken care of when it comes home. The same military that's woefully overspent on while infrastructure is crumbling and the real enemy (politicians and their corporate benefactors) are fleecing as much of the American public as they can, and net neutrality is another obstacle between them and tightening their monopolies. You are literally advocating for less choice, and the concept of competition in a capitalist market **requires** consumer choice.

    Speaking of the obsession of military, where do you think that comes from? Lovers of the military are lovers of war and victims of propaganda. Do you want a peaceful America with fair markets and opportunity, or a warring America where businesses are first class citizens and private citizens are considered worthless unless they work for a corporation? When's the last time a foreign government threatened your rights or life? Spoilers: never. To contrast, when's the last time a corporation threatened to limit your choice or rights? You're literally in a thread describing astroturfing (creating false discourse to sway public opinion), and have found yourself among the astroturfers. Forcing businesses to play nice does not hurt this country. If you disagree, you can turn in your breaks and lunches, your 401k, your vacations, OSHA, and the other many things that've been added to "needlessly regulate" businesses and make sure they don't literally work you to death. Because that's what happens without regulations. Go take a look at China if you want to know what happens without regulations.

    Your vision of America is filled with fear and manipulation of the public. You can't even make your point without bringing up some "leftist" bullshit and how others don't love America if they don't agree with you. You need to get it through your thick skull that no business gives a fuck about the customers they rip off, the governments they evade, the environments they destroy, the employees they exploit, or the competitors that they undercut. Business is nothing but raw greed, and they will never have your interests in mind. Trickle down doesn't work, and hasn't worked, ever. If it did, the recessions in the 1980s and late 2000s wouldn't have happened. The economy still can't seem to get back to what it was before the 1980s, and a large part of that is due to the flawed model of economics started in the 1980s and the idiots siding with corporations to strip this country of its resources, both natural and human. Where's the economic growth? They've had almost 40 years, and business still can't get it right. It took the government bailing their sorry asses out a decade ago to prevent the economy from imploding. So tell me again, why trust these corporations?

    Ask yourself when the last time was that a business ever acted to your political benefit. When's the last time a corporation advocated for consumer rights? When's the last time they started campaigns to clean up the putrid messes they leave? What have companies done to make *your* life better?

    Study their actions, not their words, for they are empty.

  56. Re: These are leftists demanding an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tax is payment for the public services that we all use. Unless you live in your own compound, far in the wilderness for your entire life, government services have benefitted you, and it's your duty as a citizen (just like me) to pay taxes. Without them, you can forget travelling freely. Every interstate would become a toll road. You can forget educating your children without spending thousands a month. You can forget free sidewalks, free parks for children to play in, national parks and other public campgrounds, police, fire departments, public libraries, the military, the myriad funding programs for research, medicine, and community building, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, Section 8, EBT/SNAP, FAFSA funding, the USPS, the list goes on...

    Your comment proves you have no idea how much government is responsible for the quality of its constituents' lives. If any of the above were privatized, you'd be paying out the nose to make use of them. I deliberately omitted ambulances because they're already privatizing them, and it's resulted in fewer emergencies being reported, lowering public health. Who can choose $10k or more in debt over abstaining and hoping you make it through? Kick out taxes, and you kick out the only thing standing between you and corporate slavery. I'm not kidding. It's been done before and they'll try it again if they think they can get away with it. For America, you really only need to look back a few hundred years. Worldwide, countless countries have struggled with the same problems, generally in their formative years much like America.