Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Isn't Real 89

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-color-me-fooled dept.
wiredog writes "The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy is actually a student project. The 'No Net Brutality' campaign idea was one of the four finalists created as an assignment for a two-and-a-half week 'think tank MBA' program. The other finalists were a project promoting free speech in Venezuela, one supporting education reform in Poland, and one dealing with sales tax rates in Washington, DC. ('No Net Brutality' came in third. The Polish reform idea won.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Isn't Real More

Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Isn't Real

Comments Filter:

  • Nice cover story. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SomeJoel ( 1061138 )
    Nothing to see here, move along.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by toastar ( 573882 )

      So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?

      Wow mindblowing.

      • Re:Nice cover story. (Score:5, Informative)

        by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:04PM (#32186720)

        So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?

        Wow mindblowing.

        This was a "weather balloon". The *IAA posse is still behind this. If I was going to try something like this I would have students try it first.

        BTW, netbrutatlity.com was registered by freedomworks.org [slashdot.org], which sure doesn't look like a student project.

        • The *IAA posse is still behind this.

          WTF was I thinking? I meant to say the Telco's posse is behind this. Sometimes I'm a bigger asshat than usual.

          • While you're at it - it's netbrutality.com, not netbrutatlity.com.

            Also, what exactly is the point of this story? Assuming its facts are true, all it proves is that the campaign wasn't sponsored by the telcos, but by a right-wing pro-business "think tank" that's probably funded by the telcos.

          • Except all the traditional huge beasts behind communications, music, movies and tv all have the same interests, and eventually act together. When you have the same interests, and benefit from the same cultural trends, laws, etc. you don't need a conspiracy to act as a single entity.

    • Re:Nice cover story. (Score:5, Funny)

      by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:01PM (#32186684)

      Yes, this powerpoint wasn't really from us, therefore it is not possible that we independently going to carry out that beautifully crafted plan to achieve the goal of getting rid of net neutrality. In fact, that's not even our goal, never has been. And you know it was never our goal because we didn't make that powerpoint presentation.

      Incidentally, can we borrow this fake powerpoint presentation for our next secret strategy meeting? You know, as an example of powerpoint presentations that DO NOT reflect our plans?

    • Re:Nice cover story. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by joocemann ( 1273720 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @05:24PM (#32187408)

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      Yeah... wait.. no? I totally didn't go to www.nonetbrutality.com and I totally didn't see that this was 'just a powerpoint project'.

      I'm curious why a project like this would be so involved that the student would pay for a domain name and hosting, and then (yes, i'm telling you to go to the site right now) do everything as legitimately as possible without mention of it being a project.

      I'm not saying it was/was-not done by the telecoms. But the site is real, and its intentions/purposes appear real as well.

      • Sounds feasible (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Domains are practically free. A few dollars. Hosting is (if you at first assume it to be only a small project site that doesn't require above 99.9% reliability) practically free. Even a student can easily skip one night out and spend the same money for such a site. (Or - if he has friends studying CS who are willing to lend him some extra space on some server - they might get the hosting for free)

        Now, assume you like to dabble with computers (which is a given for someone who would make a project around that

        • Domains are around $10/year.

          Hosting, about $10/month.
          ------

          Students don't like to spend money on anything but beer and video games.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Eskarel ( 565631 )

            To get into most MBA programs you have to have worked for at least 3 years after you got your undergrad degree, generally doing something that's not flipping burgers. Given the program is generally 2 years and these guys are graduating and that the average US college student graduates at the age of 22, that would put these guys at 27 or so. Not exactly your typical beer and video games before anything crowd.

            • I can agree with that. Thanks for bringing up the finer details that I had overlooked.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Eskarel ( 565631 )

                It's hard to remember that you generally have to actually do something useful to get an MBA since everyone seems to forget how to do anything at all once they have one.

    • Domain Name: nonetbrutality.com

      Registrant Contact:
      nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
      A Happy DreamHost Customer
      417 Associated Rd #324
      Brea, CA 92821
      US
      +1.2139471032

      • More importantly: netbrutality.com seems to be funded by freedomworks which is apparently a corporate lobby / astroturfing group.

        Registrant:
        FreedomWorks

        601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
        Suite 700 North Bldg
        Washington, DC 20004
        United States

        Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
        Domain Name: NETBRUTALITY.COM
        Created on: 11-May-06
        Expires on: 11-May-11
        Last Updated on: 12-May-10

        Administrative Contact:
        Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
        FreedomWorks
        601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
        Suite 700

  • Sure it was.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )

    Just a distraction from the truth.

  • Um (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:21PM (#32186230) Homepage

    There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?

    • Well if you'd read the article you'd... erm... no, sorry, I've got nothing.

    • Because people want a good conspiracy. They want to hear that all the problems in their lives is controlled by a small yet powerful group of people who have it in for them...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by blair1q ( 305137 )

        What they really want is to find the actual conspiracy theory, and stop it.

        But there are too many, so it's ideal camouflage.

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by Rary ( 566291 )

      There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?

      Because kdawson works here.

    • I could tell that the original article the other day wasn't real in a glance, and I wonder why THAT found a way through. It clearly didn't have the spit and polish that a real presentation would have, nor the overall look and feel. Also being in marketing, I find it hard to believe a real marketing department would be stupid enough to come up with a campaign about "net brutality" and thinking that it would "play in Peoria".

    • Read the first link.

  • Of course it wasn't real. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by characterZer0 ( 138196 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:27PM (#32186300)

    It was a kdawson story. Duh.

    Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

    That it not to say that it could not have been real, but you should not have believed it without independent verification.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Em Emalb ( 452530 )

      Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

      Actually, the fact that I thought it was real just shows how sad and pathetic the state of affairs in our country has become.

      Stuff like this happens all the time, so to sit there and say "You're stupid for buying this" is either incredibly egotistical or incredibly hind-sighted, one or both.

      IOW, well played, sir, well played.

      It has been 1 minute since I last posted. I'll go play in traffic now since I can't make my post right now.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Gullible? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:56PM (#32187174) Homepage

        Actually, the fact that I thought it was real just shows how sad and pathetic the state of affairs in our country has become.

        No, it shows how gullible you and other 20-somethings are to believe whatever you read on the Web. Critical thinking is no longer in vogue, the "truth" is whatever the Slashdot Group Think and Twitter / Digg / Whatever pipe to you. Blogs have to be more accurate than "real" news sources, right?

        • LOL, you're wrong on every account. Every. Single. One. Not in my 20s. Don't do facebook, twitter, et al. Don't care what you think you know, or think you know about other people. You're the problem with slashdot, you know that? The fucking arrogance on this guy.

    • It was a kdawson story. Duh.

      Then again, THIS story is a CmdrTaco story...

      Maybe he is in on it!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jc42 ( 318812 )

        So how do we know whether it's this story or the previous one that's the fake?

    • Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

      Not real?

      http://www.atlasnetwork.org/networknews/wp-content/uploads/nonetbrutality-ppt.ppt [atlasnetwork.org]

      That is not a Power Point presentation. It is only a mirage.

    • This is in some fashion less believable than that "death panel" rumor that's been circulating? Of the two, this one is far more believable in my opinion.

  • ThinkProgress responds (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sarcileptic ( 1141523 ) <skeptisysNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:30PM (#32186348) Homepage
    Think Progress has updated their site, standing behind the news that "No Net Brutality" was influenced by industry/lobbyists.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by d3ac0n ( 715594 )

      Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.

      I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."

      • Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.

        I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."

        Are they trying to compete with InfoWars.com for some sort of "fringiest news site" award?

    • Re:ThinkProgress responds (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:03PM (#32186712) Homepage Journal

      The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Jawnn ( 445279 )

        The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.

        You think that matters to someone whose signature indicates that he still believes the global warming deniers?
        Nah, me neither. Inconvenient facts just get in the way of what they want to believe.

  • Good Slogan... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:32PM (#32186366)

    Fake or not, it leads to a decent enough slogan which we really haven't had yet:

    Support Net Neutrality - Not Net Brutality.

  • Response (Score:3, Informative)

    by azurex120 ( 905025 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:37PM (#32186434)
    Think Progress posted their own response to CNET's claims. Don't know Whose true http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/netneutrality-grover-afp/ [thinkprogress.org]
  • I posted this there, I bet it doesn't make it up, who knows. "If the fact that the internet was begun by DARPA grants and colleges is not a hint at the original intent then please correct me. Net neutrality should mean one thing and one thing only. That the providers of internet services are not allowed to censure, block, or constrict the flow and any information which a customer is putting over their networks. That said, it could be argued that this would not apply to spammers and hackers. That would be
  • nothing to be embarrassed about. actual corporate propaganda against net neutrality is even more divorced from reality.

  • Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:42PM (#32186484)

    Doesn't anyone remember when this first started? We had everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition jumping up and down and saying that the plan by major ISPs and telcos to hijack big web pages unless they were paid not to was flat-out intolerable. We were united.

    Then came the lobbyists.

    They started with the question, "What are you going to do about it?" And then we got split into market-based solutions (boycotts) and regulation, with neither side seeing eye-to-eye. Next, they tried to redefine "Net Neutrality." When we made it, what we meant by it was, "Don't hijack our web pages!" But they said "Neutrality? They want some kind of Communist equality! We can't use QoS any more or make our networks better!" And now, most people think in terms of their version of "Net Neutrality." They assume it's like the Fairness Doctrine and that it means the government would regulate the content of web pages or some other crap.

    Doesn't anyone else remember when this started? Before the lobbyists split this into a conservative/liberal issue? Back when we all agreed that having ISPs hijack popular websites unless bribed not to was a terrible thing?

    Because I do. And I feel like the only one.

    • wtf, dude? No link? Come on!

      Oh, wait, was it on one of those big web pages?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      You are not alone. I can say it was before 2006, when I wrote my Myths about Network Neutrality [mobydisk.com] article because already the idea was getting screwed-up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by brkello ( 642429 )

      This post is better than the article. Slashdot should just directly link to this post. Net Neutrality is something all Slashdot should just agree on.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Manchot ( 847225 )
        It was something all Slashdot agreed on until the Obama administration started pushing for it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dgreer ( 1206 )

      I completely remember this debate. And my feelings haven't changed from that day to this: If you let the Government get involved in this issue, in ANY way, you will live to regret it.

      What TWC and Verizon (the instigators of that roe as I recall) wanted to do was to charge large content providers (Google, Time, CNN, etc.) to have "priority" throughput on their networks. If they didn't pay, they'd be given a lower QoS and therefore, because of the number of requests to their servers, they would effectively

    • Don't worry, we know.  But constant education of the masses is required.

      It does take time, but after only a decade even ordinary people are starting to comprehend the undesireability of DRM.
  • Just a way for the government to cover-up aircraft experiments.

    "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one," Albert Einstein.

  • Yeah right... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Faw ( 33935 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @03:55PM (#32186626)

    that's exactly what THEY(1) want us to believe.

    (1) Replace with favorite conspiracy group (Illuminati, aliens, The Man,...)

  • Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore (Score:4, Informative)

    by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:01PM (#32186682) Homepage Journal

    The "Think Tank MBA" contest is not affiliated with any school or MBA program, but is run by a right-wing advocacy organization. The contestant in question is not even a student, but is an employee of another right-wing advocacy organization.

    To think, I used to read that moron's old blog. I guess I've grown up since then.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ScrumHalf ( 911476 )
      Really wishing I had mod points right now. Seriously, this is the truth of the matter, and it is missing in the story post. Then again, I hope this story of this hoax is a hoax of a hoax doesn't run tomorrow and generate them even more traffic.

  • I suggest a renaming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by simonbp ( 412489 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:01PM (#32186698) Homepage

    To "The Center for American Progress in Never Admitting That We Made a Silly Mistake Because Everything Bad Is The Fault of Lobbyists Who Are Not Us".

    I'd make one heck of business card...

  • the PowerPoint document was prepared as a class project for a competition in Florida last month. It cost the six students a grand total of $173.95, including $18 for clip art...the contestants spent all of $173.95 on the idea, including printing and $20 to register the .com and .org domain names.

    Wait... what? I made several power point presentations for classes. My budget for the presentation was always the same: zero dollars. I didn't even pay for the powerpoint I was using. How do you spend $18 on clipart?

  • Whew... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by divisionbyzero ( 300681 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @04:27PM (#32186942)

    As I said yesterday the content was laughably stupid. I actually was thinking that Think Progress had created it.

  • am glad they did not foret about poland.

  • Should read "Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Wasn't Real"

Slashdot Top Deals

"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira

Close