Secretive Funding Fuels Ongoing Net Neutrality Astroturfing Controversy 56
alphadogg writes: The contentious debate about net neutrality in the U.S. has sparked controversy over a lack of funding transparency for advocacy groups and think tanks, which critics say subverts the political process. News stories from a handful of publications in recent months have accused some think tanks and advocacy groups of "astroturfing" — quietly shilling for large broadband carriers. In a handful of cases, those criticisms appear to have some merit, although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning. An IDG News Service investigation found that major groups opposing U.S. Federal Communications Commission reclassification and regulation of broadband as a public utility tend to be less transparent about their funding than the other side. Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
rediculous (Score:1)
I think the notion that some people are trying to manipulate and subvert the net neutrality discussion is ludicrous. the idea that you could distract somebody from important issues by raising unrelated issues that catch their attention - absurd. Reminds me of the climate change debate. climate change is obviously manufactured to promote certain interests. The science just isn't there. Don't you agree?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a beowulf cluster of Bennett Haseltons feeding hot grits to Natalie Portman!
Are we done yet?
ISPs v. Content Producers (Score:3)
This is just ISPs v. Content Producers, each fighting over who can bribe Congress more. (Siding with content producers is basically everyone else who cares about the issue and has time or money to spend on it, which is probably less than 0.01% of everybody.)
Great (Score:2)
Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
And who exactly are they and where is your proof of their limited transparency mechanism? Do you have actual specifics or simply vague FUD?
We rate the groups here (Score:3, Informative)
Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.
And who exactly are they and where is your proof of their limited transparency mechanism? Do you have actual specifics or simply vague FUD?
We rate the groups based on objective measures in this story [networkworld.com].
Grant Gross
IDG News Service Washington correspondent
Re: (Score:2)
I would never, ever say that.
-- Grant
Re: (Score:3)
Here's how to attack true grass roots campaigns, make a PR=B$ claim about funding transparency ie how can you have funding transparency with a true grass roots campaign when there is no group funding, the hundreds of thousands of individuals are independent from each other beyond seeking the same outcome. The reality is net neutrality suits every other business other major ISPs looking to become internet 'Publishers', attempting to block all content distribution that does not pay them a significant percent
Mom.gov (Score:2)
Sometimes I wish the US had a government appointed Mother to deal with morons like these, incapable of not acting like little children. Yes, very clever, you gave Sally a cookie to say Jimmy has cooties so Jenny won't like him anymore. Well done.
The saddest part is..... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to the republic, citizen.
now stand aside and let your betters decide what is good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Comcast bring exciting products and unparalleled choices to customers across America with they're state-of-the-art video, high-speed Internet, phone and online services. They push the boundaries of innovation and creativity because we want to exceed our customers' expectations. I have XFINITY(R) High Speed Internet Service by Comcast and love XFINITY(R) High Speed Internet Service by Comcast and want to stop Big Government from interrupting new Internet experience inventions by great companies like Comcast
Re: (Score:1)
"We" saw what you did there.
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of people that genuinely oppose big government, but nobody likes Comcast. If given a choice, the people would prevent Comcast from having fast lanes, and unleash the rancor and krakken upon them simultaneously.
This is part of the problem of the Net Neutrality debate. There are no 'Fast lanes'. There is only what we have now and pothole-ridden dirt roads.
Re:The saddest part is..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Joking aside, the issue here that stands in the way of free market forces prevailing is the overwhelming cost of building the infrastructure required to compete on the same footing as established companies. If we had reasonable alternative ISP's we could vote with our dollars.
The reason telco's managing landlines were regulated so heavily is because they each get a slice of the infrastructure pie to provide their services on. Essentially a government mandated local monopoly, and thus the government dictates how much the telco can charge so that the telco cannot abuse their monopoly. This of course doesn't eliminate abuse nor guarantee that the rates are fair, but instead or the rates that the telco can convince the local officials are fair.
The benefits of this questionable arrangement are clear when you consider that the alternative is each company build its own duplicate infrastructure, which would result in poor under utilization of that infrastructure and result in higher costs passed on to consumers. Essentially this is why some want ISP's treated like utilities.
There are a handful of companies like Google who have the capital to build such infrastructures and bring competition to the table. Even in the presence of a true free market, companies often do not battle by providing competitive pricing, but instead find it more profitable to put money into advertising. If there are only two choices in an area, each will have a fair amount of people who are convinced by the advertising the X is better than Y, and then a fair amount of people who had a bad experience with X and so switched to Y. X and Y both charge way more than what it really costs to provide the service. They don't really have to coordinate price fixing, they simply come to the same conclusion after doing market research of what people are most likely to pay for service. Even if one has a slightly higher price than the other, the large profit margin will make up for the lost customers.
that and govt enforced monopolies. FTTH reduces co (Score:2)
Startup costs are certainly significant, though in certain areas over builders (competitors) have been able to install new fiber networks at a cost lower than incumbent is spending tearing out the legacy network and replacing it. Where the incumbent has copper, that gives them little advantage competing for fiber service.
The other side of the problem is that in most areas the local government has given the incumbent a franchise - a legally protected monopoly. It's tough to build a competing network when i
Re: (Score:2)
It's important to keep in mind that for the purposes of market theory, competition requires much more than 2 players. When Smith wrote about competition, he meant dozens of small businesses, each barely bigger than the customers they serve.
In the ISP market, this was briefly true in the dial-up days. It was effective enough to kill hourly rates and made $9/month a standard offer. This was possible because the barrier to entry was low. The massive infrastructure was already provided by a regulated natural mo
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to meet a single tech-savvy person that supports paid prioritization, even among conservatives. Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter.
I would support it IF there were a free market in the ISP space that allowed me to switch to providers who don't prioritize.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the dilemma for regulators. What do you do when the public is demanding something that is "bad for business" for the companies who have captured the regulatory body? OK listen, you folks down at the FCC, stop fucking waiting for Comcast's or AT&T's or any other company's permission to do what's right! We the people, don't give a shit what they have to say about it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a word or phrase for that, but I don't recall it now.
The problem is that most of the people you interact with are tech-savvy. You have an impression of how people would vote, but, in reality it is how a tiny slice of the population (tech-savvy people) would vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. Given the way the media consistently frames Net Neutrality the wrong way, it's impossible to know what non-tech people think of Net Neutrality. The local NPR station here had a panel discussion about Net Neutrality and even the people supporting it were misrepresenting it at times.
Re: (Score:1)
You must not get out much:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-... [market-ticker.org]
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-... [market-ticker.org]
These from a man who actually started and ran an ISP.
I'm "tech-savvy" as well, and I agree with what he writes on the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, meet me.
I support internet fast lanes "if" they can be implemented without slowing any other connection speeds down to below what the customer actually pays for. I also support QOS prioritization of VoIP traffic.
I also think net neutrality can be realized today by enforcement of existing laws and rules. When an ISP sells you service advertised at 10 megs or up to 10 megs, if they purposely and intentionally slow any part of it below that 10 megs, they are not delivering the goods sold to the consumer. A
Plutocracy: One Wolf Representing Two Sheep (Score:2)
The saddest part is..... (Score:1)
Even the debate is silly (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We had that. It was called the phone system.
All this crying about money is bullshit (Score:1)
You can always take the info at face value, or not. Who cares who says it? You simply do what is technically correct, and the problem sorts itself out. Now the problem with money is the people who take it have too much influence on policy. In a week and a half the Americans will have the great opportunity of cleaning their house of ALL the old rubbish, or just sweep it under the rug one more time. Then we will see what happens to net neutrality, amongst other things.. Unfortunately, I expect to see yet anot
Secret Funding Fuels Ongoing Political Controversy (Score:2)
There, fixed your headline for you.
Why should net neutrality be unique? (Score:2)
Wouldn't "critics say" that about a discussion of any other idea as well?
I also seem to recall, that the Slashdot crowd generally supports anonymous speech — indeed, the consensus is, we have a right to remain anonymous, while speaking [eff.org]...
Why wouldn't that same right extend to people talking (and spending money, which is the same thing [wikipedia.org]) in opposition to "net neutrality"? Why must they b
Re: (Score:1)
You may some good points, and we address a right to free speech in the main article.
I believe there is a right to anonymous speech, but when you're paying someone else to speak for you, and you're trying to influence the political process, that may be different.
An anonymous poster on Slashdot generally isn't trying to be something he's not. Anonymous speech online (or elsewhere) generally doesn't carry with it an air of credibility that advocacy groups and think tanks try to project.
I should also note that
Re: (Score:2)
As declared by the Supreme Court several times, money — spent on politics — is speech. "It may be different" as you say — as much as one person's speech may differ from that of another.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm a half step away from suggesting any law. And I'm quite amazed that you can infer my "sympathies" from a pretty balanced look at funding transparency.
And again, nothing I wrote takes away anyone's speech. Simply reporting that some groups are getting anonymous, or in most cases, poorly publicized contributions doesn't take away anonymous speech. No one's speech is getting restricted by shining a little light on the process.
Who are you? (Score:2)
"although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning"
Right. Says who?
A small group defending special interests, trying to create the impression of popular support, that's astroturfing. I bet the companies who do it hate how common the word has become, and how people have become familiar with the concept. I'm sure they would complain that it's "overused". I disagree, I think it could be used a lot more, and all internet forums with
Re: (Score:1)
As for the term "astroturfing" being overused, that's my analysis as a reporter who has covered D.C. tech policy for 12-plus years.
The term gets thrown around a lot and pinned on groups that disclose who funds them. Most of the 14 groups we included in our ratings of funding transparency would not fit a strict definition of astroturfers because they either disclose who funds them or they don't present themselves as grassroots organizations. If you disclose your funding, that almost disqualifies you from bei