Provided without comment:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
That's exactly why we all have gigabit fiber connections here in SF and across the entire
Silicon Valley. Thank You Telephants!
Mike
Thanks! This is nothing new for him. There's astroturf from
him going back to '08 on NANOG.
Remember when he was shilling for ITIF -- a "think tank" whose
board was then co-chaired by conservative congress-critters and
dominated by corporate governmental affairs (nee lobbyists)?
Personally, I don't get it.
To mock the Brett Glass Google obsession (PK.EFF, Susan Crawford etc) - as
I do - while casting aspersions on Bennett and the ITIF, is hypocrisy.
Astroturfing - defined as paid spoofing of grass roots support for a
position - definitely exists, and is heavily practiced by Telecom
incumbents, but Bennett isn't it. There is no way he is "grass roots".
He is a pundit, an advocate, arguably a shill, but astroturf, no.
j
Astroturfing exists on both sides of the political spectrum but as far as I
can see, like Joly says, Bennett doesn't astroturf.
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router
if it bit them, so there's enough FUD to spare all over.
i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior clue and i'm finding my imagination lacking.
$friday.
The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and
add professors of law to this already toxic mix)
So what you're saying is that the debate is in total violation of
RFC1925, section 4? 
5 too. Agglutinating multiple separate problems into a single complex title
2 regulation solution
Enough hot air driven thrust is being generated to ensure porcine aviation
too, as section 3 assures us.
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a
router
if it bit them ...i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company
officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior clue
and i'm finding my imagination lacking.
Oh, they're out there. Not every company can be
so lucky as to have an awesome corporate general
counsel, but I've gotta say, they do exist; I'm
amazingly lucky to have a corporate general
counsel who is technically savvy, genuinely
personable, incredibly smart, and one of the
nicest people you'll ever meet.
#shamless plug
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2014/03/14/at-yahoo-ron-bell-stood-up-for-users-privacy.html?page=all
Matt
This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes an organization.
Groups like Free Press are arguably astroturf because of their funding and collaboration with commercial interests, but even if you buy the blogger's claim that AEI is taking orders from Comcast (which it isn't), it doesn't pretend to be speaking for the grassroots. After 76 years in operation, people engaged in public policy have a very clear idea of the values that AEI stands for, and the organization goes to great lengths to firewall fundraising from scholarship. AEI's management grades itself in part on being fired by donors, in part; this is actually a goal.
The thing I most like about AEI is that it doesn't take official positions and leaves scholars the freedom to make up their own minds and to disagree with each other. Although we do tend to be skeptical of Internet regulation, we're certainly not of one mind about what needs to be regulated and who should do it. AEI is a real think thank, not an advocacy organization pretending to be a think tank.
The article is riddled with factual errors that I've asked Esquire to correct, but it has declined, just as it declined to make proper corrections to the blogger's previous story alleging the FCC had censored 500,000 signatures from a petition in support of Title II. See: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality?fb_comment_id=fbc_734581913271304_735710019825160_735710019825160#f35206a395cd434
The blogger came to my attention when he was criticized on Twitter by journalists who support net neutrality for that shoddy piece of sensationalism; see the dialog around this tweet: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/489212137773215744
The net neutrality debate astonishes me because it rehashes arguments I first heard when writing the IEEE 802.3 1BASE5 standard (the one that replaced coaxial cable Ethernet with today's scalable hub and spoke system) in 1984. Even then some people argued that a passive bus was more "democratic" than an active hub/switch despite its evident drawbacks in terms of cable cost, reliability, manageability, scalability, and media independence. Others argued that all networking problems can be resolved by throwing bandwidth at them and that all QoS is evil, etc. These talking points really haven't changed.
The demonization of Comcast is especially peculiar because it's the only ISP in the US still bound by the FCC's 2010 Open Internet order. It agreed to abide by those regulations even if they were struck down by the courts, which they were in January. What happens with the current Open Internet proceeding doesn't have any bearing on Comcast until its merger obligations expire, and its proposed merger with TWC would extend them to a wider footprint and reset the clock on their expiration.
Anyhow, the blogger did spell my name right, to there's that.
RB
Now, this is astroturfing.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality
So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch.
It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising networks.
Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor:
"A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has reported <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones version of their service without charging customers for the data.
"It is not clear whether operators receive a fee <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia."
Internet Freedom? Not so much.
RB
Individuals can be paid shills though.
-Dan
I prefer the term "poopy head" because it's so much more sophisticated.
RB
Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt
that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out
against NN at the last minute.
The EFF did recently address the issue.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide
<quote>
However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services.
Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing
countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to
walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the
development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for
decades to come.
Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or
billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have access to
anything else, Facebook *is* the Internet. On such an Internet, the task of
filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes so much easier, and the
potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers to roll out their own
innovative online services using local languages and content is severely
curtailed.
Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen the
digital divide. But do you know what most
<http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/more-competition-essential-for-future-of-mobile-innovation.htm>
stakeholders <http://a4ai.org/policy-and-regulatory-best-practices/> agree
<http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/27.aspx> is a
better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition—which we
can foster through rules that reduce the power of
telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and
applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where
competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules against
clearly impermissible practices like website blocking.
</quote>
It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that
net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money
from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of
super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most
profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line
retailers, and advertising networks.
I've got to say, this is the first time I've heard Verizon and Comcast
described as "poor and disadvantaged".
Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when
that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who
provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to
Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor:
[...]
Internet Freedom? Not so much.
I totally agree. You can't have Internet Freedom when some of the richest
and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line
retailers, and advertising networks, are paying to have eyeballs locked into
their services. Far better that users be given an opportunity to browse the
Internet free of restriction, by providing reasonable cost services through
robust and healthy competition.
Or is that perhaps not what you meant?
- Matt
"Without comment" being a load of crap, as the subject is comment.
Because when I think integrity, I think sock puppets.
I think he meant the actual poor people that broadband subsidies and free
walled garden internet to access only fb and Wikipedia are supposed to
benefit, but I could be wrong
I've got a whopping great big privilege that's possibly obscuring my view,
but I fail to see how only providing access to Facebook and Wikipedia is (a)
actual *Internet* access, or (b) actually beneficial, in the long run, to
anyone other than Facebook and Wikipedia. I suppose it could benefit the
(no doubt incumbent) telco which is providing the service, since it makes it
much more difficult for competition to flourish. I can't see any lasting
benefit to the end user (or should I say "product"?).
- Matt