Laying More Astroturf In the Net Neutrality Debate
from the carpet-the-world dept
Another astroturfing group has popped up in the net neutrality debate, backed by an amalgamation of telcos, political groups and network equipment vendors, and looking to frame the issue as one of unwanted government interference in the internet. Nothing notable there, but the animated movie the group has made is a real piece of work. The movie's hand-drawn look hides the fact that this production is paid for by a number of huge, interested parties in the telecom industry, and it goes on to make some fairly dishonest claims. First is the contention that consumers now have "more choice" when it comes to high-speed internet access, implying that there's healthy competition in the marketplace when all that really exists is a healthy duopoly. The group then hauls out the tired idea that content companies are looking for a free ride, saying that they don't want to pay "anything", and leave consumers to pay the whole bill -- a ridiculous contention. The movie implies that some part of the connection between content providers and consumers isn't being paid for, a common -- and absolutely untrue -- piece of telco propaganda. Also, if consumers are left to pay "the whole bill", as the movie says, should carriers' plans to extort content providers be unsuccessful, can consumers expect to see their bills drop if they do start extorting them? We didn't think so. The group also engages in some crafty semantics, saying that the only examples neutrality supporters can point to of ISPs blocking "web sites" are from Canada, which conveniently omits the multiple examples of American ISPs blocking VoIP, streaming media and other services, as well as ignores comments from ISPs who think they should be able to block any competing services they wish on their networks. The biggest problem, though, is in the conclusion of the movie, which says the issue of net neutrality comes down to who will control the internet -- the people, or the government. This is pretty laughable, since should telcos and carriers be allowed to discriminate against content providers that won't pay protection money, they'll be the ones controlling the internet -- certainly not "the people".
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is really getting annoying
All this is about is a case of the telecoms trying to make certain people/companies pay for the same bandwidth twice. Today it is the Internet companies; tomorrow it will be the consumers.
I'm sure someone in this thread will bring up the tired excuse that the telecoms didn't expect me to use the full bandwidth that I was given. Well, if they didn't expect me to use it, then they shouldn't have sold it to me. No one forced Bellsouth to sell me DSL at the price and speed they did. They could have charged whatever they wanted to charge for whatever speed they wanted.
I am so sick of the wining about people using the bandwidth and clogging the telecom’s pipes. The truth is that if they can't handle the traffic at those levels then they shouldn't be selling it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Astroturfing both ways
You could say that the people who echoed that message were *authentic* unthinking puppets, but from what I've been able to dig up, people are being pushed around by themes on both sides of the issue... haven't seen anyone focus on one specific regulation we might or might not need. Everybody's all mom&applePie both ways.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Astroturfing both ways
Hmm. Really? While I don't agree with MoveOn's position in this, we and plenty of others were talking about net neutrality LONG before they showed up a month or so ago.
Hell, we first used the phrase "network neutrality" in 2004, and have used it many many times since. It's not an issue created by MoveOn in any way, but one they picked up on lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Astroturfing both ways
From what I see myself, it looks like there's bigtime astroturfing going on around the whole issue, not just on a single side of the issue. Charges of apostasy are rife. Give me the creeps, those tactics do. :(
Tell you what, do a search on "'network neutrality' 'fenton communications'", then check on the latter phrase alone. These folks are programmers -- not of code or of content, but of audiences. I fear this conversation has been gamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Astroturfing both ways
Folks at Techdirt may well have advocated price-controls on connectivity before, but I was referring to the sudden vast spike in conversation and media coverage that arrived the weekend after the MoveOn chainmail.
Price controls? Please explain. When did we advocate price controls on connectivity? Also, I disagree that there was a huge spike after MoveOn got involved. There was plenty of talk before they got involved, and I think it's wrong to say that the interest now is because of their involvement. Much of the interest came last year when the Bells all started making public statements about making Google pay.
Is it likely that corporations on both sides of the debate have gotten involved? Absolutely, but to claim that the interest is entirely because of astroturfing is 100% bogus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Astroturfing both ways
BUT REALLY????
And I was so convinced that the basis of the network neutrality were laid down back in the time that Internet was being designed and implemented, a rule that, at the time, was called "end-to-end principle" (Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark, End-to-end arguments in system design, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2, 4 (November 1984), pages 277-288)...
How dumb was I!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Astroturfing both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enough already....
sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: enough already....
Look, you are going to pay for your content, one way or another. You might pay higher prices for song downloads, or you might pay for faster broadband speeds. Its just a matter of who you pay that extra amount to.
Free doesn't exist. TV was "free" except for the fact that you were forced to watch advertising that paid for the programming. Everything was nice and good, and then VCR's and TiVo and 499 channels that fragmented the market and allowed users to skip ads, and guess what? Programming went to crap. We end up with 4 channels of Law and Order and multitudes of reality shows. Someone somewhere has to pay for services, its just a matter of who or how you pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough already....
I think alot of the difficulty that the Telco's have stems from the they are trying to be like the old media empires. Newspapers, TV, Radio, Movies - all of these are traditionally one way communication, with very little consumer comment other than wether it is purchased or not.
What they fail to realize is that they are more like roads. Traffic flows both ways, and anybody can make an exit anywhere. The limitations in the system are rate based not quantity, or quality. Heck I'd say that could be why we get the crap we get now because the focus is on hitting the boardest audience for maximum dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough already....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough already....
Get a clue. Programming went to crap long, _long_ before any of the stuff you're yammering about came to pass.
I misremember exactly who said it when, but IIRC it wass pre-1970: "television is called a 'meduim'. That's appropriate, because it is neither rare, nor well-done.
Correlation does not equate to causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough already....
That's right. Free doesn't exist. The telcos are already paid for the connection. ISPs pay telcos for the bandwidth for their clients (Unless they are the telco. Nice arrangement there) and companies and consumers pay the ISP for their bandwidth and domain names.
Essentially, you're paying for an IP address. You pay extra if you want it to not change, and to give it a pretty name. You also pay a little more if you want some files hosted on a server somewhere.
Who said the Internet was free, again?
And just because the ads are being skipped doesn't mean programming goes down the hole. Ads are still paying for the programming, whether or not they're watched. The ad companies may get more desperate and offer their ads to more programs, but the programs themselves still have to be on a channel.
(This means the channel's bigwigs decide on the programming for that channel, not the ads, and not the programs themselves. Usually this means that shows that people watch are put on the air, and sad to say it, people WATCH Law and Order, and the reality shows. Sucks, doesn't it? Oh, wait, that's right. We have the 498 other channels we can watch if we don't like what's being shown on that one. Nevermind.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonderful
Who funds politicians campaigns all too often? Big businesses who can't compete.
Wonderful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a debate?
Telcos: Big pile of lies
Consumers and content providers: You're full of it.
And it ended there, of course, politicians aren't part of either group, and consumer lobbying groups are generally underfunded compared to big business, so we can only hope the content provider types like Microsoft and Google are lobbying hard enough to eventually settle this for good in the consumer's favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Strategies Washington
"...a full-service government relations and lobbying firm..."
He also works for Grassroots Enterprise that works for
"...corporations, trade associations, nonprofit organizations, and industry coalitions..."
Not "the people" we are led to believe!-.
See this post for more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting themselves in the foot....
The analogy is not precise, unlike studios the content proviers make their money directly off the consumers instead of from the ISPs. But the point I am trying to make is still valid.
Without Google, eBay, Yahoo, P2P, streaming video, ect..., the internet is pretty much useless. At the very least people arn't going to need their high speed internet anymore. I know if they start choking P2P I'm going to lower my plan.
The telcos are aiming the gun at themselves and they can't even see it. If anything they should be PAYING Google and all the rest for making the internet more usefull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you don't think KnightRider wasn't great doesn't mean they didn't have good ratings. With only 3 choices, it worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Propaganda
Hitler used similar brainwashing techniques in the Media to convince the German population that Jews were moneygrubbing, long nosed, child molesters.
Its nice to see that 50 years later the spirit of propaganda lives on in the hearts and minds of the large corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow! Fiber to the home "soon"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
turf both ways
I don't mind if a cartoon explains one party's point of view. If the cartoon contains factual errors then these can be pointed out.
I get a little scared when I wake up one day and lots of people are suddenly talking about "the internet's first amendment", and lobbying for US-specific legislation which no one has seen and read.
Saying that all the astroturfing is only done by "telebastards" and pulling out genocidal socialist rulers doesn't hold up, from what I see... people are being manipulated on both sides of the issue. That's a clue to me that the decision itself should not be centralized.
(btw, I still recommend some research on David Fenton... he's the key to sudden explosions in public commentary like this.)
(Mike wrote: "to claim that the interest is entirely because of astroturfing is 100% bogus." That's a straw man, a digression... wasn't claimed. "Price control" is the nut of any proposed political control.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governmental control
If they really oppose governmental control, then how about promoting a true level playing field where internet communications don't have to pass through the entrenched telephone operating companies or community-franchised cable companies?
This is an attempt to remove governmental controls that the court has struck down at the FCC (which only remain in place temporarily until the issue reaches final judicial resolution.) If these controls are not replaced legislatively when they disappear at the FCC, the telcos and cable companies will own the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P
CCIPTV Live Podcaster, typical of new P2P Live Podcaster, can realize the function of podcasting, sending the local audio and video files and signals from television card, compression card, collection card, PC camera, microphone to the Internet, which makes you to set up your own Internet TV station only on a common PC. Meanwhile, this software can play such formats as rm、rmvb、mpeg、mpg、mpeg4、avi、wmv、wma、mp3、DVD and even transit all the Internet TV programs of different formats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our system applies P2P Streaming Media Core technology. This technology is a cheap and high efficient streaming media transmitting technology. Under P2P system, not all users will download data from the servers. Users will also share data among each other. Therefore, when number of user increases, the server load and bandwidth usage won’t be sharply increased and this helps to reduce the server and bandwidth requirements.
Normal Streaming Media server can support 300 hundred users to watch 300Kbps movie at the same time. With the same server hardware and bandwidth, CCIPTV Live Server Professional can support more than 10,000 users.
Functions
P2P Streaming Media Core Technology, reduce server hardware and bandwidth requirements
Our system applies P2P Streaming Media Core technology. This technology is a cheap and high efficient streaming media transmitting technology. It fully utilizes the users’ idle upload bandwidth to help servers to distribute media data. Under P2P system, not all users will download data from the servers. Users will also share data among each other. Therefore, when the number of user increases, the server load and bandwidth usage won’t be sharply increased and this helps to reduce the server and bandwidth requirements.
Support multiple file formats and different media capture mode
Capture and Push system support rm, rmvb, mpeg, mpg, mpeg4, avi, wmv, wma and mp3…etc file formats. They also support TV capture card, compression card, capture card, web cam and microphone.
Intellective re-connection after disconnection, adopting complex and unstable environment
To the problem of complex net environment and intermittent disconnection etc., the system developed relevant module, which can re-connect after disconnection and identify network status intellectively to ensure the system stability.
Player can be opened in a web page link
Player can be opened by clicking the web page's URL, which provides enough exerting space for developer. They can process logging in and charging etc. on the web page.
System Structure
Our system includes three parts:
1. CCIPTV Push
2. CCIPTV Live Server
3. CCIPTV Player (CCIPTV Live Podcaster)
CCIPTV CCIPTV Push collects TV programs recorded from different ways with different sources and pushes the data to CCIPTV Live Server. After buffering, CCIPTV Live Server will distribute data to each client -- CCIPTV Live Podcaster. Because our system is based on P2P technology, clients can redistribute data to each other. Therefore, server-side network traffic can be sharply reduced.
1. CCIPTV Push
CCIPTV Push can collect data from TV card, compression card, capture card, web cam, microphone, local media files and stream the collected data out to CCIPTV Live Server. It supports rm, rmvb, mpeg, mpg, mpeg4, avi, wmv, wma, mp3, DVD… file formats.
2. CCIPTV Live Server Professional Edition
CCIPTV server professional edition is an edition for common web server. It supports single server P2P Streaming Media broadcasting services and all capturing functions of CCIPTV Live Podcaster. Using CCIPTV Server Professional edition, the TV supervisor can build up on-line live channels which can support more than ten thousand people at the same time.
3. CCIPTV Player (CCIPTV Live Podcaster)
CCIPTV Live Podcaster is the player of our podcasting system, can be used to play and redistribute media data. Users are required to install the player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]