Forget Astroturf, Fake Net Neutrality Commenters Popping Up Like Weeds
from the getting-silly dept
It's no secret that the net neutrality "debate" (on which neither side seems to be willing to address the real issue concerning competition) has become a high stakes game involving huge corporate interests pretending to stir up grassroots support for their position. Given the popularity of blogs, it's no surprise that the astroturf efforts would jump on blogs as a way to spread their fake grassroots messages -- but what may be most interesting is how some of these efforts seem to stick out. While some have taken to actively pointing out some of the questionable comments while wondering about who's paying them, what's more interesting is how various bloggers seem to almost immediately realize what's going on. In the last week, we've seen bloggers at IP Inferno and The Technology Liberation Front both become curious about some odd comments on their previous network neutrality posts. The comments are all against network neutrality regulation, no matter what the original blog's position is -- and all ring extremely hollow. None add anything substantive. All use silly usernames that almost appear to be someone trying too hard to blend in. To be honest, it's not at all surprising that some PR firm or whatever would think it's a good idea to waste money hiring people to do this -- but it's really impressive just how bad they are at it, and just how easy it is to spot the comments.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
The truth is..
Prof. Vertrauenswürdig
Institute of Demographics, Information Online Taskforce
(IDIOT)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth is..
There will be NO future growth of the internet if this two-tiered net is put in place. the higher tier will simply take up more and more room on the net, until the lower tier is completely gone. At which point, a third tier will be put in place to re-re-prioritize traffic.
It's arguments like yours that truly confuse the public into thinking they are truly doing the right thing by saying no to regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny same people both blogs
-Mitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seen it
http://www.nyquistcapital.com/2006/05/10/astroturfing-on-my-site/
I hate the idea of net neutrality legislation, but this covert posting nonsense is uncalled for regardless of which side engages in it.
I don't like anonymity of the internet, and this is one reason why. There should be a trusted option so when someone posts as "george gilder" or "jim cramer" you know it is the _real_ guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seen it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way off base o nthis one
Vote against Net Neutrailty.
:) LOL. (jk)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matter-of-fact, I was recently discussing just this issue with my close fried, Seymour Buttz, and we both agreed that network neutrality is essential to continued unimpeded growth of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fiber to homes
have fiber running thru every neigborhood due to digital cable TV.
All that is needed is coax to the homes to carry the
same thing a coax DS3 carries .
http://www.justtoolkits.com/80165.html
Here it is seen that a single coax channel on CATV can carry 6 mhz and that is what is typically used for a cable modem, Just one channel .
http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/history/topic/483033-1.html
If a multi-channel scheme like a DS3 was used which is
28 DS0's at 64kbps each, much more bandwidth could
be achieved . Some speed would be used for channel
control of course.
For rural areas deploy WiFi to water/cell towers and
tall objects and call it done, done as a Coop they
could file as a not for profit and dodge lots of fees
and get massive write offs on costs .
Most rural farmers are familiar with coops and if they
had total control over it would be more likely to trust
it as well .
With VoIP over their Coop ISP they could save a lot
on long distance and you can bet the newly reforming
AT&T re-monopoly will be buying congress critters
like there is no tomorrow .
Duane Navarre
duanenavarre@yahoo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ill informed
Also, a DS-3 is 28 DS-1 (commonly known as a T-1, about a meg and a half) and not DS-0's (which is 64kbs). In your example you would use a clear channel DS-3 which has no TDM whatsover. That is if it could work in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...adding noise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...adding noise...
I read a net neutrality debate on Cynthia's site (IP Democracy) between a Wharton professor and a USC professor on the topic and the more I read, the less I could see in terms of how they were actually opposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Course, maybe if you send me the book, that will explain it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The debate is confused...And it's partly our fault
What we don't want:
1) Google and others to be "shook down" by the now monopolistic big telcos, in a sort of mob-like insurance scam "pay us, or we degrade your packets".
2) Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, who would end up paying the "premium routing" fee now having priority over everyone else, making it difficult to compete with *them*.
3) The telcos to become the content providers by offering sub-par content, but traffic-shaping everything around them to make it the only content that "works".
The solution isn't uninhibited neutrality. The network already isn't neutral, it's "best effort" but managed. And it will be more "managed" as new technology allows.
Some examples: caching proxies, throttling of a spammer's e-mail, or a botnet, dynamically cutting off a user's virus/malware infected Windows box.
Accounting for "non-evil" network management in a neutrality bill will introduce loop-holes by which big-telecom will send their shiny suits out to argue in front of a jury of 12 non-techies that they are in compliance. Unfortunately, our lawmakers aren't creative enough to codify all of the possible gray areas. This is made worse by the pace at which technology moves vs. the pace at which congress moves (lightning vs. the dead snale stuck under big rock in the middle of the desert).
The DMCA, COPA and the CDA were all solutions to "internet problems" via regulation. Who doesn't want to protect young children from porn, or encourage folks to purchase, rather than pirate, an artist's work?
Of course, the tech community knew when the first draft of those bills was printed that the unintended consequences would be *vast*. And they are.
sagecast's statements bear repeating: "... Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It's the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What [the big telcos] really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws..."
That's the center of the issue. It's not that we necessarily need a new regulation enforcing "net neutrality", it's that we need to stop the big telcos from rewriting existing regulations in a way that lets them find new revenue streams by going traffic shaping crazy.
But on our end, we need to stop talking about such a complex issue in two word market-speak. Such a simplistic definition does not make the non-geeks amongst us understand the problem any better. And the geeks amongst us are being confused into thinking that issue *is* simplistice and doesn't require a little thought.
--
...For disclosure: I am employed by a telco (though, not "them"). I don't know what my company's feelings are on this topic, and do not speak on their behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net neutrality
The Verizon website offers 3 speeds using FTTP (fiber to the premises - their acronym) but near as I can tell it was just for internet; the Verizon guy said they'd be offering internet, cable tv and phone service over it.
And a friend in Kansas already has all that via ComCast. So some of them are doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Net neutrality
What Verizon is offering is nowhere near what they promised to get the subsidies. It's a much more limited version of fiber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rent-a-shill
see:
forumposters.org
theforumfairy.com
Grassroots support for mere pennies a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]