Anti-Net Neutrality Propaganda Reaches Insane Levels With Bad Actors And Porn Parody
from the doesn't-even-make-sense dept
There's been plenty of propaganda concerning the net neutrality fight, but with FCC boss Tom Wheeler finally making it official that the FCC is going to move to reclassify broadband, it's kicked into high gear of ridiculousness. An astroturfing front group that's anti-net neutrality is trying to make a "viral" anti-net neutrality video, and it did so in the most bizarre way, by making an attempted parody porno video, based on the classic "cable guy" porno trope. The video is sorta SFW, since the "joke" is that "the government" stops the homeowner from getting naked with the cable guy, but people at work might still question what the hell you're watching:Next up, we've got a not quite as bad, but still cringe-worthy attempt by CTIA, the lobbying arm of the mobile operators, which has been arguing that mobile broadband shouldn't be covered by the new net neutrality rules (a fight it appears it has lost), posting a ridiculously poorly acted "shill in the street interview" video, in which really bad actors pretend to be average people answering questions about their mobile service. It's clearly scripted, given the overexaggerated reactions and stilted dialog. The funniest bit comes in the first "interview" where this bad actor (who looks like a DC lobbyist) in a DC lobbyist video claims, "Well, Washington isn't actually known for its next-gen thinking, now is it?" No, "real person," it's not.
Of course, the video doesn't show that at all. And of course, putting wireless under Title II doesn't mean any of those things. In fact, it could mean more choices and lower fees. But who needs details when you have "real" shills in the street?
Finally, we've got an infographic from another front group, called "Mobile Future," whose staffers just happen to include former CTIA and US Telecom Association employees (coincidence, I'm sure). The infographic pretends to show how startups will be hindered by Title II, because now companies can (they claim) take your startup to the FCC to have your service declared unlawful, and you'll have to hire telecom lawyers, and no VC will fund you. Here's a snippet:
The simple fact is that net neutrality rules help startups. Startups aren't going to have to hire a lawyer to go to the FCC because these are rules for broadband providers, not the services built on top of the broadband. The infographic is pure FUD from an astroturf group acting like sore losers.
I imagine we'll continue to see more of this kind of propaganda, but the laughably bad quality of it all just goes to show how incredibly desperate they've become.
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
Filed Under: astroturf, net neutrality, parody, propaganda
Companies: ctia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As long as they're going to make stupid, wrong arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As long as they're going to make stupid, wrong arguments
Wheeler's conflict-of-interest isn't reassuring, either. Let's see how he gets legislation passed and ends up CEO of an ISP somewhere after his FCC stint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As long as they're going to make stupid, wrong arguments
1: Internet "Fast Lanes" need to be stopped.
This is the funniest piece of propaganda perpetuated by the pro-government mouth breathers. Basically Netflix didn't want to spend their own money to build up the infrastructure they needed to satisfy their data usage requirements. So they came up with this little gem which essentially would make it illegal for customers like Netflix to spend their own money to upgrade their connection to their ISP's. The only thing that would actually change in this idiotic scenario is that the ISP would be forced to pay for it. Since they obviously wouldn't do this, the end result for the user would be a slower Internet.
2: The US has slow Internet speeds.
Another idiotic talking point. If you look at the countries ahead of the USA on the list of countries with the fastest Internet, you'll see the largest of these countries are smaller than the state of California. Now, if you look at how much money has actually been spent by US firms building up the Internet, it's absolutely dwarfs second place.
3: Without government action, there would be no more net neutrality.
This is priceless. There is absolutely ZERO proof this would happen. None..Zilch..Zippo..Nada.. Net Neutrality is actually an industry standard and there is no evidence that this will change. That didn't stop comedian John Oliver from making this point in the video proponents of government action have been spewing all over the Internet.
The reality is, the Internet isn't broken. People promoting this were told this would screw telcos and that's all they needed to hear. The rest of the "reasons" for regulation are all ridiculous and easily shot down with minimal effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As long as they're going to make stupid, wrong arguments
OK it's pretty clear you already know this is all bullshit but for anyone else reading:
So they came up with this little gem which essentially would make it illegal for customers like Netflix to spend their own money to upgrade their connection to their ISP's.
This isn't about Netflix having to pay their ISP to deliver content to me. It's about making them pay my ISP to deliver content to me, when both I and Netflix have already paid for the bandwidth once.
If you look at the countries ahead of the USA on the list of countries with the fastest Internet, you'll see the largest of these countries are smaller than the state of California.
Maybe you're OK with slow internet just because the US is big, or sparse, but personally I would like to see improvement.
Now, if you look at how much money has actually been spent by US firms building up the Internet, it's absolutely dwarfs second place.
If you look at how much money they have been given to build up infrastructure, yes. But they have taken that money and then not used it on infrastructure. And for some reason also not made to give it back.
There is absolutely ZERO proof this would happen.
Other than all the times it's already happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read Hustler for the political commentary.
Now, I watch porno for to educate myself on socio-technological issues.
But if I really want to watch people get f*cked, I have click over to C-SPAN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hey, we know you download stuff, but we'll keep that to ourselves if you just support our efforts to keep the government out of our business so we can charge you more for less..."
That doesn't seem like something the ISPs would come out and actually say, even if it's nominally true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
aka
"Nice Internet you've got there! It'd be a shame if it got broken, wouldn't it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that second video is so obviously and monumentally staged and SCRIPTED, both presenter AND "random" public....i just dont think theirs a big enough face palm for that..........i know what their TRYING to do, imitate amateur youtube bloggers you sometimes see interviewing folks of the public, except the biggest reason i watch youtube bloggers and over msm these days, IS the unproffesionalism, im sick and tired of seing staged and scripted profesionalism when what i want to see an actual varied opinion on the random dude or duddette you ask to interview........that video was just cringe worthy, and seing who funded it, i cant stop imagining a room full of old guard cigar smoking rich folk demanding their assistant to hire some company to create a video to appeal to the young punk kids of this generation, how dare they have to make us workef harder then we demand too, young punks........here, my assistant, heres a wad of cash, shuu, shuh make this problem go away
That video was bordering on the wrong side of pathetic, the fact it was made by LOBBY group with a questionable agenda, makes it even worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll donate...
...a few bodily substances!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem here is with some people's worls view.
While my brother is good about parroting those views, he is not good at listening. He claims this is just another Obamacare attack on the American people. What can I do to counteract this view that short and pithy and doesn't require a lot of explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
that is the problem of the elephant in the living room: authoritarians...
approx 25% of ANY population will be comprised of authoritarians; THEY are the impediments to citizen actions, they are the quislings and non-thinkers who comprise the not-so-silent minority who can be depended upon to support the status quo/leadership NO MATTER WHAT...
this is NOT a joke: if the authoritarians Big Daddy says 'hate/kill XYZ!', they will hate/kill XYZ, NO QUESTIONS ASKED...
the horrifying aspect is, if Big Daddy says THE NEXT DAY 'love/protect XYZ!', the followers will turn on a dime WITHOUT QUESTION and now love XYZ...
there is NO 'logic', there is NO 'reasoning', there is NO 'greater good for the greatest number', it is ALL about doing whatever Big Daddy says UNCRITICALLY...
in short, THERE IS NO REASONING with authoritarians...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
Hopefully the pro net neutrality side will counter these videos with hundreds of real grass roots videos mocking the isp's and the lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
In other words, just give up on talking about these types of topics with him as all it's going to do is brew bad blood between the two of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
Uh, yeah they have:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
1. The actual rule is 8 pages, not 332. The rest of the pages are the official response to the 4 million comments, as required by law: https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnFCC/status/563745632838369280
2. I agree that the FCC *should* release the rule before the vote, but notice that those calling for it now never did so before, and the FCC has always acted this way. I'd love it if the FCC was more transparent about its rules, but this talking point being raised now is totally disingenuous. Note that Ajit Pai hasn't ever called for this before. And if he's still on the commission when the GOP is in charge, let's see if he still calls for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
There are better ways to meet the goals of NN without resorting to government control.
The first is for there to be more competition among ISPs. You won't throttle a site if their customers can just abandon your service and go to your competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
Most people here seem to agree, real competition would be the ideal way to handle the situation, as it's hard to get away with underhanded tricks if the customer can just go elsewhere, but that competition is not happening currently, and between the price to set up and pushing past protectionist laws against any new ISP's setting up shop in an area, it's not likely to happen any time soon.
As such, while having the FCC step in and crack some heads may not be ideal, it's likely the best we can expect currently, and hopefully more competition will appear in the following years, from Google fiber and others following their example, and that should take care of most of the more obvious problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
What are you going to do, boycott the internet? Let me know how that works out...I'll wait for you to go to the public library to let us know. I hope you don't run any sort of modern business, because by taking yourself offline you pretty much took yourself out of business.
I hate this sort of logic. It's like saying that we should remove all regulation from the banking industry and Wall Street, because we don't want that dirty government interfering with our money. Guess what? The government pulled back banking regulations...and look how well that turned out.
Competition can only exist when everyone is playing by the same rules. This is common sense, and why "free market capitalism" doesn't work in real life. It's why we have referees in sports and don't assume everyone is going to play by the rules just because they know them.
It's an irrelevant point anyway. The FCC wouldn't be regulating the "internet." They'd be regulating ISPs. There's a difference. One is the FCC saying that AT&T isn't allowed to prevent you from calling someone with your phone because they're on a different network. The other is the FCC regulating what you say. The FCC has never done the latter for phones, and I have no idea why people would somehow magically think that applying a subset of those rules to the internet would change things.
It's a fallacy to reject an argument based on its source, and way too many people are doing that because Obama and the government are involved.
You need more of a solution than "there needs to be X". These things don't just happen by themselves. If you don't have a method for causing ISPs to compete, there is no reason to believe the current situation will change. Preventing abuse and fraud are exactly the what the government should be doing, not all this other crap we have them doing. The fact that so many people don't want to allow one of the primary functions of government boggles my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which goes to show that the public is not divided on this issue.
Kinda gives me a warm fuzzy feeling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The CTIA Video
I'm amazed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The CTIA Video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The CTIA Video
Nope, it's gone. I expect mine will be deleted too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Said the telcos. Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first video is accurate in one respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Data?
Probably T-Mobile. I see what you're saying, but by "data" he probably means his arbitrary data cap, not the bandwidth he's already paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disinformation Reformation
Of course, I also wonder why it is perfectly legal that companies can lie about anything, including their products and services and suffer no consequences at all.
Was there never any laws against such bad behaviour?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flag the videos...
2. Select Spam/Misleading and then under the drop down box select Misleading.
3. In the additional details section type whatever you want or just say that they're Paid Telco Shills.
I'm sure Google will gladly agree with your flag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flag the videos...
That's intended for reporting videos where the title or thumbnail image doesn't match the video, not for misleading content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flag the videos...
The titles contradict the content of the videos and therefore are in fact misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flag the videos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No net neutrality = more freedom for telco's
that is all the simplification you need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What cases?
Because, clearly, staunch opponents of this bureaucratic powergrab, such as Nick Gillespie, for instance, are bought and paid for by the telecom giants.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/26/net-neutrality-dont-let-the-fcc-control
I found all kinds of errors in it before I even got halfway through. I have no idea if he's a shill or not but I don't need to know to judge the quality of his argument. I'll let other readers judge for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is false. The courts have ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to do this *under Section 706* as it has tried to do. What the ruling in the Verizon case last year said was that they absolutely *do* have the authority to put in place such rules if broadband were classified under Title II. So you're wrong.
Not a day goes by without the authors bitching about the actions of unaccountable government agencies, yet when one does something that jibes with their politics, it's all well and good.
It's got nothing to do with "our politics" but with reality. We said, quite clearly, that there are better solutions to this than giving the FCC such power, but that none of those are legitimately on the table. We said that this is the best of a bad set of options.
But all the FUD you hear about a "powergrab" is ridiculous. The rules are pretty straightforward and just talk about stopping any unfair and discriminatory practices. How is that a powergrab?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]