Telecom Industry Feebly Tries To Deflate Net Neutrality Protest With Its Own, Lame 'Unlock The Net' Think Tank Campaign
from the black-is-white,-up-is-down dept
With this week's net neutrality protests being joined by the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Reddit and hundreds of startups and small companies, the cable and broadcast industry appears to be getting a little nervous. So far they've had a relatively easy time convincing FCC boss Ajit Pai to not only dismantle the rules, but to blatantly ignore the massive public support the rules enjoy. Pai's even turned a blind eye as somebody used a bot to stuff the agency's public comment system with bogus support for the telecom industry's horrible idea.
The media coverage of this week's protest risks popping the narrative bubble that there's significant support for killing net neutrality. So the telecom-industry funded think tank FreedomWorks apparently came up with an ingenious plan to launch, well, something that kind of looks vaguely like a counter protest:
FreedomWorks and other free market groups launch https://t.co/MuluUxOaRA. #FreetheNet #TitleII #NetNeutrality #TCOT https://t.co/S5LhSLjziA pic.twitter.com/sEJKxzv7LY
— FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) July 6, 2017
You'll note that this "unlock the net" campaign is designed to give the impression of a broad coalition of support for killing net neutrality, but only really lists a bunch of think tanks (like the Competitive Enterprise Institute) you're supposed to ignore are also funded by the telecom industry. And when you head over to the campaign's bare bones unlockthenet website, you're unsurprisingly greeted with a lot of logically-inconsistent talk about "freedom," and a backgrounder on how net neutrality is a villainous concept responsible for all manner of nefarious evils:
"The Internet has been an engine of innovation and growth for two decades because previous Republican and Democratic administrations correctly recognized how a federal regulatory assault on the Internet would undermine its evolution and expansion. Yet, without evidence of any problem, Obama’s FCC catered to scare tactics and misinformation campaigns driven by the left to take control of the Internet without congressional authority.
This shocking move by the federal government opened the doors for forms of online censorship, potentially new government taxes and fees, and resulting price hikes on consumers."
The hope, of course, is to use a lot of misleading bobble-headed partisan rhetoric to get hardline partisans rooting against their own best self interests, which, if you may have noticed recently, is a pretty effective tactic. Of course net neutrality exists to help thwart censorship and obnoxious price hikes on consumers, and there's a long, long list of examples of why a lack of broadband competition has made net neutrality protections necessary. And, contrary to the missive above, net neutrality rules exist to protect the innovation groups like these groups pretend to care so very deeply about.
The reality is a bipartisan majority of Americans support net neutrality protections because they are very familiar with the anti-competitive behavior of giant companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. And while it's not terribly likely a hacked-together campaign that prattles on about freedom is going to change that, it helps present the illusion that this is a debate that's far more publicly contentious than it actually is.
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: counter protest, fcc, net neutrality, think tanks, unlock the net
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Precise Wording
Okay, so it's time to start saying and writing "Network Neutrality" in full so telcoms can't redefine "net neutrality" as "Internet Neutrality".No one wants to regulate "the Internet", and pretty much everyone wants to force ISPs operate their Networks like Common Carriers. (except big telcom)
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We'd believe it was cause and effect if they weren't nickel and diming us at every turn already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sadly
Sadly with right wing supporters this works more often then it fails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sadly
Humans in their entirety are prone to this and extends beyond your paltry political borders.
But I did notice that here at TD bigotry against the right is far more acceptable than any bigotry against the left.
Hypocrisy see frequent use here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sadly
Perhaps there is data which plots political affiliation with stance on net neutrality ... hmmm, you bet there is. Have a quick gander - I use "The Google" although I'm sure other search engines will also return many things to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sadly
Most definitely possible and I will go one step further and state Highly Likely, but you fundamentally misunderstood the exchange. The original poster was not being specific to this issue, he was using this issue as evidence of a general issue where "right wing supporters falling for it more often then wising up to the tricks being played on them".
I am just making the statement that I see the same "ignorance and gullibility" on the left and noting the average my side's shit does not stink attitude that seems to prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sadly
Not that such comments don't exist on "the left", but there's only one set of people who whine so incessantly when their misinformation is exposed. When challenged, they can never provide real examples or a real defence, only whine that both sides are bad but only one side is questioned.
"I am just making the statement that I see the same "ignorance and gullibility" on the left"
So, considering you're whining about how it happens on Techdirt, you can provide examples of such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sadly
I'm conservative and in favour of net neutrality because it means that all information is treated the same. This is as free-market a stance as can be. Anti-competitive actions are antithetical to a free market.
It's the polar extremes at either end of the political spectrum who tend to engage in anti-competitive actions by stifling the market, usually be imposing or enabling monopolies. This is why I've got no time for extremism on either side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not saying all think tanks are bad. I will say a huge portion of them are total shit, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now from your reply, I can see that's not what you meant. But up until then, it certainly looked that way. Might wanna give the wording a think is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
researching ways to usurp an issue so that it might be used to your advantage. I sit and watch as "people" are swayed by the words and muttering of them and am amazed at how quickly people will turn to an evil when it can be justified to suit their political desires. This is a human trait and equally effects all political parties.
Political parties themselves seek to segregate and alienate their opponents, continually driving a wedge between fellow citizens and engaging in hypocrisy as they lambaste them.
If you have trust in any words a "think tank" will serve you then you likely deserve the deceptions that you entertain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Based on what I have read on various discussion groups online, the vast majority of Americans have no real clue what net neutrality really means. Most of them seem to think it means their ISP will have to drop usage caps, from what I could see.
So I think your closing statement is rather biased and based on nothing more than your personal hatred for these companies. Stuff like that makes the rest of your post suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Polls indicate the majority of consumers do support net neutrality protections. And surveys indicate they do realize Comcast is an anti-competitive ass. So I really have no idea what you're on about here.
Interesting you'd dismiss an entire post because I stated an obvious fact at the end though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See, this is where you make a mistake and miss the point. ifyou ask people "do you support net neutrality" the majority say "yes". You are correct. Pat on the head.
The point is that most of them don't appear to know what net neutrality actually means! In many discussions I have read, it's people thinking that usage caps will go away and the internet will turn into an even bigger free lunch. They have no clue what it means in reality.
So asking them the buzz word, they say yes. Asking them what the buzz words mean gets you random answers. So are they actually supporting net neutrality, or just the buzz word.
I think you are too biased to hating on the telecoms to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The old "do you like obamacare vs the affordable healthcare act" is a buzzword comparison (a particular one which amuses me to no end), but if you give people the list of changes involved (e.g. no exclusions for preexisting conditions, child coverage to age 26, definition of what health insurance *is*, etc) people are even more overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation.
The same applies for "net neutrality protections." If you ask people using examples (e.g. no preferred vendors for data, such as Vemo vs YouTube) they do actually support those protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
hah ah ha... you say as you proceed to detail how and why buzzwords are "often not understood".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you know "often" and "always" don't actually mean the same thing? So something can happen often, and yet not happen in one specific case.
With that said, I haven't investigated the facts of this particular case so I don't know who is right, but the quoted statement is logically fallacious (assuming I read your meaning correctly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You bet I understand that, but that is not the point I am making.
My point is that Ben cannot know if there is a misunderstanding based on the limited amount of information that has been exchanged. He might be correct, but only by luck, and subsequently follows up by talking about an unrelated case on how buzzword confusion could be started further diminishing his own position.
I am just gabbing about the irony of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You make a lot of claims, but never back them up with examples. I find that telling.
"I think you are too biased to hating on the telecoms to care."
Most intelligent people are biased against corporations who are proven to leverage their monopoly position to directly damage the consumer in order to gain short term profit. But, you don't explain why he's actually wrong, you only make unsupported claims about personal anecdotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So the only ones like to be against it publicly are the telecom companies. None of them appear to have any interest in being a dead end utility company with no chance to have value added services or product differentiation.
So yes, of course 90% will "support"... even if they have no clue what they are supporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's rather old and I imagine more people would have heard of Chrome now but still interesting/distressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously lacking in information AND a desire to obtain that information.
This is why government decided to stop by your home and tell you that they require your children for 7 hours a day 5 days a week or you go to jail.
There is NOTHING like the smell of liberty being exchanged for a false sense of security I tell ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They should not have entered the business of being a utility company in the first place, then. Internet access—true, neutral, unabridged, unaltered access—is not something that needs “value added services” or “product differentiation”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The concept is very simple: treat all content equally. If you are gonna impose arbitrary caps you can't exempt your own content from it. If you are going to throttle because of congestion the throttle everybody and don't exempt your own stuff.
But, but free riding pipes! Everybody paid for their pipes, ISPs costumers paid for theirs and online services and sites paid for theirs as well so no double dipping giving ISPs own services an unfair advantage.
So yes, the concept is incredibly simple. Don't cheat because you own the infra-structure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not a fan of the commenting "markdown" stuff either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for "valua added services" and "product differentiation", the words may sound forgiving, but as soon as you start digging into the ways to achive those, you start to dig into a can of worms where the primary interest is to invent new ways to squeeze money out of invented restrictions and use the cluelessness you describe to their advantage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where has this actually happened?
"So the only ones like to be against it publicly are the telecom companies."
Because enforcing net neutrality rules forces them to compete and takes away the ability to leverage their connectivity businesses to prop up their content businesses.
"None of them appear to have any interest in being a dead end utility company with no chance to have value added services or product differentiation."
Good thing that's nothing like what's being proposed by keeping net neutrality rules, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the franchise goes on!
It's not like the overall theme isn't a shameless ripoff on previous executions of the topos, but this administration sure knows how to bring it to life in new and unimaginative ways.
You just can't swallow as fast as you wanna puke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the franchise goes on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious Question...
Seriously this is my biggest fear of even having the Title II classification stay. The FCC already has blindfolded themselves, so keeping them in charge is sort of like pissing in the wind, and sadly it's the US consumer that has to get wet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question...
They definitely know what they are doing and are doing quite a good job of it. So good in fact that the opponents of the FCC's new plan to destroy Net Neutrality are not even capable of seeing that they are working for the "regulatory capture" of the market.
How much competition do you really have? Just the choices that "government" has allowed you to have, that is it in a nutshell.
That being said, this also serves as the warning given when you decide to allow your "favorite candidates" to create more power for themselves and their agencies. That power will fall into the hands of your enemy. Ajit Pai, just like Trump were natural consequences of their ignorance and stupidity.
I even warned people here that this would be coming while Wheeler and Obama were still in office, although, I do have to admit, I did not think it would be this bad. What can I say, it was even worse than I predicted but by the same token, I am not surprised.
Something about a bed we made and laying in it goes here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Question...
You're saying people in favor of net neutrality are also working towards making the FCC more under the sway of the telecoms, and don't realize it? How did you come to that conclusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
It is there for all to see.
Want to learn another lesson that history teaches?
That you will not learn from it.
"regulatory capture" is not new and there are several lessons that can be learned from these quotes.
Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
In this case translates too... those who would give up their power to decide who serves them in the market place for safety from them screwing you over deserve neither to have a voice in that market place or protection from them screwing you in the market place.
When you ask for regulation, you are directly stating that you wish to abdicate you responsibility as a citizen to participate in the economy with liberty. You have asked a politician to pick and choose who gets to win the right to offer you service and how, and you can bet that those politicians will be working with the regulators and working with the Businesses they regulate behind closed doors away from your prying eyes, where YOU have ZERO representation.
I can fight a non-government blessed monopoly much easier than I can one that is blessed and in bed with government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
On the assumption that you actually could, what would your strategy be? Usually when I speak to people who hold similar views, it's "Either put up with it or go without."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
As with a lot of the things these people argue about, it's all pretty easy until you introduce objective reality to the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of support for killing net neutrality indeed! - Ajit Pai with $ symbols in the eyes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Privacy Policy
On a website delivered over HTTP. Their certificate expired 3 months ago.
"We don't technically sell you data but we lobby to make it legal for your ISP to"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precise Wording
No one wants to regulate "the Internet", and pretty much everyone wants to force ISPs operate their Networks like Common Carriers. (except big telcom)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precise Wording
I'm quite partial to John Oliver's suggestion that we call it Preventing Internet Fuckery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]