40 ISPs, VoIP And VPN Providers Tell FCC They Like Having Net Neutrality Rules

from the far-from-Comcastic dept

Opponents of net neutrality often claim the rules placed "onerous burdens" on small and large ISPs alike. But when push comes to shove, you'll rarely see any of these folks provide hard evidence of such "burdens." Usually, opposition is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules do, and by a conflation of the rules with nebulous partisan worries that net neutrality somehow represents "government run amok." That confusion is, quite often, courtesy of "insight" on the subject from the likes of Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly tried to insist that killing the popular consumer protections somehow "restores freedom" (citation needed).

But in yet another example of net neutrality's broad support out here in the real world, the EFF this week accumulated a list of 40 or so ISPs, VPN and VoIP providers that would very much like it if the rules remained intact. Noting how the last FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under the Communications Act actually helps them compete with their larger counterparts, the companies note that net neutrality hasn't hurt their ability to develop and expand their networks in the slightest:

"We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet."

Among these companies is California ISP Sonic, one of the few independent ISPs from the early aughts that managed to survive the incumbent ISP gauntlet, and the slow but steady attack on competition that started under former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell (we talked with Sonic CEO Dane Jasper about this a podcast last April). Sonic and the rest of the companies proceed to note that eliminating the rules doesn't "restore freedom" for them; in fact most of them worry that the elimination of the rules will have a dramatically negative impact on competition in the market:

"Without a legal foundation to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market, the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability. As direct competitors to the biggest cable and telephone companies, we have reservations about any plan at the FCC that seeks to enhance their market power without any meaningful restraints on their ability to monopolize large swaths of the Internet."

The companies also express concern about Congress' recent decision to kill broadband privacy protections at the behest of giant ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T -- most of which are not coincidentally conducting massive pivots into media and advertising:

"Lastly, we implore the FCC to examine the ramifications of the Congressional Review Act repeal of broadband privacy and provide guidance. We have long championed our customer’s privacy and believe Congress was in error to erode their legal right to privacy. However, the repeal’s detrimental impact on the reach and scope of Section 222’s ISP privacy provisions has resulted in great uncertainty in the market that the FCC could help provide clarity."

The companies' support comes on the heels of similar support for the rules from over 900 startups (you know, the people actually building the networks and technologies of tomorrow). In both instances (privacy and net neutrality), these "onerous regulations" had broad support among consumers and many smaller companies alike, highlighting again how the myopic opinion that "all regulation is automatically bad" is lazy thinking, a violent over-simplification, and incredibly detrimental when it comes to bringing competition to bear on one of the most anti-competitive and complicated segments of American industry.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, isps, net neutrality, privacy
Companies: sonic

Tumblr Goes Radio Silent On Net Neutrality After Verizon Acquisition

from the leashed-and-muzzled dept

Back when Verizon first began expressing interest in pivoting from broadband duopolist to media and advertising, you might recall that it launched a short-lived technology blog named Sugarstring. Sugarstring quickly made headlines for all the wrong reasons however, after it was revealed that Verizon was banning any new hires from writing about hot-button subjects like net neutrality, or the fact that companies like Verizon and AT&T are now bone-grafted to the nation's intelligence and surveillance apparatus.

Sugarstring is long-since dead, replaced in large part by Verizon's acquisitions of Yahoo and AOL, which also brought Huffpo, Engadget, and Techcrunch under the Verizon umbrella. And while Verizon itself has been busy using fake reporters to blatantly lie about the company's ongoing role in killing net neutrality, there's no indication (yet) that the company has pressured any of its own news outlets to quiet down on the subject. In fact, we've noted previously that some of the best reporting on net neutrality in recent months has originated at TechCrunch (this piece in particular is worth a read).

But while Verizon hasn't yet tried to get its own news outlets to quiet down on net neutrality, other now-Verizon-owned companies that used to be very active on the subject have gone dead quiet. Case in point: Tumblr, which was an integral ally in the SOPA/PIPA fight and an outspoken protector of net neutrality, is now utterly radio silent as FCC boss Ajit Pai attempts to kill the popular consumer protections. Insiders at the company this week expressed their concern to the Verge that Verizon is pressuring CEO David Karp to keep his mouth shut on the subject:

"Now, multiple sources tell The Verge that employees are concerned that Karp has been discouraged from speaking publicly on the issue, and one engineer conveyed that Karp told a group of engineers and engineering directors as much in a weekly meeting that took place shortly after SXSW. “Karp has talked about the net neutrality stuff internally, but won’t commit to supporting it externally anymore,” the engineer said. “[He] assures [us] that he is gonna keep trying to fight for the ability to fight for it publicly.” Karp did not respond to four emails asking for comment, and neither Yahoo nor Tumblr would speak about the matter on the record."

Granted Karp may just have toned down the company's rhetoric voluntarily to avoid ruffling feathers during the transition. And obviously any time a smaller company gets acquired by a larger conglomerate (especially from the historically droll and stodgy telecom sector) you'll see a major culture shift that often isn't for the better. Still, Verizon's positions on subjects like net neutrality are so hostile, Tumblr employees have grown increasingly uneasy in recent weeks, which could lead to an exodus of talent at the company:

“Some of our previous stances on issues that are really important to Tumblr employees and its community are being silenced,” said the former employee. “We've been really noisy about things like net neutrality in the past. We asked the new Head, Simon Khalaf, about it in an all-hands a few weeks ago and he said it was ‘not his problem’ and ‘above his pay grade.’” A current employee and another former employee corroborated this account."

It's unfortunate to have lost Tumblr's voice in the net neutrality fight, especially given that other industry giants like Google and Netflix have similarly gone mute on the subject, leaving consumers and small businesses increasingly alone in fighting for something vaguely resembling an open and healthy internet. And while you'd like to think Verizon is above trampling the editorial independence of former AOL and Yahoo news outlets, Verizon's Sugarstring experiment should make it pretty clear that ham-fisted attempts at censorship aren't exactly out of character for the telco.

For now, however, Verizon appears content to try and use entirely fake journalists like "Jeremy" to spread misinformation on net neutrality, as evident by this recent, comically misleading video by the company:

Filed Under: net neutrality
Companies: tumblr, verizon

Wisconsin Senator Johnson Calls Net Neutrality 'A Slogan,' Laments The Lack Of 'Fast Lanes'

from the take-the-slow-lane-to-common-sense dept

Apparently hoping to generate some support for his unpopular plan to gut oversight of one of the least competitive business sectors in America, FCC boss Ajit Pai left DC last week to do a tour of some midwestern states. During that tour he stopped in Milwaukee to talk about net neutrality with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson on WTMJ Radio (you can listen to the full interview here). During the interview, Pai proclaimed that the entire concept of net neutrality is little more than a "slogan," and that nobody should want government "dictating how the internet is run":

"It’s a great slogan," FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said, when asked by a radio host what net neutrality is. "But in reality what it involves is Internet regulation, and the basic question is, 'Do you want the government deciding how the Internet is run?'"

You'll note that this is a guy that has repeatedly tried to claim he's approaching all of this with an open mind, and would let the evidence and public feedback dictate the agency's course. Given comments like this, and the fact that net neutrality has overwhelming bipartisan majority support, it's pretty clear that won't be happening. The interview, which offered no counter-opinion from anybody supporting (or even understanding) net neutrality, proceeded with Senator Johnson parroting what Pai had suggested:

"As chairman Pai said, net neutrality is a slogan," Johnson said. "What you really want is an expansion of high-speed broadband, and in order to do that you have to create the incentives for those smaller ISPs to invest. They don’t really control their own fiber if the government tells them exactly how they’re going to use their investment."

Huh. So was it a "slogan" to dislike Verizon and AT&T's decision to block people from using competing mobile payment platforms to try and give their own effort a leg up? Was it a "slogan" to oppose AT&T's decision to block people from using Facetime just to drive them to more expensive data plans? And is it a "slogan" to oppose Comcast's use of unnecessary and arbitrary data caps and overage fees to not only jack up the price of broadband service in already-uncompetitive broadband markets -- but to give its own streaming services an unfair market advantage?

Suggesting it's a "slogan" to worry how limited broadband competition leads to this kind of anti-competitive behavior is about as reasonable as suggesting that not wanting to be punched in the jaw is a "jingle." It makes no coherent sense.

And that's the biggest problem with Pai's decision to ignore the broad support the rules have and dismantle them anyway. His arguments in favor for killing the rules either make no coherent sense (like that time he suggested net neutrality rules embolden North Korean and Iranian dictators), or they're long-debunked talking points that have been floating around the internet for the better part of the last decade. Like when Johnson continued the interview by proclaiming that we must kill net neutrality rules -- or people may die!:

"Johnson thinks ISPs should be able to sell "fast lanes" to websites and online services that are willing to pay for quicker access to customers. "Chairman Pai just mentioned medical diagnostics," Johnson said. "You might need a fast lane within that pipeline so those diagnoses can be transmitted instantaneously and not be held up by, I don't know, maybe a movie streaming."

So one, the current net neutrality rules carve out plenty of exceptions that let ISPs, companies and networks prioritize essential communications like medical technology. That's never, ever been a real issue, and anybody claiming otherwise is lying to you. Like Pai's former employer Verizon did in 2014, when it tried to claim that net neutrality rules should be killed because they'd stop deaf, blind and disabled people from getting access to essential services. In fact, this argument has been stumbling around in anti-net-neutrality circles for the better part of the last decade, and it doesn't magically become any less of a lie with age.

Given the rules didn't hurt investment, actually helped sort some anti-competitive behavior, and again have broad, bipartisan support, those looking to kill them have few viable arguments left to fall back on. As such, they're apparently reduced to a winning combination of incoherence and outright lying. One more time with feeling: net neutrality is a good thing for companies and consumers alike. If you haven't learned that yet, and the efforts to repeal the rules succeed, you may soon be getting a pretty nasty crash course as to precisely why.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, net neutrality, ron johnson

Report Falsely Blames The EFF For Fraudulent Net Neutrality Comments

from the extremely-greasy-shenanigans dept

So we've discussed at length how somebody is gaming the FCC's comment system, using a bot to post hundreds of thousands of fake comments in support of the agency's plan to kill net neutrality. We've also made it pretty clear that the FCC doesn't appear interested in doing much about this, because these bogus (and in some instances dead) people "support" the FCC's plan to gut consumer protections governing the already uncompetitive broadband market.

I've had some first-hand experience with the FCC's apathy, given I've been trying to get them to remove (or even address) a post supporting the death of net neutrality made in my name, falsely claiming I run an "unregistered PAC" and am upset that Title II "diminished broadband investment, stifled innovation, and left American consumers potentially on the hook for a new broadband tax" (none of which is true, it should go without saying). While the agency says it's looking into my complaint, you simply don't get the sense that tackling public proceeding comment fraud will be a top agency priority anytime soon.

Initial analysis of the FCC comments suggest it's largely the anti-net neutrality side that's been engaged in chicanery at any real scale. But in an obvious attempt to try and deflate that media narrative, there's a growing attempt to insist that massive, industrialized abuse of the FCC's net neutrality comment docket is something both sides are engaged in. For example, a report released last week (pdf) by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) policy and lobbying think tank proclaimed that "hundreds of thousands" of bogus pro net neutrality comments were filed with the FCC, most of them coming from the EFF.

A report over at the Daily Caller quickly parroted the report's findings:

"More than 100,000 comments supporting government regulation of the internet appear to have been automatically submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a left-leaning nonprofit, according to a forensic analysis published Wednesday.

The responses likely did not come organically from real people, which the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) forum for public comment on net neutrality is intended to be for, according to The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC). Rather, the NLPC claims the comments seem to be artificially submitted by the EFF since language used is highly similar to EFF’s submission platform and both the email addresses and the physical addresses of the listed people are fake, or don’t exist.

But in an amusing takedown over at the EFF website, the group calls the NLPC's analysis "false" and "flawed." The original NLPC report claims that the EFF used the agency's own Dear FCC form letter website to file around 100,000 comments using fake names and e-mail addresses. But the EFF dissected its own data from this period to highlight that this claim simply wasn't true:

"So how do we know NLPC’s report is wrong? For one thing, we counted the number of comments people have submitted to the FCC through our system. That number is nowhere near the 100,000 comments NLPC said we filed.

Further, just before the sunshine period—when the FCC stopped accepting comments—we started storing copies of comments submitted through our system, because we weren’t sure how the FCC would treat comments submitted during that period. This week, we searched through all of the stored comments for the names and email address domains listed in NLPC’s report, and didn’t find a single match."

Additional analysis of the data found that whoever did submit the 100,000 or so comments, didn't even use the EFF's own tool. An errant apostrophe (the FCC's system uses "right single quotation marks" while the submitted comments used a neutral "typewriter apostrophe") indicates the text was copied and pasted from the EFF site, but wasn't submitted from the EFF's tool itself:

"Why does the difference matter? Because it shows that whoever submitted the 100,000 identical comments the NLPC report mentions copied and pasted the text to make the comments look like they came through EFF’s DearFCC.org site, when they did not. If NLPC had looked closely at the comments they would have noticed the difference, and realized that the comments weren’t generated by EFF’s website. Apparently, they did not."

So according to the EFF's analysis, someone cut and pasted a part of the EFF's own form letter, then submitted it using fake names, e-mail addresses and physical addresses more than 100,000 times. Now it's entirely possible that somebody in favor of net neutrality thought they were "helping" by engaging in this behavior (though given the rules' popularity, it's not really necessary). But it's also entirely possible (having watched telecom lobbyists for the better part of two decades) that someone did this as an attempt to make net neutrality supporters look bad, and overshadow media reports of the bot being used to stuff the ballot box.

You'll note that the lobbying and policy think tank behind the report, the National Legal and Policy Center, opposes net neutrality -- and didn't make so much as a peep over the last few months as someone used a bot to fill the FCC comment system with bogus support for the FCC's plan to kill net neutrality. But in a blog post discussing their findings, the group is quick to lambaste the EFF for violating consumer privacy, despite what pretty clearly wound up being some deeply flawed analysis:

"For groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation that claim to champion consumers’ online privacy, it would be an unprecedented privacy breach if they knowingly culled other people’s email addresses from spam databases and without their consent falsely submitted comments into the docket,” Flaherty continued. “At this point, the full extent of the problem is unclear, but it definitely deserves further investigation."

And when the EFF made it clear the comments didn't come from its system and the group had no part in filing them, the NPLC had a rather unique interpretation of the EFF's statement:

So again, there's two options here: someone supporting net neutrality took the time to try and pad the numbers by cutting and pasting the EFF's form letter into the comment system, using fake names and e-mail addresses. Or, someone opposing net neutrality used the EFF's form letter to try and frame the group for falsely stuffing the ballot box, further eroding trust in the validity of the FCC process. And given the lion's share of legitimate comments support keeping the rules intact, this latter possibility offers some obvious benefits to net neutrality opponents.

Hopefully we'll see some additional, independent and professional analysis of the data down the road. Either way, as with my own experiences above, this could all be prevented by the FCC actually giving a damn and policing abuse of its own comment system. As the EFF quite correctly notes, refusing to do so will only work to discredit the quality of the legitimate comments being made ahead of the final vote to kill the consumer protections later this year.

Filed Under: comments, fake comments, fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: eff, nlpc

Comcast Pinky Swears That The Death Of Net Neutrality Won't Hurt In The Slightest

from the just-a-little-pin-prick dept

In the wake of the FCC's attempt to kill net neutrality, ISPs like Comcast have been working overtime trying to convince the press and public that nothing bad is actually happening. Shortly after the FCC voted to begin killing the rules, Comcast posted a trifecta of press statement, comment from company CEO Brian Roberts and commentary from top lobbyist David Cohen all saying the same thing: nothing bad is happening, and whatever happens -- Comcast really, truly adores transparency and will work tirelessly to defend the open internet:

The fact that this runs in stark, documentable opposition to reality and Comcast's behavior over the last twenty years isn't something you're supposed to dwell on. Cohen (the company gets mad at us for pointing out he's still a lobbyist despite using the title of "Chief Diversity Officer" to dodge lobbying accountability rules) has also been spending the last month or so trying to argue that we can still have net neutrality despite walking back the FCC's authority over broadband providers:

"While some try to conflate the two issues, Title II and net neutrality are not the same. Title II is a source of authority to impose enforceable net neutrality rules. Title II is not net neutrality. Getting rid of Title II does not mean that we are repealing net neutrality protections for American consumers."

That ignores history. You'll recall that the FCC's original 2010 rules were demolished by the Verizon lawsuit, with the courts saying that the FCC couldn't impose such rules without first classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II. So in 2015, former FCC boss Tom Wheeler did precisely that. Walking back that decision means stripping out the legal authority to actually enforce net neutrality, and Comcast certainly knows this. In fact we've repeatedly noted how the government's plan is to effectively gut privacy, net neutrality and other broadband consumer protections, and to replace them with the policy equivalent of wet tissue paper.

This message that nothing bad is actually happening and that Comcast really secretly loves net neutrality has been the cornerstone of an ongoing PR effort at the company the last few weeks. But given there's few if any people who trust what's arguably the least-liked company in America, responses to these claims on Twitter haven't been what you'd call warm:

One of the only pieces of evidence Comcast provides for its professed dedication to net neutrality is that it didn't, unlike Verizon, sue to overturn the FCC's 2010 rules. But as we noted back then, Comcast and AT&T didn't oppose the rules back then because they weren't really enforceable, but more importantly they simply didn't do very much. Having been written by Google and major ISPs, they carved out massive loopholes for all manner of anti-competitive behavior, and didn't even cover wireless networks.

But as the EFF writes in a missive taking aim at Comcast's new image reformation effort, the company also saw no point in suing then because it was bound to adhere to the (already flimsy) rules as a condition of its 2011 merger with NBC Universal:

"In its PR campaign, Comcast claims that its decision not to challenge the 2010 Open Internet Order is evidence of its support for network neutrality. In reality, it's likely the company stayed quiet because shortly after the Open Internet Order was approved Comcast was required to operate neutrally as a condition of its merger with NBC Universal. It had little to gain from publicly opposing the 2010 Order because they could not lift network neutrality obligations over their network even if they won in court due to merger conditions."

In short, Comcast didn't fight to overturn the 2010 rules because it loves net neutrality -- it did so because it knew the rules were garbage, and merger conditions wound up binding the company to them anyway (for whatever good that would have actually done). It's only once the rules had actual teeth -- provided by Title II authority -- that Comcast began to get nervous that somebody might actually stop the company from being an anti-competitive jackass.

Comcast's positions are viciously contradicted by a decade of indisputable anti-competitive decisions on this front, including the company's early decision to throttle all upstream BitTorrent traffic (and lie about it, repeatedly), its ham-fisted decision to use usage caps and overage fees to hamstring video competition, and it's decision to try and limit what devices consumers use to view the content of their choice on the platforms of their choosing.

By and large you'd be hard pressed to believe any major ISP -- especially Comcast -- has much if any credibility on this subject, and it's not really clear exactly who one of the least-liked companies in America thinks it's fooling.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, title ii
Companies: comcast

Netflix Admits It Doesn't Really Care About Net Neutrality Now That It's Big

from the screw-you,-I've-got-mine dept

So if you've been watching the Trump administration's attempt to kill net neutrality, you've probably noted that one-time net neutrality supporters Google and Netflix have been notably absent from the debate, leaving small companies and consumers outgunned and outspent in the attempt to protect the rules. If you're a regular Techdirt reader, you'll recall that despite still favoring a reputation as a consumer ally, Google hasn't really given much of a damn about protecting net neutrality since around 2010 or so. Its interest waned even further once the company launched its own ISP, Google Fiber.

Netflix's blooming disinterest in the subject has been a more recent affair. In a recent letter to shareholders, the company made it clear it believes that now it's an international video powerhouse, fighting for things like an open and healthy internet and level playing fields are no longer a priority:

"Weakening of US net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable."

And while some tried to argue that this was simply Netflix trying to calm nervous investors, it's becoming clear that Netflix's apathy goes quite a bit deeper. Speaking at a conference in California this week, CEO Reed Hastings stated that while net neutrality is still important, it's notably less important to the company now that it's a big freaking deal:

"It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings said. It was a candid admission: no matter what the FCC decides to do with Title II, Netflix isn’t worried about its ability to survive. Hastings says that Netflix is “weighing in against” changing the current rules, but that “it’s not our primary battle at this point” and “we don’t have a special vulnerability to it."

You might recall that Netflix was singing a very different tune a few years ago, when reports began to emerge that giant ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter were intentionally letting their interconnection points congest in order to kill settlement-free peering and extract additional, duplicative tolls from content and transit companies. The move resulted in a notable slowdown for Netflix subscribers, who were quick to blame Netflix for problems originating at the ISP (New York AG's recent lawsuit against Charter for slow speeds includes some internal e-mails supporting these allegations).

The FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules didn't specifically prohibit this kind of chicanery, but they did allow the FCC to investigate anti-competitive behavior on that front on a case-by-case basis. And lo and behold, the mere presence of the rules did appear to magically resolve many of these disputes. But Netflix also had the cash on hand necessary to pay large ISPs like Comcast for direct interconnection, an option smaller companies may not have had the luxury to do.

And of course that's just the thing: net neutrality may not matter to Netflix now that it's big enough to go toe to toe with companies like Verizon and Comcast, but it's still damn important for the Netflix of tomorrow -- companies that will be forced to do business over already uncompetitive broadband networks as an axe looms over nearly all meaningful consumer protections. Hastings' message to these emerging entrepreneurs? Basically to figure it out for themselves because Netflix "done got theirs":

"The Trump FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says,” Hastings argues. He might believe that net neutrality is “important for society," but his company, Netflix, isn’t in trouble so it’s not going to get into the fight. “We had to carry the water when we were growing up and we were small," Hastings said. "Other companies have to be on that leading edge."

That's viciously shortsighted. Hastings is basically saying that keeping the internet healthy, level and open is no longer his problem. Granted there are several things driving this ignominious proclamation, including said interconnection deals and the fact that Netflix recently secured a deal with Comcast bringing Netflix to Comcast cable boxes. So in Hastings' mind, he's moved beyond net neutrality because his company was large and wealthy enough to pay for the luxury to temporarily resolve the threat. Problem solved!

But Hastings is dead wrong.

As we move to strip all oversight of the uncompetitive broadband sector, the door will be reopened to ISPs finding a litany of creative ways to abuse that lack of competition. That's going to get easier to do as cable providers grab a growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband, expand arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, and use zero rating to drive users away from competing services. If Hastings thinks a viciously uncompetitive broadband sector with zero regulatory oversight ends well for anybody not named AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Verizon -- he's fooling himself. As is anybody else sharing his sentiment.

Sure, Hastings was clear that Netflix will still technically support net neutrality, but only via the occasional tersely-worded press release from lobbying and policy vessels. But if consumers are looking for real help in defending net neutrality, it's abundantly clear they need to start looking elsewhere, because Netflix now believes it's somehow above having to care about silly stuff like the internet fucking working properly.

Filed Under: competition, net neutrality, reed hastings
Companies: netflix

Consumers Who Had Their Identities Stolen By A Spam Bot Demand FCC Investigate Bogus Net Neutrality Comments

from the industrial-chicanery dept

Shortly after the FCC voted to begin killing net neutrality earlier this month, we noted how a mysterious bot began spamming the FCC comment system with posts favoring the dismantling of net neutrality. Analysis of the bot indicates it has simply been pulling names from a hacked database of some kind, posting the same exact missive over and over again. The scale of the informational assault isn't subtle; one estimate suggests that more than 40% of the nearly 3 million comments filed so far are courtesy of this bot, the operator of which still hasn't been identified.

The original report detailing this bot activity actually managed to get a hold of many of the people whose names are being used, and confirmed that these folks never left comments at the FCC website -- and in many instances have no idea what net neutrality even is. In some instances, many of the supposed anti-net neutrality commenters are no longer, well... living:

It is uncertain how these individuals' personal information was obtained, but it appears that a significant portion of the names and addresses used to post these comments were culled from government files stolen during a number of different network breaches over the years. Many of the addresses associated with these people's names are outdated, and according to the digital rights group Fight for the Future, in at least two cases a comment was filed to the FCC's website by people who recently died.

People who aren't dead and had their names used in this fashion aren't particularly happy about it. Net neutrality activist group Fight for the Future recently launched a website letting users test to see if their name is being used in such a fashion. And they followed that up with a letter to the FCC, signed by more than two-dozen people whose names have been (ab)used in this fashion, urging the FCC to discard the obviously fraudulent comments and help investigate who's behind the campaign:

"Based on numerous media reports [2], nearly half a million Americans may have been impacted by whoever impersonated us in a dishonest and deceitful campaign to manufacture false support for your plan to repeal net neutrality protections. While it may be convenient for you to ignore this, given that it was done in an attempt to support your position, it cannot be the case that the FCC moves forward on such a major public debate without properly investigating this known attack."

But that's precisely the problem. Because the phony bot comments support the FCC's frontal attack on net neutrality, there's every indication that the FCC intends to do nothing about any of this. And when the final vote comes to a pass later this year, you can be sure that these comments will either be used as evidence of support for the FCC's large ISP-serving policies, or be used to suggest that the massive outpouring of support for the agency's 2015 rules should be disregarded entirely.

The FCC is scheduled to continue fielding comments on its plan to kill net neutrality until August 16. If you're a living, breathing human being, you can add your thoughts to the proceeding here.

Filed Under: bots, fake comments, fcc, net neutrality, spam, spam bot

Congress Busted Using Cable Lobbyist Talking Points In Attacks On Net Neutrality

from the professional-parrots dept

By now, most Techdirt readers realize that far too many members of Congress don't so much have thoughts about technology policy, as they do bulleted mental lists of talking points provided by a lobbyist happy to do their thinking for them. That has been particularly true when it comes to telecom policy over the last few months, especially the GOP's ham-fisted attack on popular consumer broadband privacy protections and the telecom sector's self-serving frontal assault on net neutrality.

Over the last few weeks, as the FCC was preparing to begin dismantling net neutrality rules, House lawmakers received an email from GOP leadership educating them on how to best defend the agency's extremely unpopular decision. Included in that e-mail was an attached list of talking points (pdf) making all manner of disengenous claims about the net neutrality debate:

"Want more information on the net neutrality discussion?” wrote Washington state Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chair of the House Republican Conference. "Here is a nifty toolkit with news resources, myth vs reality information, what others are saying, and free market comments."

Usually, Congress members cover their tracks well enough to obfuscate the fact they let lobbyists and campaign contributions do the thinking for them. But the Intercept noticed that metadata attached to the talking points clearly indicate they originated with the cable industry's biggest lobbying organization, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA):

"The metadata of the document shows it was created by Kerry Landon, the assistant director of industry grassroots at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of Comcast, Cox Communications, Charter, and other cable industry companies. The document was shared with House Republican leaders via “Broadband for America,” a nonprofit largely funded by the NCTA."

As such, you'll surely be shocked to learn that many of the talking points included in the packet weren't remotely true, including one claiming net neutrality is somehow "anti-consumer," another regurgitating the repeatedly-debunked claim that net neutrality killed network investment, and several repeating the industry's favorite claim that net neutrality protections aren't necessary, because the broadband industry never does anything wrong:

"These “Title II” regulations, rammed through the FCC by the Obama White House, were based on a hypothetical fear of broadband providers blocking certain websites or putting competitors in slow lanes. But despite ten years of the left stoking those hypothetical fears, they never materialized. Why? Because it is not in the interest of broadband providers to degrade the experience of their customers, especially when watching video or streaming services. The broadband providers would lose customers to their competitors if they ever attempted to block content."

Here on planet Earth, we've watched as large ISPs used usage caps to hurt streaming competitors, block users from using certain services unless they pay for more expensive data plans, intentionally congest their networks to drive up interconnection costs, throttle entire classifications of traffic then lie about it, and even group up to block competing mobile apps and services they didn't want to compete with. Anybody that thinks it's hyperbole to state that ISPs will use their size, leverage and the lack of broadband competition to engage in a rotating crop of anti-competitive behaviors simply has not been paying attention.

And again, while it's still unsurprising to see lawmakers mindlessly parrot whatever giant telecom conglomerates tell them to, that doesn't make it any less grotesque. Combine that with the bot that's spamming the FCC with bogus support for the FCC's unpopular policies and the coordinated effort to make net neutrality supporters appear racist and unhinged, and you may begin to notice that the companies pushing this latest anti-consumer agenda aren't particularly concerned about integrity or playing fair.

Filed Under: broadband, congress, lobbyists, net neutrality, talking points
Companies: ncta

The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments

from the turning-a-big-blind-eye dept

As we recently noted, more than 40% of the 2.5 million comments filed with the FCC on net neutrality are entirely fake. The comments, which oppose net neutrality, have been posted using a bot that's pulling the names used from a hacked database of some kind. When the people that own the actual names behind these comments have been contacted by the media, many have stated they didn't make the comments, and/or have no idea what net neutrality even is.

In an ideal world, the FCC would easily parse out these obviously fraudulent, duplicate comments and shore up the abuse of its API. But because these comments support the current FCC's belief that meaningful net neutrality protections are somehow an assault on "American freedom," the FCC appears poised to completely disregard the fact that a malicious actor is manipulating the FCC's systems. The FCC isn't candidly admitting this, but FCC boss Ajit Pai's non-statements and statements alike so far indicate he's inclined to include the obviously fraudulent comments:

"The FCC didn’t respond to repeated requests to specifically say whether it would filter out the astroturfed comments. Speaking to reporters after announcing a step toward rolling back existing net neutrality protections, FCC Chair Ajit Pai admitted “a tension between having an open process where it’s easy to comment and preventing questionable comments from being filed.” “Generally speaking, this agency has erred on the side of openness,” he said."

When pushed, FCC officials have said they'll purge comments made under obviously phony names, but isn't willing to comment further on the obvious blind eye to manipulation of the comment system:

"Pai said the agency wouldn’t consider comments with obviously fake names, like Wonder Woman and Joseph Stalin, but declined to go further. Reached for comment after Pai’s statement, an FCC official declined to comment specifically on astroturfed comments. "You heard his answer on erring on the side of inclusion," the official said.

And again, the FCC is turning a blind eye to this fraudulent behavior because actual humans overwhelmingly oppose what Pai and friends are up to. Recent analysis of the comments made so far to the FCC indicate the vast, vast majority of consumers -- across all political ideologies -- don't want the agency gutting meaningful oversight of the already uncompetitive broadband sector. That could be problematic later this year, when Pai faces inevitable lawsuits over his rush to kill the protections despite no corresponding market necessity, and the broad public support for the rules.

Filed Under: fake comments, fcc, net neutrality, trolls