'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality
from the if-you're-a-data-scientist-I'm-a-walnut dept
So we’ve discussed how there’s growing controversy about the gaming of the FCC’s public docket on net neutrality to give the illusion of support for what’s an extremely unpopular plan to kill the rules. A bot has been stuffing the ballot box with bogus comments using dead or otherwise fraudulent people, and I’ve seen my name hijacked and used to support the killing of the rules as well. So far, there’s every indication that the FCC has no intention to crack down on any of this, since this fraudulent behavior supports its awful plan to kill net neutrality protections.
One analysts suggested that up to 40% of the roughly five-million comments submitted so far are coming from the aforementioned bot. After initially telling me they were “looking into” things, the FCC has ignored repeated requests for comment on why it’s failing to police even the most rudimentary abuse of its own systems, like the example in my name above.
And now, with the ballot box stuffed, it’s easier than ever for industry-connected groups to pretend the FCC’s plan has broad support among the public. For example, a “free market” group calling itself Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE) this week conducted a “study” of the comments. It’s findings? People apparently overwhelmingly don’t want a healthy and open internet free from the meddling of historically anti-competitive telecom duopolies:
“Free market group Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE) says according to its analysis of the FCC’s open internet docket, a majority (65%) favor repealing the Title II-based Open Internet order, as FCC chairman Ajit Pai has proposed to do…The group said it looked at the 4,990,000 filings as of June 20, and said it would do similar assessments in the future. Of those, it said, 3,237,916 support repealing the order, while 35% (1,752,084) oppose repeal.
Of course, you can certainly trust a group previously on record as saying FCC boss Ajit Pai is “brilliant” and “courageous” for ignoring the will of the public and gutting consumer protections governing some of the least liked, and least-competitive companies in American industry. Looking at the group’s methodology of the study (pdf), it notes that it came to its conclusion by looking specifically for “unique phrases,” but fails to show any of the math for what these phrases are, or how they were used. The group doesn’t even mention the major scandal involving the bot using dead or otherwise fake people to stuff the ballot box:
“We identified form letters by sorting large batches of comments to find groupings of comments with similar language. Then we scored each form letter as “supporting repeal” and “opposing repeal.” Within each form letter we identified unique phrases, then used these phrases to query all of the comments to find the number of comments containing the same language. This allowed (sic) to score 75% of all the comments in the docket as either “supporting” or “opposing” repeal.”
Of course that runs in dramatic contrast to previous studies that found, once you eliminated bullshit bots from the equation, that the vast majority of real comments support keeping the rules intact. The group’s study also flies in the face of survey after survey that indicates net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support among consumers. Of course “studies” like this are precisely why the FCC refuses to even comment on why it’s turning a blind eye to comment fraud.
Even if nobody takes studies like this seriously (and it’s pretty clear some news outlets do), the hope is clearly to generate enough doubt about the validity of the comments and commenting process to justify ignoring the will of the public when the FCC votes to finalize killing the rules later this year.
Filed Under: ajit pai, comments, fcc, net neutrality
Companies: case
Comments on “'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality”
When CASE president Matthew Kandrach ran the “60 Plus Association”, he was bold enough to warn seniors that switching electric generation away from coal foretold their economic doom, calling non-fossil sources “radical”. Today, as president (owner?) of CASE, he’s still banging the drum for coal, whether anyone’s listening or not… presumably, the payments are still arriving. But he’s moved up a notch in the hired-gun world, apparently… seems that checks from cable/telco interests are probably helping him protect all consumers, not just seniors, from the ravages of NN.
The quesiton is who is stuffing the ballot box. Someone who supports net neutrality could make a real fuss by stuffing for the other side, right?
Re: Re:
Yes they could, and turnabout is fair play. However, it seems that the pro-neutrality crowd have more integrity.
Re: Re:
Yes and no. To be effective, you’d have to have some control over those who count the ballots as well. It’s pretty clear that those counting the ballots are on the anti side here, so that may still not be effective.
Plus, as Wendy mentions, those fighting for the reality of net neutrality being positive tend to have more integrity than those who fight for the fiction of it being bad for consumers.
Re: Re: Re:
Aw. Can’t we at the very least do it with some names? For instance: Pai, ISP CEOs in the pro-NN side and Mick Jagger in the anti-NN side. Please?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lars Ulrich for anti side. Wait no, he changed his mind and “apologized to his fans” years later.
Re: Re:
I don’t think that question is right, since the stuffing of ballot boxes has happened before and will happen again, the thing to do is looking at ways to clean up the garbage afterwards or prevent littering.
The problem here is that scientific studies, other efforts to run the data and logic would give a different result than what CASE presents.
Furthermore their description is making it clear that they have done zero cleaning of the data for bots or fakes (they seem to use a lot of precission in sorting pro from contra, though!).
Re: Re:
Right. What fuss would that be? One that matters in forwarding such an agenda.
Good plan.
Judging from their position, they have misspelt corporation.
All in a name!
Yea, while I am okay with destroying the FCC and having a “REAL” free market, they are not advocating for a free market in the least.
The actions of the two political parties is what creates the desire for people to try the other one again, despite their pasts. Obama begat Trump and Trump begets another Obama, just in higher orders of nutting as we move along with each replacement until the almost prophetic words of Washington come true.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
Let us sit and watch the unraveling of this great nation in our pursuits to find this “absolute power of an individual” as the people cry for a new king once again, foolishly or selfishly not realizing that it is their sons and daughters that will have to pay the price of their indignation.
This is why the FCC should be destroyed and why the pursuit of “government controlled” economic policy is nothing more than the epitome of a gilded cage.
Re: All in a name!
EN (I’ve got to call you something!), you were doing great till you got to your last paragraph because you don’t understand what government is or what it’s for. The Constitution came about because the Articles of Confederation failed. This is because anarchy doesn’t scale. Market forces alone can’t and won’t make corporate actors behave after they have run away laughing with your money.
The Constitution instituted the nation and the government that is supposed to uphold it (but let’s be honest, doesn’t always). The problem is not with institutions, it’s with people. The part of your usual rant beginning “Every nation…” that’s actually correct is the part where people who don’t hold their representatives to account (even though they totally can, and the internet makes it easy) have nothing to complain about when their representatives screw them over. Basically, We the People aren’t holding the people who work for them to account.
If we can’t hold individuals and groups to account except by not giving them money in the future, we find ways of doing so. The most orderly way to do so is via legislation and thereby, regulation.
What I’m saying is, if we didn’t have regulation, we’d create it.
Re: Re: All in a name!
Yet, on the other side, everyone around here seems to want no regulation for anyone else. Youtube? Facebook? Reddit? No rules for them, keep your hands off, even as Google and Facebook between them make billions in quarterly profits, mostly off of your personal information.
The pro regulation crowd sort of shuffle their feet and start talking about the weather when you get to that point.
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
“Yet, on the other side, everyone around here seems to want no regulation for anyone else”
You can come to all sorts of conclusions when you lie about everyone else’s positions, sure.
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
“You can come to all sorts of conclusions when you lie about everyone else’s positions, sure.”
yes, we know… only your team is allow to do that!
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
Try stop treating honest debate and politics as team games, that’s the first part. Then, start reading what other people have to actually say, rather than whatever easy strawman you can construct in 5 seconds.
You’ll find reality easier to deal with then.
Re: Re: Re:4 All in a name!
“Try stop treating honest debate and politics as team games, that’s the first part.”
How can this be done? I don’t even have to directly mention a side or team, people are going to assume that I do mean one. This time I definitely did mean to imply a specific side. Of course that side is not the only side that misrepresents.
“Then, start reading what other people have to actually say, rather than whatever easy strawman you can construct in 5 seconds.”
The strawman construction is NOT from me. That is just one of your favorite cards. If I say something you don’t like then someone just randomly pulls something from their deck that looks like it matches. They don’t care and will hate it until it is wrapped up in one of their party platitudes. I fight both sides regularly with this.
“You’ll find reality easier to deal with then.”
Reality is quite easy to deal with. I am well versed in human nature and its propensities for destroying itself in the pursuit of salvation.
The FCC and the common subject matter are quite large subject areas around that problem. When you allow a government official to control the economy then you get what you deserve. FCC and Ajit Pai are what we deserve for being ignorant and letting government control too much! Trump is what we deserve for letting Obama grab too much power. The shit state of the nation is what we deserve for letting political parties fuck with our minds the way it has been.
I am not on a team, but most of you other idiots are, which is why I said “your team”. Please, go ahead and get more bent about it!
Or you just just say something else as unproductive as bitching about people getting a label and needing a safe space.
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
“How can this be done?”
By not saying things like “your team” for a start?
“The strawman construction is NOT from me.”
Yet you constructed one to attack instead of my actual opinions.
“That is just one of your favorite cards”
No, but thanks for keeping that strawman on his feet!
“When you allow a government official to control the economy then you get what you deserve. “
In the face of reality, that’s a nonsensical statement. Especially in terms of an arena where it’s been proven across the world that it’s without regulation that things get really damaging for consumers.
“I am not on a team, but most of you other idiots are”
I bet you can’t accurately describe my “team”, unless “capable of dealing with objective reality and how regulation has benefitted other markets” is a team.
“Or you just just say something else as unproductive as bitching about people getting a label and needing a safe space.”
Nobody but you has said such a thing, though!
Re: Re: Re:6 All in a name!
“By not saying things like “your team” for a start?”
lol, nice try, you are on a team. The Pro-Regulation team, and we know which political team that team is on.
If you need to be a child and make the statement that you are not part of a team while parroting their ideals then…. what am I supposed to think?
IF you look like a duck, quack like a duck, and walk around like a duck. Man… I am going to think you are a duck.
Tell me, which party did you vote for in the past 3 elections? I bet you ARE on a team! I am on a team too, just not likely any of yours!
Re: Re: Re:7 All in a name!
If it tastes like lead it must be a paint chip!
Re: Re: Re:7 All in a name!
“The Pro-Regulation team, and we know which political team that team is on.”
Go on, humour me – which one? Hint: if you name an American political party, you’re a deluded asshole.
“Tell me, which party did you vote for in the past 3 elections?”
The last 3 I voted in? Labour, Podemos, PSOE, not necessarily in that order.
Let’s see if you realise your mistakes and try to have an adult conversation now, or if you wish to try and fit that into your insane hallucination of an argument.
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
Bushes are nice ’cause they don’t have prickers.
Unless they do.
This one did.
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
So who is going to regulate economy? The duopoly AT& T and Verizon? Government and companies in the end are just people. But government at least has, in its mission, to protect people and regulate abuse. On the other hand no company has this as it mission, any company’s mission is just money! Money!
No, corporation will never regulate itself and will never regulate market to the benefit of the people. Government should do this but it is not, clearly, due to being corrupted by corporation money.
Then answer will com from not-for-profit, non corporate, non-government ORGANIZED CIVIL SOCIETY.
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
What people around here object to is governments trying to force social media platforms to act as government censors, or police for the copyright industry. In general there is no objection to the copyright industry going after actual infringers, so long as they also allow for fair use.
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
Exactly, people object to certain types of regulation, but support the types that actually work. So, regulation that forces companies to be competitive (such as net neutrality regulation) = good. Regulation that forces companies to be 3rd party censors upon content they did not create = bad.
But, he’ll just lie and pretend that means that means everyone wants zero regulation on the companies he hates. His fictions are nice and easy to dismiss, unlike that complex reality that requires honesty and intelligence to address.
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
Very few people supports absolute anarchy and very few people supports regulation that codifies every little detail.
With that in mind:
“pro regulation” and “no regulation” are mostly just rhetorics, with no value for specific topics. They are sufficiently unspecific to rally around like “change” and “make america great again” to not be a hinderance for dumbing down a discussion and beating the adversary on experience!
Re: Re: Re:4 All in a name!
I am glad someone gets it, FINALLY!
Now, my problem is where “regulation that codifies every little detail” is supposed to fall?
Do you know how many regulations are on the books? So many that you need a full time professional TEAM to handle it. On top of that, when you have to challenge one, you then have to attend a trial where a judge ignorant on technology and might have never ever sent an email.
My position is this. We already have too much, and yes, most people ARE asking for regulation on
Every.
Little.
Detail.
So, the problem is this!
I look at the regulatory landscape and see it as getting too detailed to the point where you can safely call it, every little detail.
My opponents look at the regulatory landscape and see it as NOT detailed enough so they call for MORE regulation.
I like the idea of Net Neutrality, IF it actually IS THAT! Wheeler Vision is NOT true to that purpose and gives the FCC too much power! I am not willing to give them too much power to “keep me safe” from the big bad “spying on us already” infrastructure!
There are a couple of axioms that come to mind here…
A government big enough to give me what I want, is also big enough to take from me what they want.
Essential liberty given up for a little or temporary safety only results in the “deserving” loss of both!
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
Re: Re: Re:6 All in a name!
The intent was not to conflate the issues, just adding emphasis to the idea that we are facing two entities that are lying to our faces when they “imply” that they care about us. Privacy is an excellent way to state that in my opinion.
“both need simple regulation to protect the customer.”
I agree with simple regulation, but a customer that wants protection deserves no protection. I want the power to tell my ISP to fuck themselves off a mile high pier. I cannot do that right now because they are entrenched with government corruption and regulatory capture.
“Treat all traffic equally, and treat customer related traffic like a phone call…”
I don’t disagree with that initially, but some traffic should be treated differently. Latency sensitive applications should be treated differently than large package/bulk data packets.
The only rules should be that ISP’s must post their traffic shaping rules and let customers decide if they want to join a Verizon network where Netflix is blocked or if they want to Join a new network by Mom and Pop that allows unfettered access to Netflix.
That said… no I would not be butt hurt if the rules as you stated, “all traffic treated equally” made it through as well.
The problem will forever come down to enforcement. Governments can pick and choose winners and losers based on which companies they decide to enforce the laws on or not.
This is how Title II came about to begin with. The government LOVES monopolies, they just want some form of control over them (for our benefits of course)! Regulation gets you a monopoly, oligopoly, or oligarchy. The very thing people are claiming they want to prevent in Capitalism is what they are bringing about through regulation!
Re: Re: Re:7 All in a name!
If you allow that, then in an area where two ISPs compete, they will make their traffic shaping rules complementary, so that anybody who wants full access to the Internet has to get a connection from both of them.
Re: Re: Re:8 All in a name!
You understood nothing.
You are so worried about what an ISP can do without regulation that you seem to be missing the point that current regulation is already allowing that and has no plans to prevent it.
The term her is, penny wise but pound foolish. You are trading your freedom of choice in the market place under the mistaken guise that government is going to protect you from that problem. News Flash… this is why you now have Pai to contend with.
Re: Re: Re:9 All in a name!
Funnily enough I live in a country where the ISPs are regulated, but in a fashion that ensures that they can use a common infrastructure. As a result I have a choice of ISP, all offering unlimited data. Indeed it is the nature of infrastructure, easy to monopolize, that means there should be regulation to protect the consumers.
The Big problem in the USA is not so much regulation, but rather the way that regulators are political appointees on a short term contract, and so, unless about to retire, have an eye on what their next job will be.
Re: Re: Re:7 All in a name!
“Latency sensitive applications should be treated differently than large package/bulk data packets.”
Nothing about net neutrality prevents traffic shaping, QoS, etc. if that’s what you’re on about. It just means that if one packet is going to Comcast and the other to Netflix, they can’t give precedent to Comcast just because they provide the pipe/pay more.
“if they want to join a Verizon network where Netflix is blocked or if they want to Join a new network by Mom and Pop that allows unfettered access to Netflix.”
….and if that competition doesn’t exist, and the bar is too high for a new smaller player to realistically compete, so Verizon is their only real option?
“The very thing people are claiming they want to prevent in Capitalism is what they are bringing about through regulation!”
So, and this is where you always fail to make sense, what’s the solution? History shows that leaving them to it won’t work, and there is no free market in that arena right now. Rather than attacking people because some kind of regulation is clearly needed – what is your idea of a plan?
Re: Re: Re:8 All in a name!
QoS is where certain traffic is given priority based on specific criteria.
This is literally contradictory with the phrase
“Treat all Traffic equally”
So, if you do not have a firm grasp of the English language why should anyone listen to you?
“So, and this is where you always fail to make sense, what’s the solution?”
The solution has been repeatedly stated multiple times. This has been nothing but a game you political hacks play endlessly. Constantly acting like no one else BUT yourself has given a solution. The reality is that you have already made it clear that you have rejected my solution. I am just hear to keep reminding you why your “currently implemented” solution is still sucking.
I am her reminding you that you did ask for this.
I have tried to explain to you how that is, but you are listening to that part either!
Re: Re: Re:9 All in a name!
I have lots of Solutions! So many Solutions I can’t “name” a single One!
If I get Very Very Angry eery time “Somebody” points out I have no Solutions, maybe people “won’t Notice” I have no Solutions!
I mean I “do” have Solutions! Lots and lots and Lots of solutions! I have shared Millions of Solutions! Billions! So many I can’t name oany of them Right “now”!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
Re: Re: Re:9 All in a name!
You’re conflating 2 things and getting yourself confused (as ever):
With net neutrality rules, you’re allowed to treat traffic differently for things like actual network congestion, re-routing for security reasons (e.g. DDOS mitigation) and other such reasons
For other reasons, such as routing between competing services, have to treat all traffic equally.
These are NOT contradictions, except you keep pretending they are. Read the actual opinions instead of launching into your nonsensical anti-regulation nonsense, and you’ll understand this.
“The solution has been repeatedly stated multiple times”
No, it hasn’t. You give some vague rambling about some regulation being needed when someone calls you on your anti-regulation stance, but you never go into actual details.
“I am just hear to keep reminding you why your “currently implemented” solution is still sucking.”
Apart from your inability to use the English language correctly, you still fail to understand that this has nothing to do with me. I live in a country that’s well regulated, and that means I get better internet than most Americans for a lower price. I’m just here to explain that your constant pro-corporation, anti-regulation stance is clearly only ever going to make things worse. If only you’d discuss the realistic alternatives rather than claiming you have all the answers (which you never provide)
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
I like the idea of Net Neutrality, IF it actually IS THAT! Wheeler Vision is NOT true to that purpose and gives the FCC too much power! I am not willing to give them too much power to "keep me safe" from the big bad "spying on us already" infrastructure!
Can you describe what "excessive power" was given to the FCC under Wheeler’s rules?
Thanks.
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
“A government big enough to give me what I want, is also big enough to take from me what they want.”
A corporation too.
“Essential liberty given up for a little or temporary safety only results in the “deserving” loss of both!”
Net neutrality is demanding essential liberty.
Again, governments and corporations are just people. Corporations are crooked since inception, since their only goal is profit. Governments at least in philosophy and design, at least in theory, are there to protect people (especially from corporation).
So you are better staying with something that is designed, at least in theory, to protect you, not with something that is not.
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
Again, corporations are designed to profit, not to protect you. Government is designed to protect you but has been corrupted by corporation. The problem is corporation, their design and their corrupting power over government.
Re: Re: Re:4 All in a name!
“Very few people supports absolute anarchy and very few people supports regulation that codifies every little detail.”
Great, so can people stop attacking fictions of MNH’s imagination and discuss the nuances of real opinions? That would be nice for a change.
Re: Re: Re:5 All in a name!
I think the clarification is…
“People do not intend to support absolute anarchy or regulation that codifies every little detail”
The problem is that people wind up doing what it takes to achieve one of those two results.
Anarchy is Zero Regulation
Anti-Trust/Anti-Monopoly is the Middle Ground
Current Regulation is the Codification of every little detail.
The problem is that you folks are living in a fairy tail where you mistakenly believe that a Politician is hearing that you want “reasonable” regulation.
How can Net Neutrality be enforced without “codifying every little detail”? HINT: It cannot!
Because if you leave a detail out, then a loophole is present for a business to abuse and then what happens next? More calls for regulation. You folks are literally helping the ISP’s screw you! They OWN your politicians and Parties you are still handing all of your liberties over to them in hopes they will save you from the big bad business man!
Re: Re: Re:6 All in a name!
My AMazing “plan” for Net Neutrality:
Step 1: Remove All “regulations” except Anti-Trust/Anti-Monopoly
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Net Neutrality!
Every Nation eats the paint chips it Deserves!
Re: Re: Re:6 All in a name!
“Current Regulation is the Codification of every little detail.”
Except that, of course, that’s a lie.#
“How can Net Neutrality be enforced without “codifying every little detail”? HINT: It cannot!”
Another lie
“You folks are literally helping the ISP’s screw you!”
Another lie.
Look, I understand you have some pathological hatred of effective regulation for some reason, but lying out of your ass every chance you get about current regulations and the opinions of other people really doesn’t help anyone take you seriously.
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
I don’t think it’s about being a “government censor” any more than making a billboard company take down a pro-nazi billboard or making a TV Channel not run the “Kill that n—-r” show. There is no (sane) reason why the internet should not be subject to the same sorts of laws as other media.
All the German government is trying to do is to make social media work in the same manner as any other publishing firm might work – bearing at least some responsibility for the material that they publish. That I can publish on the open internet what I cannot publish in a public place is a situation that won’t work out in the long run.
It’s not about picking sides, it’s about being smart enough to see reality, especially as the internet becomes as common as walking on the street.
Re: Re: Re:3 No difference at all, really
There is no (sane) reason why the internet should not be subject to the same sorts of laws as other media.
You know, other than the fact that there’s a massive difference between one person/company choosing to post something, and a person/company offering an open platform for others to post stuff.
But beyond that minuscule difference no, no reason at all for the laws to be different, the two are just so similar.
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
Except that in TV, employees choose what to broadcast.
But on the internet, Facebook for example does not choose what it users upload.
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
Here we go again. Laws are supposed to be for everyone, not just the rich or the poor.
Everyone rakes on Facebook and Google because they’re the big names right now.
Neither of these companies is even 20 years old and everyone acts like they’ve just celebrated their 100 year anniversary.
If all regulations were tore down tomorrow we’d just create new ones in 50 years.
Even with regulations in place we still have cartels, price-fixing and unfair practices (such as industrial sabotage).
Surely, that’s not what most people want out of a “free market”? Or is it?
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
Exactly. The reason people want net neutrality rules is to protect the small guys, not game the system in favour of the legacy players’ needs. The reason people want section 230 style rules is to protect both equally so that the future small guys have a chance.
It’s not logically inconsistent unless you have a need to make things up.
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
But the problem is that you don’t get what you want.
You get the devils deal, ALWAYS!
Re: Re: Re:4 All in a name!
So, we should ask for nothing and get the devil’s desires foisted upon us regardless?
Sorry, I prefer the one where the public at least gets representation even if it’s imperfect and occasionally ineffective. The fantasy of the pure free market will screw the consumer every time in places where there is no real free market (e.g. telecoms, healthcare, etc.)
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
There are already regulations in the ISP land… for the big monopolies. How do you think they stay in business? It isn’t due to honest competition, that’s for sure.
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
Well, in the big monopolies’ favor. Stupid no edit button…
Re: Re: All in a name!
I am saying that you are mistaken if believe that I calling for zero regulation.
It happens every time. I say destroy the FCC and everyone says yea, lets have ZERO regulation. Being obtuse does not help this situation out and is a conversation killer because it shows that you are not even willing to entertain ideas other than, Government Controls it.
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
Maybe if “it happens every time”, you should consider that you are terrible at arguing your point.
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
That is a genius argument!
I wonder if that is what they said to all of the scientists that have been marginalized, jailed, killed, or ridiculed all throughout history?
My arguments speak readily to people with a self thinking mind, but will appear like gibberish to those whom are not capable of thinking or doing for themselves!
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
When everybody points out that the stuff I Say “doesn’t make Sense”, it only proves how “smart” I am!
I am just like Galileo! I am Very Smart! You can Tell because i always talk about how “samrt” I am, all the Time! Like Galileo! He always Went around calling “epople” Sycophantic Idiots. That’s how you Knew he was so Smart!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
Please, compare yourself more to persecuted scientists.
It’s hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:3 All in a name!
There is a difference between arguing for something and arguing against something.
The Trumpistic “I always know” and “people like us” will always be carried by arguing against, rather than defending a solution.
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
Another issue few people seem to want to understand is that back when Google (and even Facebook, to a measure) was founded “Net Neutrality” was built-in to the network.
In fact unless you were on a corporate network QOS was pretty much unheard of.
The FCC only had to step in once the ISPs figured they could start extorting businesses mafia-style (“Nice traffic you got there, it would be a shame …”).
So, really, regulations aren’t needed until they’re needed.
Re: Re: Re:2 All in a name!
“So, really, regulations aren’t needed until they’re needed.”
Not arguing that point.
The problem is the philosophy here. How much control can you give to government before losing “necessary/essential” liberty. The government being involved with deciding who is and who is not allowed to even be a carrier in my area is not the way to do this.
Re: Re: Re: All in a name!
I never said "zero Regulation"! I said "Regulation is always negative"!
This happens Every time! You Sycophantic Idiots think I want ZERO regulation just because I said Regulation is Alws "negative"! What a bunch of Sycophantic Idiot. Not smart like me. I am very Very "smart"!
Also, devil’s deal!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!
Re: All in a name!
Somolia is the only true free market. Better move there and practise what you preach.
Re: All in a name!
I only know one historical fact!
Every nation eats the Paint chips it Desrves!
Re: Re: All in a name!
On the contrary. All nations of the world are filled mostly with good people that want to work and have a happy life. But their elites have captured government, policy and discourse.
Ballot gets stuffed with fake votes.
Advocacy group nobody ever hears of waits until ballot box is stuffed sufficiently.
Advocacy group ignores ballot stuffing.
Advocacy group loudly proclaims they were right all along.
Nothing suspicious here, fellas. It’s the will of the people!
Is there any way to remove a fraudulent comment? My name has been hijacked and 3 fraudulent comments have been posted in my name.
Re: Re:
A name is not guaranteed to be unique, except on a site as a registered user, so there is no fraud being carried.
Re: Re: Re:
I think they mean “Fraudulent FCC comments” not “Fraudulent Techdirt comments.”
Unless they’re claiming the name “Anonymous Coward” as theirs and theirs alone (except for three comments). In which case: I must say that I strongly agree with about half of what you’ve posted and strongly disagree with the other half.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
agree and don’t agree as well!
Re: Re:
So far the FCC has refused to take down fraudulent comments, but I suggest taking a look at comcastroturf.com.
Re: Re: Re:
Why would they, the bogus comments are in favor of what they already plan on doing, as such it supports their argument to have so many ‘supporting’ them.
On a more cynical note, maybe Congress should allow all these mergers. Give it about 10, no 5 years and we’d have a new AT&T “Ma Bell”. Then anti-trust law could be used to break it up again. And so on…
Re: Re:
We don’t need to be in these cycles forever, we need them to be stopped for good.
for any automated
Any automated system that sent Comments??
Is now in the garbage..Pro Neutrality is in the dirt..
See, they did a search on HEADERS..
Services that HELPED us send to the correct departments and sections of the FCC..got DUMPED..I will bet you can not get a copy of those DUMPED..NONE were saved..
Re: for any automated
proof of your allegations?
Privacy is every Americans right. Freedom of speech and freedom of the internet,. We must keep the internet free from the government. Stop the Government from spying on everybody. So stop using the spying search engines, us the unbiased no tracking search engine that owns its own search results Lookseek.com try it have a nice day
Re: Re:
And we must keep the internet free form corporations too.
Also, Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Internet is the right of every human on the planet, not just Americans, dear reductionist friend.
Perhaps instead of a pro NN ballot stuffer, someone just fire up a retract-o-bot. For each of the bot comments, have it issue a full retraction in the same name. “I, the fraudbot called $NAME, hereby retract in full the following $COMMENT which I fraudulently posted in someone else’s name.” We all know what Pai is going to do anyways so why not just go ahead and fight fire with napalm?
Conclusions
So one might read this the government is good with Bots. But that’s not really the case: the government’s only good with comments that they agree with.
I bet they rated all the comments pro and con…and then just threw out the pros.
cindy hsu and otis livingston must go to jail
to the adam silver and nba company. cbs anchor woman cindy hsu recently got involved in dirty coraption business with crazy cbs anchor otis livingston to steal mony from nba company employees bank accounts. never trust cindy hsu and otis livingston they belong in jail. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!