SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the say-it-often-enough-and-people-will-tend-to-believe-you dept.
I used natural language processing techniques to analyze net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC from April-October 2017, and the results were disturbing.
NY Attorney General Schneiderman estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans' identities were stolen and used in spam campaigns that support repealing net neutrality. My research found at least 1.3 million fake pro-repeal comments, with suspicions about many more. In fact, the sum of fake pro-repeal comments in the proceeding may number in the millions. In this post, I will point out one particularly egregious spambot submission, make the case that there are likely many more pro-repeal spambots yet to be confirmed, and estimate the public position on net neutrality in the "organic" public submissions.
The author's key findings:
- One pro-repeal spam campaign used mail-merge to disguise 1.3 million comments as unique grassroots submissions.
- There were likely multiple other campaigns aimed at injecting what may total several million pro-repeal comments into the system.
- It's highly likely that more than 99% of the truly unique comments³ were in favor of keeping net neutrality.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:56AM (15 children)
I wrote the GP (the one you replied to), and we're in near-universal agreement.
I want to see LESS government involvement in the Internet at all levels, and yes, this does include the removal of the government buttresses to support the crooked corporate ISPs.
You can't fix a problem caused by government (thuggish monopolistic ISPs) with more of the very same thing which caused the problem in the first place (government).
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:24AM (14 children)
You are apparently unaware that the Federal government has *zero* to do with granting local monopolies/duopolies for ISPs around the country, right?
That's done at the state and local levels. If you don't want thuggish ISPs, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Go bug your local and state representatives and ask *them* why ISPs to whom they gave sweetheart deals have consolidated (>90% of internet connections) down to a few big companies across the country, and are using that power to charge exorbitant fees, impose abusive TOS and thwart potential competitors to their media distribution divisions.
Given that this is a nationwide problem, it makes sense for the Federal government to rein in these greedy fucks, since the corrupt and greedy state and local governments that *you* put in office are feeding at the trough even more (in per capita terms) than the U.S. Congress.
Sadly, *you* voted in a bunch of greedy fucks in the federal government too. Now you're reaping what you've sown. It's *your* fault.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:58AM (2 children)
You're talking about the specific shade of blonde of the hair on the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Government is homogenous in nature. Government is FORCE. Force used in cases absent of fraud or others' initiation of force is no different in principle than a mugger or a slaver. I reject such premises for the operation of a society.
There's too much force in my Internet already. You advocating to cram more in is not helping.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)
Move to the sunny Somalia already! And then tell us how you like big fat black cock FORCED up your asshole. Not everybody's cup of tea...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:42AM
Your Stockholm syndrome is understandable, but not worthwhile as an argument.
I prefer to reason with criminals, and resort to force only if necessary; you, on the other hand, seem to worship force, so long as it is "home team" force. It may comfort you to know that it is almost certain that I will be murdered by agents of your beloved US government before I have the chance to die of natural causes.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:39PM (4 children)
Not on a large scale. But the US National Park Service does have that power in Yellowstone National Park. There's probably some other federal property where they have that degree of control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)
Even in the National Petrified Cell Tower Forest?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:57AM
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:32PM (1 child)
And how many *paying* (for Internet access, not to visit the National Park) customers are involved?
You're attempting (poorly) to distract from what's really going on. I'm not surprised.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:47AM
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:59AM (5 children)
The idea that it's the local deals that cause the problem is, IMHO, a mistake.
California does not allow such exclusive deals, yet, there is effectively a duopoly in residential wired Internet services in many cities. Thus, the largest state provides an example that suggests that there is something else in play.
We need to recognize that wired Internet services (at least the last mile) are a natural monopoly and regulate them accordingly.
Blame Michael Powell for the current situation.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:08AM (4 children)
So those franchises are approved at the state level then?
It's ludicrous to think that extant wireline providers just started trenching and pulling cable without any permits or approvals. Given that *someone* (whether it be local or state officials) needs to approve access to rights-of-way for wireline internet infrastructure, there's a state or municipal government involved.
Oh wait, I'm sorry. it's the U.S. Department of Internet Monopolies And Consumer Beatings [wikipedia.org] that decides which ISPs can operate in which municipalities all across the country, right? How could I have missed that?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:04AM (3 children)
*exclusive*
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:42AM (2 children)
You keep using that word.
I think it means what you think it means.
But I never used that word. And nothing I said even implied it.
So what's your point?
Not trying to be a jerk, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:32AM (1 child)
My point was that local municipalities can't create local telecom monopolies because they are not allowed to make *exclusive* deals. You went off on a tangent on at what level the franchise agreements were made.
However, when searching this I did come across a news item that shows that Comcast and (I think) Verizon did get franchises at the state level. I think that this is how it works in CA and the cost of any local municipality agreement must be actual cost incurred by the municipality.
I still don't think that the issue in California is monopolies created by franchise agreements. The issue is that the last mile is effectively a natural monopoly and that, until a former FCC chairman removed the regulations, incumbents were required to allow access to their last mile wiring to competitors. This is the situation in the UK, where most people have quite a choice of ISPs, because an ISP can access the last mile connections of the incumbent.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:09AM
All fair and reasonable points.
I wholeheartedly agree that the "last mile" is a natural monopoly (just like electricity distribution which, at least in my city, is not only a monopoly, but is required to deliver electricity generated by others. That creates an interesting dynamic, as delivery charges are ~3x the cost of the electricity) and should be treated as such.
As I've argued repeatedly here, the last mile should just provide links to any ISP that wishes to provide service, with those ISPs competing on features, price, service and reliability.
However (and regardless of how ISPs are vetted/approved to provide last mile services), this is exceedingly difficult to do in the current environment. And that's (which was my original point) why these sorts of arrangements should be implemented at the municipal level.
But given that incumbents are bent on maximizing rent-seeking and raising barriers to competition, and state/local governments in the US are generally quite corrupt, that's a difficult row to hoe.
As such, the stakes in the fate of net neutrality rules are quite high. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against us.
Because the truth is that we are the weak, and the ISPs are the tyranny of evil men. The FCC has, on occasion, tried to be the shepherd, but not no more. So we're gonna be as dead as fucking fried chicken. [youtube.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr