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:

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.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 6:41am

    "resulting price hikes on consumer"

    We'd believe it was cause and effect if they weren't nickel and diming us at every turn already.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 6:46am

    sadly

    "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,"

    Sadly with right wing supporters this works more often then it fails

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 9:28am

      Re: sadly

      just the right wingers eh?

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:10am

        Re: Re: sadly

        Is it possible that net neutrality supporters are predominately left of center? Certainly left of the ultra right wing.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Re: sadly

          "Is it possible that net neutrality supporters are predominately left of center? Certainly left of the ultra right wing."

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2017 @ 1:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: sadly

            I rarely see any examples of such things, however. Only whining from right wingers that everyone's mean to them when they spout ignorant comments.

            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?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 12 Jul 2017 @ 5:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sadly

              Where "left" means "those who disagree with alt-right talking points."

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 6:47am

    Uh, Karl....Let's not criticize the use of Think Tanks too much...Copia Institute and all...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Vidiot (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:10am

      Re:

      I'll admit I first look at think tanks with a jaundiced eye... but a little bit of research on the principals and individuals involved -- their prior commercial relationships, publications, supported issues -- gives a pretty quick insight into their legitimacy. Copia Institute easily passes, of course.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:59am

        Re: Re:

        That. When I see some institute, association or whatever I go look for their sponsors and who is running the show, their past actions and other factors. Of course sometimes you'll get it wrong like that time when Karl and pretty much everybody else thought Wheeler would be more of the same and he surprised us.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      There's certainly plenty of good think tanks. And Copia is an effort to bring a little bit of sanity and more honest discourse to a think tank segment that has, over the years, simply mutated into a way for giant legacy companies to farm bogus science justifying anti-competitive (or anti-environment, etc.) positions.

      I'm not saying all think tanks are bad. I will say a huge portion of them are total shit, though.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 9:11am

        Re: Re:

        And I'll admit, I'm in no position to criticize or evaluate your claims on Copia (I have not adequately researched them). I'm just saying, that bit *could* have been construed as you snarking on think-tanks in general while being part of a....Blog Network, I guess you'd call it?.....That endorses one.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 9:36am

        Re: Re:

        There is only one purpose behind a think tank.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:03am

    "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"

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:12am

      Re:

      This "bias" claim makes no coherent sense. Comcast is rated, consistently, as one of the worst companies in ANY INDUSTRY IN AMERICA when it comes to customer service and support. Worse than the IRS.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:12am

        Re: Re:

        "Polls indicate the majority of consumers do support net neutrality protections."

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Ben (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Note Karl said "net neutrality protections" not "net neutrality" so the buzzword not being understood complaint isn't valid.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 9:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "so the buzzword not being understood complaint isn't valid."


            hah ah ha... you say as you proceed to detail how and why buzzwords are "often not understood".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              hah ah ha... you say as you proceed to detail how and why buzzwords are "often not understood".

              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).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 11:04am

                Re: 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."

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And where is your data for this, aside from your meaningless personal not-even-anecdotes?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2017 @ 2:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "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."

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:02am

      Re:

      That a lot of people are still somewhat confused with the idea or even don't really know is a given (though all the publicity is slowly changing) and the confusion is intentionally fed by the telcos themselves so there's that. Even then you still see overwhelming bipartisan support to NN to the point that over 90% of the comments in the FCC site are supportive of NN (excluding the bot). So what's your point?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:19am

        Re: Re:

        You don't think that the people posting to the FCC are sort of a self-selecting group? Nobody is specifically anti net neutrality, at least not as a theory. In practice, it may end up driving up prices and take away some of the impetus to build out the networks longer term, but in theory, it sounds all nice.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ

          It's rather old and I imagine more people would have heard of Chrome now but still interesting/distressing.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 12:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That is the state of affairs for humanity.

            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!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          90% of us support you being paid by the word, by the telecom industry. That way you will stop using valuable public services being an crazy unemployed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          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.

          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”.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yea yea, fox guarding henhouse analogies etc etc.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 12:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Customers* and other grammar fail. We need an edit button!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 12:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Agree, I can't tell you how many times I have had my browser "auto correct" me into stupidity or a contradiction and not notice it. Which is why I never make fun of people over typo's and regard those who do as flipping idiots.

              I am not a fan of the commenting "markdown" stuff either.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 12:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They are utility companies since they own and service a privately owned utility. How much of their core business that part is, will depend on the beholder, but no matter what they own a utility. Actually copper-net ISPs were regulated by title II which is utility regulation, untill at least 2002, while cable was regulated under section 706. It is a fact both sides of the debate simplify away. Title II was abolished for copper net to improve competition.

          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...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dan Audy (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 4:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Except that in practice the exact opposite is true. When true net neutrality exists and companies are forced to treat their own data equally instead of exempting them from artificially low caps the prices drop and the offerings improve because they actually have to _compete_ now. Just look at European cell service after exempting certain types of data from the caps became illegal to see.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2017 @ 2:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "In practice, it may end up driving up prices and take away some of the impetus to build out the networks longer term"

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2017 @ 2:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Net neutrality doesn't create competition.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 13 Jul 2017 @ 12:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Explain. How does preventing companies from using their defacto monopoly positions to unfairly favour their own services (and those of people who pay them a ransom) over those of competitors not force them to compete in other ways?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 13 Jul 2017 @ 10:36am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I think he means that it will still be a de facto monopoly on last mile internet service, with or without net neutrality. Which is true, there is still just one or two broadband providers in many places.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:03am

    And the franchise goes on!

    The populace embraces sequel after sequel of the "Lie Hard" series of this government and administration.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:40am

    Serious Question...

    With Ajit Pai basically in the pocket of the Telecom/Cable sector, I don't understand why they are trying to eliminate Title II now. Wouldn't he have screwed over the public more by not enforcing rules, and then push for declassification at the end of his term?

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 9:44am

      Re: Serious Question...

      No, the FCC sees very clearly, they in fact, see more clearly that TD and most of the folks here.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:11am

        Re: Re: Serious Question...

        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.

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 11:16am

          Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...

          history

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 4:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...

            Yeah, get rid of all regulations! Bring back unrestricted pollution, child labor, tainted meat, and cars with no safety equipment! Then we can finally participate in the economy with liberty again, free from all this pesky "living a long time" and "being healthy"!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Chip, 11 Jul 2017 @ 5:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...

              That's what I keep "trying" to Tell these sypcopantic Idiots! Th "Government" should stay Out of it and let the Free Market decide! At least, that's what my Unlicensed Doctor told me when I went to "see" him. He said " should "eat" more "Paint chips"!

              Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 12 Jul 2017 @ 5:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...

            _I can fight a non-government blessed monopoly much easier than I can one that is blessed and in bed with government._

            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."

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2017 @ 6:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...

              It's usually something along the lines of "the free market will decide", which always ignores the fact that there's no free market here. As with healthcare, you can't have a market-driven solution when the product is something people cannot easily opt out from and there's no real competition in the market. People just end up forced to pay more for less, with no recourse when they're inevitably screwed over.

              As with a lot of the things these people argue about, it's all pretty easy until you introduce objective reality to the conversation.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re: Serious Question...

        Oh look captain pants on head ate all the paint chips showed up to poop his pants in public. How droll.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:55am

    But we have millions of Ben Franklins that agree with us! - Telcos

    A lot of support for killing net neutrality indeed! - Ajit Pai with $ symbols in the eyes

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 7:57am

    and i'll bet Pai the wanker will be all over this, praising it to High Heaven as all the proof that's needed that Net Neutrality isnt! regardless of how big the protest is, it's on a loser because Pai is on the payroll of all the ISPs, just as 99% of the politicians are!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 8:50am

    We hold these truths to be self evident, that all packets are created equal...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:31am

    The Privacy Policy

    FreedomWorks has taken steps to make all information received from our online visitors as secure as possible against unauthorized access and use. All information is protected by our security measures, which are periodically reviewed.

    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"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Public Domain, 11 Jul 2017 @ 10:39am

    Re:

    Where did you get a copy of my internet bill? All those fees and I'm still getting asymmetric v4 latent crap!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 11:18am

    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)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 11 Jul 2017 @ 12:49pm

      Re: Precise Wording

      "Network Neutrality" is, itself, a pretty poor rallying cry; it sounds technical and wonky, and its meaning is confusing to anybody who's not already familiar with the subject.

      I'm quite partial to John Oliver's suggestion that we call it Preventing Internet Fuckery.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    charliebrown (profile), 11 Jul 2017 @ 4:22pm

    What a load of covfefe!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2017 @ 10:20am

    "Unlock internet service packages per website."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.