
Prominent D.C. media firm implicated in fake FCC comments - spac
https://gizmodo.com/how-an-investigation-of-fake-fcc-comments-snared-a-prom-1832788658
======
stark3
Sickening how easy it was for the telcoms to push their agenda through in
spite of overwhelming public opposition.

I'm pretty sure most individuals following the story of net neutrality knew
the fcc's ballot box was compromised.

It would be nice if someone could face consequences for the fraud put on by
the FCC. I won't hold my breath though.

~~~
crispyambulance
The thing is, "the ballot box" you refer to was just a way for random people
on the internet to submit comments. It isn't intended, I think, as a way to
guide policy. I expect that they switched to web-based commentary because,
historically, they've accepted letters and the web-forms are just an
"upgrade". Who's going to hire staff to open, read and respond to letters
these days?

These fake "grassroots" operatives merely abused the web-commentary system in
order to keep the FCC leadership (and Republicans) from being completely
humiliated by the sheer number of people in favor of net neutrality. Turns
out, they got sloppy and went a bit overboard.

What is really disturbing, however, is that the company named, "CQ" is in the
business of automating "campaigns" with software and data analysis. To them,
it doesn't matter WHAT the campaign actually is as long as they get a paying
customer-- smears and disinformation is just another day of work for them.

There's so many layers of slime here, it's hard to know where to start.

~~~
acdha
> It isn't intended, I think, as a way to guide policy.

Public comment is explicitly intended to guide policy. It’s not a vote but the
entire point of the process is to get feedback before a policy is finalized
and most agencies attempt to address common points.

It’s reasonable to question the inherent assumption of good faith with the
current administration but we’re also in an unusual time where the most
cynical view of previous administrations are now the smart money view of how
things work.

~~~
ikeboy
Public comment is meant to surface arguments to be taken into account to guide
policy. As such, having 1 or 10 million people make the exact same argument in
the same words doesn't change anything.

~~~
acdha
This is only true in the most simple cases. If there’s any portion of a
proposed policy which is balancing different interests - which is almost
always the case - the ratio of comments is a useful metric because it would
surface problems such as e.g. a policy which big companies are comfortable
with but hit many small ones with substantial compliance overhead.

In this case, having tons of AstroTurf comments allows them to say that
there’s public support outside of large ISPs. Given how anticompetitive the
decision was, they needed that fig leaf.

~~~
rayiner
No agency would be on firm footing pointing to a large number of identical
form comments received for one side as a factor in a balancing of interests.
It would not survive the “reasoned decision making” requirement. To the extent
you’re talking about balancing the needs of small and large companies, for
example, you’d have to point to concrete examples and data. That could come in
comments (small businesses talking about real challenges they’ve faced), but
relying on a large number of identical form comments wouldn’t pass muster.

~~~
acdha
If you assume good faith, yes. In the environment they were in where they knew
that oversight was in friendly hands, however, I think they were just looking
for enough to say the process was followed knowing that it’d be done before
it’d get any critical examination.

------
sitkack
With so many rotten apples, maybe the tree should go. This is a gigantic,
criminal subversion of Democracy that the FCC remains complicit in, something
that only jail time can fix.

~~~
Mirioron
Why hasn't Trump launched a high profile investigation into this? This guy was
appointed during Obama's presidency and he could score some easy points.

~~~
masklinn
I don't know if you're just misunderstanding things or wilfully spreading
misinformation, but just in case:

1\. Ajit Pai started working at the FCC under George W. Bush.

2\. Ajit Pai was nominated under Obama _for a republican seat at the
recommendation of Mitch McConnell_ : no more than 3 FCC commissioners can be
of the same party so the split is generally[0] 3 of the president's party and
2 of the opposition, Ajit Pai was a GOP pick.

3\. Ajit Pai was made chairman of the FCC by Donald Trump.

Ajit Pai is a thoroughly Republican operative. Getting rid of Pai would not
score any points with the republican party (he's doing exactly what he's
supposed to do there), nor would it score any points with the democratic party
(way too little, way too late, no chance of the damage done being repaired,
and what happened was exactly what'd been predicted when he was made
chairman).

[0] when that comes up / is possible: commissioners terms are 5 years (though
they may serve up to 6½ if their replacement is not yet appointed) and the
seats are staggered so one commissioner's term is up every year

------
JumpCrisscross
Who are prominent clients of CQ Roll Call?

------
mitchbob
Faking an identity online for political manipulation should be a felony, full
stop.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
That could end up outlawing Pseudonyms and fictional characters. The real
problem is that the government would accept public comment through an
unauthenticated web form.

------
1024core
Money quote:

 _an FCC spokesperson said comments from the general public are “generally not
substantive, so thus have no impact on a rulemaking.”_

There you have it. So the number of comments is useful only when it helps make
whatever point they're trying to make.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Isn’t the FCC supposed to be a consumer protection agency? Seems silly to
disregard consumer concerns.

~~~
rayiner
The FCC was not intended to be what we consider a “consumer protection agency”
(an agency that one-sidedly advocates for consumer interests, like say the
CFPB).

The Communications Act of 1934 states that the FCC is created to regulate
communications with the purpose of making available “rapid, efficient,
nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate
facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and
for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by
centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by
granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce
in wire and radio communication.”

If you look at the historical context of the FCC, including the “several
agencies” that the FCC replaces, the focus was on coordinating resource
allocation. Granting spectrum licenses, granting permits to build
infrastructure, etc.

The AT&T monopoly exemplifies the sort of system the FCC was mandated to help
create. It was a world class, gold-plated telephone network, available almost
everywhere in the US. It wasn’t consumer friendly in many ways (it was
expensive and restrictive), but it was certainly “rapid and efficient.”

------
craftinator
Paid for by.... Mr. Pai? Follow the money...

------
JohnJamesRambo
This is treason and I don’t see why it would be punished differently.

~~~
tvanantwerp
But...this isn't treason. Fraud, yes. Definitely fraud. But unless there is
some other evidence that this fraud was committed with the specific intent of
aiding a foreign power rather than just line the pockets of the telecoms, then
no, not treason.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
“the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the
sovereign or overthrow the government.”

Maybe I’m being a little hyperbolic, it isn’t the government being overthrown
but one branch of it and certainly what the public wanted was intentionally
silenced.

~~~
jimrandomh
You are being more than a little bit hyperbolic, and it's bad for the
conversation when people do that.

