
AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government - AGSchneiderman
Hey everyone, New York AG Eric Schneiderman here.<p>For the last 6 months, my office has been investigating a flood of fake comments that corrupted the FCC’s net neutrality comment process. Approximately 1 million of those comments may have been submitted using real people’s stolen identities--including those of as many as 50K New Yorkers, such as a dead person and a 13 year old child. This is akin to identity theft on a massive scale, and it undermines the public’s right to be heard at the most basic level of our government’s rulemaking.<p>Yesterday, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and I held a press conference to update on my office’s investigation and called on the FCC to delay its net neutrality vote until we can get to the bottom of it. In an era where foreign governments have indisputably tried to use the internet and social media to influence our elections, federal &amp; state governments should be working together to ensure that malevolent actors cannot subvert our administrative agencies’ decision-making processes. You can watch our full press conference here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;TtZEC21QN-c" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;TtZEC21QN-c</a>.<p>I’ll be back this afternoon to take your questions!<p>In the meantime, a few things you can do to help in this fight:<p>1. My office requested help in our investigation from the FCC at least 9 times, but the FCC’s Chairman and his staff responded by stonewalling (yesterday, the FCC’s IG finally indicated they may assist with our investigation). So we’ve gone to the public. My office has set up a website for you to check whether your name was used to submit fake comments, &amp; file a report if it was: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ag.ny.gov&#x2F;fakecomments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ag.ny.gov&#x2F;fakecomments</a>.<p>2. While FCC Chairman Pai has declared his intention to roll back net neutrality, we can still beat this effort back in Congress. If you haven&#x27;t already spoken to your representatives, please do it today. You can contact your Senators and Congresspeople through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.<p>Thanks all. Keep speaking out.
======
amorphid
If net neutrality fails, would it makes sense aggressively pursue a legal
effort to break up "big cable"? Back in the long distance/DSL days, the local
telcos were forced into allowing alternate vendors to sell long distance &
Internet service over the copper wire running to one's house. Can we bust up
Comcast's strangehold on the Internet service available to my apartment by
forcing them to allow any vendor to sell Internet over that single Comcast-
owned coax line? They lobbied against neutrality, so take away their monopoly!

~~~
thomastjeffery
> If net neutrality fails, would it makes sense aggressively pursue a legal
> effort to break up "big cable"?

It already makes sense.

If there were a competitive free market, then there would be a rational
argument against net neutrality rules, but that simply isn't the case unless
you live in North Dakota.

It's ironic that Ajit Pai acts like he can back up his argument against net
neutrality with nothing but a short-sighted libertarian stance, yet he is so
clearly helping support the current oligopoly, rather than fighting for a
competitive free market.

~~~
colordrops
Ajit Pai knows exactly what he's doing.

------
AGSchneiderman
Hey, everyone, this is AG Schneiderman, I'm here and ready to take your
questions. Just a reminder that you can check to see if your identity was
misused during the NN comment process by clicking here:
[https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments](https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments).

------
JumpCrisscross
Dear Attorney General,

I am beyond thrilled to see you on our forum. You're a gem to our country and
make me proud to be a New Yorker and an American.

In your review of this forum's discussions on net neutrality, what do we
consistently miss, exaggerate or get sidetracked by? Are there technical
projects we can contribute to or technical problems take on that would help
you defend net neutrality?

Thank you again, from all of us.

~~~
AGSchneiderman
Wow – I’m honored! The volcano of bad ideas coming out of this administration
has kept me busy on a lot of fronts, so I haven’t had as much time as I’d like
to keep myself up to date on the boards here. But I can say that my staff –
especially in my Bureau of Internet & Technology – does try to keep up on the
news in tech and any potential problems we need to address. My understanding
from them is that the tech community has been incredibly active on net
neutrality, and incredibly helpful and supportive of our efforts on the issue.
I thank you all for that. If you have a specific proposal for how to help our
office's investigation, I encourage you to get in touch and my team will get
back to you as soon as they can.

[https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general](https://ag.ny.gov/contact-
attorney-general)

~~~
0xfeba
> Bureau of Internet & Technology

BIT, I see. How refreshing to see a non-strained and more importantly, non-
Orwellian acronym come from the US/a State government.

------
gregwtmtno
Hi Mr. Schneiderman:

As a constituent, thank you for your work. I can't help but notice that your
office is the only state AG vocally supporting net neutrality. Has your office
attempted to coordinate with/gain support of other state's AGs?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
Fortunately, it's not just my office that’s publicly supported net neutrality.
(My office did submit its own public comment in support of net neutrality
because we had an issue we wanted to address that was unique to our
experience.) Several other state AGs submitted a comment in support of net
neutrality as well (available here:
[https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717283141719/2017.07.17%20Att...](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717283141719/2017.07.17%20Attorneys%20General%20Comments%20on%20Docket%20No.%2017-108.pdf))

You are right that a broad bipartisan coalition could make a big difference.
Some other state AGs have reached out to us for more information about the
problem and about my office’s investigation, and we’re providing information
to any of them that want to investigate and act on behalf of their own states’
constituents whose identities were misused.

~~~
retromario
For those like me wondering which states (pulled out of the pdf above):

Illinois, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington

~~~
karmelapple
I found one comment that is likely fake, although it is for someone in Nevada,
rather than where I live. This person happens to share my name, which is why I
found it.

I’ve called both the NY and NV Attorney General. I hope NV is ready to
cooperate to investigate this serious identity theft issue.

------
_red
For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are
dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to
"protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist.

1\. Please define "network neutrality" \- if possible do so without using
hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a
"neutrality infraction"?

2\. If the internet existed for ~20 years without the need for regulation, why
now?

3\. Please explain how is the very same government who allows the
communication monopolies to exist, supposed to also ensure that they are
"neutral"? It seems awfully convenient that the solutions to problems that
government creates is to have more government.

4\. Wouldn't more competition be a better course to ensuring a freer net?

~~~
omg_ketchup
They should treat the internet like they treat electricity. It doesn't matter
if you're using it for a hair dryer or a work light or to charge your phone-
you get it the same as everyone else for the same price.

Why aren't we de-regulating power companies too?

~~~
freedomben
Do you also extend this to allow for pay-for-what-you-use? I don't disagree
with charging people more for how much they use, but a lot of net neutrality
proponents lose their minds at the suggestion that somebody who uses 5 GB a
month should pay less than the kid streaming 10 TB of torrents every month.

~~~
charleslmunger
I think the overlap between those is muddled for a few reasons:

1\. Zero rating. Wikipedia+facebook is free, everything else counts towards
the cap. This was a subject of major debate in India.

2\. First party zero rating - YouTube and Vonage count towards the cap, your
ISP's streaming video or VOIP service does not.

3\. Negotiated zero rating. "binge on" and similar, which is basically vendor
neutral but limits the type of content excluded from the cap.

4\. Extremely small caps. If YouTube counts toward the cap and TV doesn't, you
won't cancel your cable package. This gives cable+ISPs a big incentive to keep
caps low.

I view #1 and #2 to be clear violations of NN, and #3 as borderline. #4 is
just a consequence of ISP monopoly - but it's not NN.

~~~
carry_bit
Why is #2 a violation of NN, but #4 is not? Does it really matter if the video
is transferred using IP on top of "internet" frequencies, or IP on top of
"video" frequencies, or QAM on "video" frequencies?

~~~
charleslmunger
In #2 the service is delivered over IP and the same last mile wires as other
internet traffic. It's not "the internet", but it competes directly with the
internet for last mile bandwidth, just like a Netflix or YouTube cache
installed on the ISP's network.

[https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/11/comca...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/11/comcast-launches-online-tv-service-that-doesnt-count-
against-data-caps/)

~~~
carry_bit
It directly competes for last mile bandwidth regardless--the frequencies on
the coax can either be used for internet or a dedicated video service but not
both.

Would you really require cable ISPs provide you an internet bandwidth of X and
video bandwidth of Y instead of internet bandwidth of X+Y?

~~~
charleslmunger
There's shades of grey here - anything you lay in a fixed diameter conduit is
competing for bandwidth in the sense that you could pull another wire.

Consider an alternate history, where TV was invented after the internet. ISPs
propose to offer TV service (exempt from data caps of course) at the expense
of last mile bandwidth, which is otherwise subject to caps. I think that would
be recognized as a net neutrality violation.

It feels unreasonable because we know the cost of providing television service
scales with the number of subscribers, not the usage per subscriber. Of
course, that's also true for internet service outside peak hours - a fixed
monthly cap does not match the unit costs of providing internet at all.

I think pragmatic regulation would exempt existing cases like this. We
wouldn't permit a new case like it in the future, though.

------
terravion
What actions can state and local governments take to support net neutrality?
Is New York going to consider revoking cable franchise agreements for
companies that do not support net neutrality, or require it (maybe
nationwide?) for bidders on franchise agreements?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
Great question. State and local governments should do definitely take action
to support net neutrality, because the overwhelming majority of their citizens
– regardless of politics or ideology -- favor net neutrality. That’s been
proven again and again in every survey and study to measure public sentiment.

Right now, the most effective thing state and local government officials can
do is to join the chorus of citizens calling on their state’s Senators and
Representatives in DC, demanding that they oppose Chairman Pai’s proposed
rollback of the existing Title II protections. If enough folks in Congress--
from both parties--feel pressure to stand up and demand that the FCC preserve
net neutrality, it'll be much harder for the FCC to disregard the will of the
public.

------
zonethundery
Dear AG Schneiderman:

Thanks for all the work you do on behalf of New Yorkers and consumers in other
states.

1\. Are there any federal statutes under which states could sue providers to
effectively maintain net neutrality? (analogous to the UDAAP authority granted
to states by Dodd-Frank)

2\. What obligations does the FCC have under the APA (or other statute) to
ensure the integrity of the comment process, rather than merely evaluating
them and remaining "open minded"?

------
RpFLCL
Can you briefly expand on what congress is capable of doing to delay or stop
this?

I would like to be able to convey specific actions I want to see from my
representatives, but I currently only feel comfortable asking "please do
something!"

Are we to demand that they require the FCC delay the vote until your
investigation has concluded? Do they have that authority?

I was under the impression that the telecom lobby was using the FCC as an end
run around congress. What does a delay gain for us if those involved in the
vote are beholden to lobbies, not citizens?

Thank you for taking the time to come here today, and for your involvement.

~~~
AGSchneiderman
On Congress: Many members of Congress have already spoken up and called on the
FCC to halt the process until the problems with public comments can be
investigated. I hope more of our elected officials in Washington take up that
call. If enough members of Congress support net neutrality, especially if it
is a bipartisan group, then I believe the FCC is less likely to repeal the
strong Title II net neutrality protections that we know the overwhelming
majority of Americans support.

On what you can do: I’ve called on the FCC to delay its vote. So has FCC
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the leading champions of net
neutrality. And so have at least 28 U.S. Senators. Americans absolutely have
the right to make their preferences known to their elected representatives in
Washington, and I encourage you to do so, especially if those officials
haven’t already spoken publicly about net neutrality. If members of Congress –
speaking on behalf of their constituents – speak out on any issue, their
statements matter.

My interest in a pause in the process is to get to the bottom of the fake
comments and misuse of New Yorkers’ identities, and to make sure real
Americans are given the right to have their voices heard. At heart, what we're
talking about aren't the merits of net neutrality -- it's the integrity of the
democratic policymaking process and the rule of law. In that way, I believe
such a delay would be very beneficial to any ultimate result.

~~~
RpFLCL
So it's not a matter of demanding my representatives create new legislation,
so much as it is trying to convince them to make my voice (our voices) heard
on the national stage. That makes sense.

~~~
Clanan
The AG is glossing over the roles of the different institutions here. Put
simply, the FCC isn't delaying the vote because it doesn't take a democratic
approach to rule-making. (There are also unknown ramifications of allowing
DDoS attacks on comments to delay/"de-legitimize" policy decisions). Like many
other agencies in the Executive branch, its leaders have broad powers to enact
policies. The AG, like any clever politician, is scoring political points by
yelling "think of the children!" instead of explaining how the process
actually works and how constituents can actually impact the situation. This
will not delay the vote, just like the Senate phone systems going down
wouldn't delay a Senate vote.

If you value Net Neutrality, don't waste time with the FCC - it's simply not
set up for constituent influence. Instead, focus your efforts on Congress.
Congressional legislation would overrule the FCC, just as it was intended to.
Congresspeople are far more likely to consider voter opinions too.

------
hiq
Proof:
[https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/938104469375594496](https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/938104469375594496)

------
ABCLAW
AG Schneiderman,

While not from the US, as a jurist I feel compelled to do my part to prevent
abuse of process and misrepresentations from occurring in the public sphere.

Is there any role available for American or Canadian jurists to help with your
office's efforts in this matter? Tim Wu's assertion that this battle will
ultimately be won or lost in the courts comes to mind:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-
neutra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-
fcc.html)

Would developing a case against Mr. Pai directly be an option you are
considering? The revolving door/regulatory capture issue which is often raised
in tandem with critiques of the FCC's current and past behavior is clearly
contemplated at 47 U.S.C. § 154, (b) (2) & (b) (3).

-=-=-=-

I feel as if this situation is our creation as jurists.

The Anglo-American legal tradition has a strong current against recognizing a
general theory of abuse of rights/abus de droit which is often foundational in
civilian legal traditions, instead relying heavily upon balance of rights
analysis.

Mr. Pai's argumentation relies heavily upon the balance of rights analysis,
which discounts the importance of the purpose of the commission, his office
and the rules in place in favour of a crude and arbitrary weighing of benefits
and harms to stakeholders.

In this case: If the benefit to incumbent ISPs is large enough, the balance of
rights analysis would handily justify harm to consumers - even if it would
conflict with the purpose listed in the FCC's enabling legislation. See: 47
U.S.C. § 151.

------
m0ther
Do you need help? This is one of the best communities in the world to ask to
write free analysis software to help you determine which entries were likely
to have been automated.

~~~
AGSchneiderman
If you have ideas for how to help my office's investigation, we welcome them.
You can get in touch at [https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-
general](https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general).

Generally speaking, I encourage anyone who wants to get involved in the fight
to protect net neutrality to reach out to organizations they support that have
been active and vocal here, and offer their support. Nonprofits and advocacy
organizations are always in need of committed, talented people who are willing
to help organize, including people with technical talent. Don’t be afraid to
reach out.

~~~
m0ther
I am one, of I am sure many, here who have written automated fraud prevention
software.

Post a dataset somewhere that we can run our algorithms against, and a way of
getting our findings back to you.

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130138427A1](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130138427A1)

------
doctorsher
Hello Mr. Schneiderman,

Thank you for doing this AMA, for your investigation, and for your well spoken
remarks at yesterday's press conference.

Will you also pursue whether the FCC legitimately experienced a distributed
denial-of-service (DDoS) attack?

Personally, I think that one of these two scenarios is likely:

1\. The signs of the reported DDoS are natural artifacts of heavy traffic load
on the FCC's web application. Large groups may have submitted through
mechanisms unintended by the FCC, and users may have created malformed
requests. When large groups of people use your system, it can be in ways you
didn't anticipate when the system was designed. If this is the case, the FCC
falsely claimed there was a DDoS -- this could be due to incompetence (poorly
written application) or malevolence (willfully ignoring authentic human input
that overwhelmingly supported net neutrality). Either of these outcomes are
contrary to the FCCs mission.

2\. There was legitimate DDoS activity. In this case, we must find out who
committed this DDoS. Furthermore, we need to analyze whether there is any
correlation between the faked identities and the DDoS activity. For example,
let's say there is a clever ISP against net neutrality. They conduct this DDoS
against the FCCs commenting system to drown out the voices of real US
citizens. However, they know the DDoS might be analyzed, so they conduct the
DDoS with pro net neutrality comments -- the content of the comments doesn't
matter to them, so much as the ability to point the finger elsewhere while
knowingly suppressing authentic comments. If there is extreme overlap between
IP addresses used for such a scheme and other anti net neutrality comments,
the true intention is revealed. Again, this is just an example. For your
investigation, you would likely be interested in this angle in order to rule
out whether the entity that conducted the DDoS was also responsible for the
massive case of identity theft you are pursuing.

Either way, if the state of New York could compel the FCC to release
anonymized logs, our entire country would benefit.

Thank you! Remain steadfast.

------
beager
Is there anything that states can do to promote municipal broadband or
maximize competition for ISPs? If Ajit Pai is ultimately successful in rolling
back net neutrality in spite of evidence of foul play and the pleadings of
agencies such as yours, is it possible to fight against consolidation and to
encourage consumers to vote for net neutrality with their wallets? Thank you.

------
turkishgetup
Hi Mr. Schneiderman,

NY resident here. Thank you very much for your work. I'm proud to have you as
our State AG.

In your view, do the fake comments delegitimize FCC's rule-making process, if
the FCC does not delay the vote until after the investigation is over? And can
the FCC's Net Neutrality decision (regardless of whether or not they vote to
repeal NN) be challenged in the court, on the grounds that the integrity of
its rule-making process has been seriously compromised?

Thanks!

------
anechoe
AG Schneiderman: Thank you for doing this and setting up this website. I
actually hadn't checked until now, and found a false comment - it isn't from
me though, it's from my biological mom, who's been dead for almost 20 years
now. Is there a way for me to file a report for this? My representatives are
already for net neutrality, but I will see what else I can do to support this
cause. Thank you for fighting for our freedoms and to uncover the fraud that
occurred during this comments process.

~~~
AGSchneiderman
That's awful and I'm sorry to hear it. You can report the fake comment to my
office at [https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments](https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments).

------
vinylkey
Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear,
concise manner?

My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the
government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with
some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I
can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are
from a "liberal source." Any help on swaying someone for this issue would be
greatly appreciated.

~~~
fvdessen
Net Neutrality is like preventing the US Post office from providing express
delivery as the extra speed comes at the expense of regular delivery and there
is a risk that only big companies would be able to pay for the service.

~~~
thomastjeffery
Net Neutrality is like preventing the Post Office from limiting the amount of
packages a business can deliver, or limiting the priority of that business's
deliveries unless that business pays the Post Office a premium.

The problem with that behavior is that there are some very large, wealthy
businesses like Amazon who need to deliver a high volume of packages on time,
so those businesses would be willing to pay a _very_ high premium.

Since the Post Office would be making such deals with _everyone_ , so that
they don't look like they are being unfair, the big deals they make with
Amazon would set the bar for every business who wants their packages delivered
by the Post Office.

That bar would naturally be too high for small businesses and nonprofits, who
would quickly go out of business, or be unable to start in the first place.

~~~
fvdessen
There is absolutely no difference between what you and I said. The Post Office
_does_ limit the priority of a business delivery unless that business pays a
premium (express delivery).

The reason this doesn't goes terribly is that there is business competition
between the Post Office and FedEx, DHL, etc.

The problem with the internet is not the lack of neutrality, it's the lack of
competition between ISP.

And you assume that small businesses will be kept out. I see the exact
opposite happening in Europe where net neutrality is more lax. Small startups
are making agreements with ISPs to provide services that need a level of QoS
that wouldn't be possible with net neutrality in place.

~~~
thomastjeffery
Don't forget that this is a metaphor.

You are right that the problem is a lack of competition.

The biggest problem with internet companies right now is that there are
services like Facebook that people use so prolifically that they are _very_
difficult to compete with. If ISPs began prioritizing Facebook, as they have
tried to do before, it will be even more difficult to compete.

The other problem is that ISPs aren't the only ones fighting competition
between internet services. There is a long history with media corporations
using copyright to fight competition. Most innovative music streaming services
have been considered illegal (turntable.fm, Grooveshark, What.CD), unless
their business can pay rightsholders (Spotify, ). and adding features to
existing services like Netflix involves breaking DRM, which is also illegal.

All of these issues are related in some way, especially since many of the
biggest media corporations are the same businesses as the biggest ISPs. These
corporations have accrued so much capital that no one can compete with them or
their lobbying.

------
gizmo385
How do you feel about Ajit Pai's decision to not postpone the upcoming Net
Neutrality vote as many across the nation have called upon him to do?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
I think it's the wrong decision. We live in a democracy, and our country has
clear laws requiring federal agencies to honor every citizen’s right to have
his or her voice heard on any policy, like net neutrality, that impacts all of
us. Our investigation has already shown that the legally required public
comment process was deeply corrupted by bad actors. Until we are able to
investigate who did this and why, and determine with greater certainty which
comments are legitimate and which are bogus, our citizens’ voices are not
being heard.

Chairman Pai has not disputed that the fake comments we identify exist – both
supporting and opposing net neutrality -- or that Americans’ identities were
illegally misused. Instead, his office has tried to paint the issue as a
partisan attack. As I’ve repeatedly made clear, this is not about the merits
of net neutrality. It’s about the integrity of the process by which a hugely
important policy decision is made, and that’s a matter everyone has a stake
in, regardless of their view on a particular issue.

------
riazrizvi
Mr Schneiderman,

How can you enforce Net Neutrality today? I'm an ATT & Comcast user. It's
clear to me that these companies are already throttling my service based on
which websites I visit, which I understand is illegal. I have deduced this by
switching to a VPN whenever a website does not immediately come online. In
over a hundred trials in the last two years I have confirmed that over 80% of
the time a website will immediately appear once it is masked to my phone ISP
or to my home internet ISP. This is despite the increased distance the traffic
must take to route through the VPN server. It seems to me Net Neutrality is a
fight we are already losing because we cannot enforce it.

~~~
chopin
Nitpick: You just described a way to enforce it. For privacy reasons I would
go that route anyways.

~~~
riazrizvi
Yes I can do it. But privacy and net neutrality needs to be in place for the
general public who are not so tech savvy. Otherwise data gatherers will use
information to destroy competition and sustain monopolies. If I make a new
site that competes with some service that ATT sells, perhaps they knock on the
door offering some crummy buy out deal. If I don’t accept they can just choke
off the service. More likely though, they sell a choke off service to big
spenders. Let’s say it’s the 90s. A scrappy website called Backrub, created by
two Stanford grads, introduces a new internet search that is vastly superior
to a Microsoft owned MSN Search. Microsoft pays ATT to throttle Backrub users.
Fast forward back to 2017 and the world is forced to use Bing because Google
doesn’t exist. I’m sorry if I created a horrific mental image for you but we
need to make net neutrality the default for Joe Public otherwise this
capitalist enterprise system will run itself into the ground.

------
legutierr
Mr. Schneiderman,

Beyond efforts such as your lawsuit, what are some actions that local and
state governments can undertake to ensure that net neutrality remains in-place
within their jurisdiction, without the risk of being preempted by the FCC?

Another commenter here suggests municipal broadband as a possible response to
the weakening or elimination of net neutrality. Do you see any legal
constraints that may be imposed by federal law and/or FCC regulation on the
efforts of states and local governments to foster "network neutral" internet
utilities that can compete with carriers known to discriminate within their
networks?

------
sliverstorm
AG, I didn't find anything under my name, but interestingly the two results
that popped up for my (uncommon) family name all happen to be for individuals
who show up in court cases and arrests when I do a cursory Google search.
These comments object to the Title II classification.

It's not proof of anything whatsoever, but I wonder if "people who are in
jail" might be another category the fake comments used along with deceased
individuals and youths. Not to mention, court dockets and the news is a good
source for the identities of real individuals.

------
Natanael_L
This may be completely off the mark, but it's worth asking;

If the FCC repeals net neutrality, and if the FCC blocks state level net
neutrality laws, and if a state / municipality has a de facto monopoly
contract with one ISP, and finally, if that ISP engages in filtering /
blocking / throttling content...

Then wouldn't that imply a first amendment violation, in that the state
sanctions (via contract) treating protected speech in violation of the first
amendment rights?

Because the people involved are trying to engage in protected speech which is
hindered by state laws?

------
tlb
If there had not been identity theft, would a law have been broken by foreign
nationals submitting comments to the FCC? Under what conditions is it illegal
for foreign nationals to buy political ads on US-based websites or TV?

Net neutrality within the US is likely to affect the content available to
people around the world, so it's reasonable for them to have an opinion. How
should foreign nationals legally advocate for their positions in such a
debate?

------
SydneyCohan
Can states implement their own net neutrality rules?

Will the Trump administration be able to sensor online content like Putin does
in Russia?

~~~
rosser
Pai has specifically said he wants (and has the power) to Federally pre-empt
state-level NN initiatives.

------
matt4077
Could you give us an impression to what degree a trustworthy comment period
matters legally in the agency decision-making process?

I believe many people consider the comment period a PR gimmick with no
relevance, but I got the impression that it is legally required to some
degree. If so, is this a substantive requirement with actual protective powers
against agencies deciding arbitrarily, or just a veneer of rationality and
transparent easily neutered?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
The law in our country requires federal agencies to provide every citizen with
the right to notice and the opportunity to have his or her voice heard in
policymaking. We now know from my office’s investigation and other reports of
major flaws in the current proceeding that our citizens have not been given
the opportunity to be truly heard, because the real voices are being drowned
out, negated, or undermined by fake comments, stolen identities, and other
irregularities.

I disagree with those people who call the comment period a mere “PR gimmick.”
For approximately 70 years America has had laws requiring federal agencies to
provide citizens with notice of certain policy changes and an opportunity to
make their voices heard. The last time net neutrality was up for
consideration, the FCC received an outpouring from the public in favor of
Title II net neutrality protections, and the FCC ultimately adopted those
rules.

------
shmerl
* What do you think are the prospects of passing strong Net Neutrality law in the Congress? One of the main concerns isn't just FCC removing the rules, but the Congress passing a weak law which would solidify dysfunctional rules, making fixing them many times harder.

* Why do you think, existing anti-trust law is not working to prevent abuse by ISP monopolists like using data caps and zero rating to disadvantage video competitors?

------
avs733
Do you personally believe that this was enabled either passively or actively
by the FCC to cloud the public discourse surrounding the net neutrality vote?

~~~
RpFLCL
As a follow up, if it was intentionally done, can/will there be any legal
consequences?

------
panic
Thanks, AGSchneiderman and staff, for fighting for this issue!

Here's a clickable link to the fake comments tool:
[https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments](https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments)

~~~
djb_hackernews
Hmm, I just found a comment using my same name (rare, but not unique) but an
address for what looks to be an abandoned house in the next town over from
where I grew up...

------
feelin_googley
FCC allows written comments as well as electronic submissions.

Written comments require submission of four copies and must include a contact
address. All must have original signatures.

Should the FCC give more weight to written submissions than to electronically-
submitted comments?

Will the FCC contact the submitters for permission to use their comments in
the decision-making process?

I know that e.g. in some smaller democratic governments, legislatures
accepting written submissions from the public will contact the submitters to
obtain permission to use the comments, regardless of whether the legislative
committees use them or not.

This could function to some extent as a verification of identity.

Can we challenge the FCC's electronic comments submission system as
fundamentally flawed?

Due to numerous data breaches, there is significant, known availability of
personally identifiable information on US citizens available to anyone,
anywhere in the world with an internet connection.

Can FCC ignore this and provide a comment submission system that performs no
meaningful checks on identity of commenters?

------
avivo
FYI, there are some folks at
[http://datafordemocracy.org](http://datafordemocracy.org) /
[http://www.startuppolicylab.org/](http://www.startuppolicylab.org/)
coordinating a study of this, including Jeff Kao, whose work on this was cited
in [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/11/24...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/11/24/fcc-net-neutrality-process-corrupted-by-fake-comments-
and-vanishing-consumer-complaints-officials-say/)

If you want to help analyze the data and see what happened, it could be worth
checking that out (I’m not involved, but it seems like valuable work).”

------
arca_vorago
Mr. Schneiderman, what power does the NY AGs office actually have to halt or
slow this egregious deriliction of duty on the part of the FCC and it's
chairman, and under what specific laws?

More generally, it seems that petition and protest do very little to change
congress's stance on subjects of importantance to it's real constituencies,
the people, as shown by multiple studies and events. Does this potentially
violate any laws and which, and if so why has prosecutorial discretion been
exercised so frequently with the rich and powerful (cabinet members, congress,
bankers etc) while minorities and the poor are almost never afforded it?

Finally, if the repeal of net neutrality is passed, what recourse is there for
the people, your office, or any other relevant office?

------
mc32
Would you mind commenting on these findings? They seem to have found that both
sides have been stuffing the ballot box: [http://www.emprata.com/reports/fcc-
restoring-internet-freedo...](http://www.emprata.com/reports/fcc-restoring-
internet-freedom-docket/)

Also, can you work on net neutrality for all bits? That is Google, Facebook,
Twitter, as the main gateways to public discourse treat all comments equally
without promoting one viewpoint over another that does not enjoy elite
sanction?

What good is NN as it stands if edge providers can treat bits differently?

Basically NN says all bits _allowed_ to get to you by edge providers shall be
treated the same, but it does not say edge providers have to allow all bits on
their systems.

Thanks.

~~~
AGSchneiderman
I’m glad you asked – this report is really telling. It’s been reported that
this study was paid for by Broadband for America, which counts many big ISPs
as members. Yet even this study found massive flaws in the comments, including
about 8 million comments using made-up identities. Also revealing, is its
findings about the approximately 1.5 million comments that were personalized,
meaning someone felt so strongly about the issue they went to the extra
trouble to write a unique comment themselves (versus, say, signing a petition
– which is certainly valid but less labor-intensive). Of those 1.5 million
personalized comments, 98.5% were pro-neutrality.

~~~
mc32
Thank you for responding.

I think those numbers point to their study attempting to be open about their
findings, despite being commissioned by ISPs. However concerning is they found
quite a few faked email addresses with foreign domains --people who even if
real should have little to say how we govern our telecoms.

Nonetheless my question remains concerning the virtual triumvirate controlling
what is acceptable and non acceptable public opinion, given they are the new
voice of the hoi polloi. We have to find a way to ensure people's right to
voice an opinion isn't virtually infringed by having a de facto triumvirate
establishing what is and isn't accepted as public discourse, given they have
very specific corporate agenda which could run counter to public opinion.

------
jimkleiber
It seems that the internet is being flooded with accounts that use real
people's stolen identities and this is yet another example.

Which, if any, laws did the creators of these accounts break by posting these
comments to the FCC under other people's identities?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
It may violate a number of laws, including laws against impersonation or
misuse of identity and falsification or forgery. Depending on facts we
uncover, it could also be a form of a deceptive business practice. Some of
that conduct is criminal under NY law, and some of it also constitutes a civil
violation.

------
anechoe
AG Schneiderman: Thank you for doing this and setting up this website! My
representatives are already for net neutrality - but I will see what else I
can do to support this cause. Thank you for fighting for our freedoms and to
uncover the fraud that occurred during this comments process.

(I thought there was a comment using my mother's name/etc. but it appears that
there's somebody else with the same name living in New York? Maybe? My last
name's really rare [on the order of 50 people in the US?], so I wasn't
expecting this at all, but they do appear to exist as a different person.)

------
bosstime
Hi AG Schneiderman,

I have an unusual last name. I searched it on your FCC comment site. Someone
with my last name as their first name was the only result. Their comment was
against net neutrality. Due to our unusual last name, it seemed odd it was
someones first name so I decided to do my own research. By searching google, I
came across a variety of social media accounts all of them were inactive with
little to no followers or in some instances they were spamming links to other
sites.

I have little reason to believe this "persons" anti-net neutrality response
was genuine.

Is there any way to report this sort of expected fraud?

~~~
westbywest
AG published a form for reporting fake comments:
[https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments-form](https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments-form)

~~~
bosstime
I don't know, that seems like it's for comments made by you that you didn't
actually do.

I have little reason to believe the person who left this comment is real or
rather if the person is real, I doubt they actually left the response. However
I don't think I should file it on their behalf in case I'm wrong.

I guess if they want the information, I'd pass it onto his staff and let him
and his staff do the research to determine it's authenticity although that
seems like a lot of work to authenticate one person.

------
joshamania
What's the possibility of using the RICO statutes against these companies? I'm
thinking of Comcast in particular. Recently they made a "mistake" by adding
services to my cable bill that I had not ordered. They very quickly erased the
charges when I complained, but if their excuse for why they were there in the
first place was valid, they should have fought to keep the money if they were
in the right. I believe this was done to keep anyone from complaining too
vociferously. I believe this behavior is consistent and intentional.

Their behavior and attitude towards employees (anecdotal, I'll admit) seems
very much like that of Bank of America concerning their recent accounts fraud
scandal. I believe that Comcast either intentionally puts these charges on
customers bills hoping they will not notice, especially on autopayment enabled
accounts, or they pressure their employees so greatly that the employees are
doing this themselves, like Bank of American claimed their employees did.

I think this type of pressure put on employees is known to Comcast executives
to cause fraudulent charges and is the desired result of said pressure. The
executives can then claim they knew nothing of said behavior and deny any
wrongdoing. I understand such a case would be difficult to make, but I think
many companies behave in this way and we need to start using bigger hammers to
bring them back within the law.

I think RICO should also be applied to banks that repeatedly break the law,
but that's perhaps another story.

Thoughts?

~~~
___ab___
[https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-
rico-...](https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/)

~~~
joshamania
I think the link would be more useful if it weren't done in an explain-
like-i'm-five manner. Some of it _does_ seem to apply, especially if you look
at the things on the list:

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961)

section 1343 (relating to wire fraud)

section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with
identification documents)

...and I could go on but meh. I believe that the link started out with
"complicated conspiracy" law to describe what RICO is...isn't that exactly
what I was accusing Comcast of?

I understand that RICO is an extremely difficult case to make, and it probably
should be so, so that the law isn't used flippantly. But I also think we need
much more powerful tools to control these corrupt monopolies that control
large parts of this country's infrastructure, especially as they seem hell
bent on controlling even more of it. _IF_ Verizon is found to have controlled
a massive identity theft racket to bombard the FCC with fake comments, it
seems to me that RICO is the exact tool to use.

------
twobyfour
If one discovers one's name has been used in fake comments, what can/should
one do about it?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
My office put up a web page where you can easily check if your identity was
misused and, if so, report the abuse to us: ag.ny.gov/fakecomments. In just a
few days we’ve received thousands of comments, not just from New Yorkers but
from all over the country. My team is reviewing those submissions for further
evidence and leads in our investigation. Those submissions help us learn more
about the attributes of different fake comments. We've also been sharing
information from these submissions with the Attorneys General in other states
who have reached out to us for more information about their own constituents’
identities being illegally misused.

------
charter_sucks
Can you require Apartments to have more than one ISP. Charter is the worst and
that's all that's available while my neighbors have FIOS available to them and
RCN

------
allnash
Guys Isn't it about time we refer to some other countries in the world for
some reference point especially when our nation's media is polluted by Fake
News, Fake Comments and #FakeWhatNot?

For example in INDIA. India's TRAI is trying really hard to ensure Freedom is
maintained on the "Service" of Internet itself.

Referring to this Wiki Article
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India)

Section "2016"

TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality[edit] The TRAI on 8 February 2016 barred
telecom service providers from charging differential rates for data services,
thus prohibiting Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero platform by Airtel in
their present form. (Airtel was the largest Tel. Provider in 2016.)[62]

In their latest ruling,[9] they have stipulated that:

1\. No service provider can offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data
services on the basis of content. 2\. No service provider shall enter into any
arrangement, agreement or contract, by whatever name called, with any person,
natural or legal, that the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services
being offered or charged by the service provider for the purpose of evading
the prohibition in this regulation. 3\. Reduced tariff for accessing or
providing emergency services, or at times of public emergency has been
permitted. 4\. Financial disincentives for contravention of the regulation
have also been specified.

@AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government, can
we use some of these points to our favor?

Capitalism is "Great"! but the powers vouching for "it" need to know that it
CAN NOT go against the Constitution of the United States of America and the
rights of Americans.

------
CDeGroot93
Dear Attorney General,

If the vote proceeds will you sue this repeal, to protect New Yorkers?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
Thanks for this question. We think there's still time to stop repeal, so we're
hoping everyone with a stake in this issue--especially the tech community--
will mobilize to force the Chairman to reconsider his proposal. You can be
sure that we'll scrutinize the final rule very closely and seriously consider
possible next steps at that point.

------
jefe_
Is this the same FCC Commenting System that sent API keys to anyone who asked?

[https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2017/08/fccs-...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2017/08/fccs-public-comment-api-lets-you-post-just-about-anything-
to-gov-website/)

------
xena
What actions are you going to take to make sure big players like Comcast don't
just split the internet up into packages?

------
jknz
Dear AG,

I am wondering if net neutrality should not be enforced by international trade
agreements, such as TAFTA and others.

Net neutrality means that European ISPs cannot slow down the internet from
American Companies and vice versa.

What Pai is proposing will give frightening ideas to foreign ISPs. Ask
Facebook a cut of its ads or slow down its traffic. Ask Apple a cut of app
purchases, or slow down downloads from the app store. Ask a cut of the
streaming of any Hollywood movie, otherwise the streaming quality will be
inferior to local European movies.

My intuition is that moving away from net neutrality is dangerous for healthy
trade between countries and should be enforced at the international level.

I am wondering if current trade agreements already have implicit net
neutrality rules. If it's not the case, we should promote such measures for
the next generation of international trade agreements.

~~~
thomastjeffery
Net neutrality only concerns edge providers, which do not deal with
international data transfer.

Net neutrality rules prevent ISPs from changing their customer's traffic, and
their customers are not international.

------
swapsmagic
It's so easy to identify those fake comments by just looking at few. I figure
this is one of the comments that seems fake. Why is it taking long to identify
there are lot of fake comments in it?

'The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the
internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and
obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end
the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and
restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the
internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under
consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive
step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for
everyone.'

~~~
cr0sh
I would say that this comment is "real" \- in the sense that it was actually
wordsmithed for the position it supports, but that it is likely that the
purported person's name and address are fake/misattributed to the comment.

This wordsmithed position likely came from some partisan political action web
site gathering automated signatories; you go to it, fill out your info, and it
posts to the FCC input form/api or whatever.

Similar ones exist as well for the opposite view ("for net-neutrality rules").

At that point, it's a matter of generating the information and pasting and
sending (the actual text is usually pre-filled on the form, sometimes with
allowances to allow a real user to edit the form).

For instance, I looked up my name on the AG's site - it found several hits.
Most of them were "against net neutrality" \- essentially with the text you
posted - but the addresses didn't match my address.

But a couple were posted "for the current net neutrality rules" urging the FCC
not to change anything; even so, I didn't post them, and the addresses didn't
match.

Curiously, one of those two comments had a small sentence tacked onto the end,
reading "Don't fuck this up!" \- which is something I would never put into a
public comment to a govt agency or request. So even though I agreed with the
position, it still appalled me to see that vulgarity applied to the comment.

All comments though were fake - I never sent any of them in to the FCC.

~~~
keenerd
> _All comments though were fake - I never sent any of them in to the FCC._

Or your name isn't that uncommon. Have you ever tried being the first google
result for your name, as an SEO experiment? It is hard!

I say this as someone who shares a name with a minor league baseball player,
numerous facebook/linkedin/etc profiles and a baby whose life/death was
covered by the BBC.

I don't go around accusing all of these people of being fake.

------
nabakin
Hi Eric! It's always great to interact with our politicians, so thanks for
doing this AMA. Now onto my question.

About a week ago Republican FCC member Brendan Carr posted this
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/no-the-
fcc-i...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/no-the-fcc-is-not-
killing-the-
internet/2017/11/30/9205ac88-d457-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html) opinion
piece to the Washington Post. It gives his view on why repealing title II is
good and makes some interesting points. I was wondering if you could share
your thoughts on it.

------
randyslegacy
Hello, NY resident from Orange County here. Does the investigation have a good
likelyhood of suing the FCC for the current situation? Also how do the
possible ramifications of a Net Nutrality repeal affect the Spectrum
litigation?

------
rhino369
Can a state AG not subpoena a federal agency?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
The assistance we’ve requested should not require a subpoena. State and
federal agencies cooperate all the time, especially when they are engaged in
law enforcement investigations into illegal conduct. The FCC has worked with
my office in the past under such circumstances, and there is no good reason
for them not to work with us here. Regardless of any legal constraints that
may exist on a state law enforcement office’s ability to compel a federal
agency to cooperate in an investigation, cooperation always should be -- and
usually is -- provided voluntarily.

------
GalacticDomin8r
What does your actions mean for residents in other states who have fake
comments posted in their name? Should they still report them to you and are
those fake comments actionable in any other way?

~~~
dgritsko
Additionally, have you been working with any other state AGs regarding this
issue?

~~~
burkaman
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855676)

------
cbhl
Dear Mr. Schneiderman:

There are many places where I can get faster internet from my cell phone than
I can from DSL or independent ISPs. How do we get ISPs to invest in faster
internet (such as gigabit FTTH)?

------
shostack
If Congress and Pai are seemingly bought and paid for without any regard for
the wishes of the actual majority of their constituents, what recourse do the
rest of us have?

Speaking with our representatives seems to be completely ineffective (see the
monstrosity of tax reform working its way through now behind closed doors).

Can you open an investigation into Pai himself with regards to any
compensation or future compensation he may receive as a result of this? What
other creative options do we realistically have?

------
fosco
Thank you for your leadership in many areas and especially this one!

on a side note, I live far out east on Long Island and only have one viable
option for an ISP that enables me to work, others (like satellite) are not
viable for me to vpn to different clients, is there anything I can do to help
increase competition out here so myself and neighbors have alternatives to
"Optimum online"?

Thank you again I am very happy to see you on this forum!

~~~
AGSchneiderman
You’re not alone. Many Americans – especially those far from major cities --
have only a single ISP available, others have only two ISPs. That’s why
competition is more limited in the market for broadband than in other markets
(because consumers can’t “vote with their feet” by switching to a competitor),
and that’s a major reason I believe the existing net neutrality regulation
under Title II is needed.

------
bifrost
In an era of increased government surveilance and personal intrusion, why
should Americans be ok with more oversight from a broken organization like the
FCC?

~~~
thomastjeffery
The FCC is only broken in the sense that its leaders are dismantling it.

The most recent successful dismantling was getting rid of ISP customer privacy
protections. ISPs are now allowed to collect data from customers without even
notifying them, and sell that data.

Without a strong FCC, ISPs are quickly becoming a new "Big Brother", with
similar abilities to diminish individual privacy and trust by collecting and
profiting from their customer's data, and stifling competition between
internet services.

------
l3v3ll
I checked a lot of my family and friends names. I found my friend on the list.
Without letting him know, I asked if he was for or against it. He said he's
never made a comment, and there are 2 comments with his name and current
address. I believed the fake comments were happening, but this is actual proof
for me that it did happen. He is submitting a report on AG Schneiderman's
website now.

------
shortformblog
Hi Eric, we've seen a lot of back and forth on net neutrality issues between
administrations. How do we solidify the ground so it's not tied to one party
or another? And if this goes through (as it looks like it will), are there
legal recourses that you're prepared to use? This feels like it's going to be
a consumer issue as much as a communications issue.

------
JCharante
> Approximately 1 million of those comments may have been submitted using real
> people’s stolen identities--including those of as many as 50K New Yorkers,
> such as a dead person and a 13 year old child.

I'm not familiar with the story about the 13 year old child. Has anyone gotten
in touch with them to see if they submitted it? Maybe they're the next Aaron
Swartz.

~~~
AGSchneiderman
This comment was submitted under the name and address of someone we will call
Jill, in Rochester, New York.

As it turns out, Jill’s father wasn’t very happy about that submission because
the real Jill is only 13 years old and never submitted any comment.

We also saw a woman in Albany who supposedly submitted a comment in July of
2017. Sadly, her son reached out to us to say that was impossible because she
had died in June.

Even right here in my office, my assistant press secretary had a phony comment
submitted under her name using the address of her childhood home.

These are just a few of the thousands of comments that have been reported to
my office.

------
Invictus0
Hi AG Schneiderman, I'm a resident of Westchester County, NY and support your
investigation into the FCC's process. If you are successful, or even if you
are unsuccessful, do you think your efforts will embolden other state AGs to
investigate the federal government, and do you think that is a good or a bad
precedent to set?

------
freedomben
Hello and thank you for taking the time to do this. My question:

Do you see net neutrality as the end-all solution to this, or would further
regulation/deregulation be required beyond simply creating these rules? Also,
is there a place for deregulation of ISPs and infrastructure to allow for more
free-market competition?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
There’s a long history of neutrality regulation for networks – going back even
before the internet – even though the requirements have taken different forms
over the years. And when those regulations were enforced they ended practices
that hurt consumers and companies that wanted to provide services over those
networks. Here’s a great summary of the history:
[https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-
plan...](https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-
with-50-years-of-history/). The current net neutrality regulations under Title
II are strong and address the many forms of discriminatory (i.e., anti-
neutrality) conduct we’ve seen in the past.

I have to respectfully disagree with a premise in your second question, that
deregulation is what would allow for more market competition. The history
clearly shows that when neutrality regulation was in place and enforced, it
increased competition, for example: in 2005 it protected VoIP against
discrimination by a phone company with a competing service; in 2008 it
protected online video against discrimination by a cable company offering
cable video on-demand. Moreover, ISPs invested in broadband infrastructure
over the years because net neutrality was protecting edge providers, which led
to huge innovations like online video, which in turn helped drive ever greater
consumer demand for broadband that justified further infrastructure
investment.

------
codezero
Well, I found someone with my same name, but they had a comment that very much
aligned with my opinion!

[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10510804518262](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10510804518262)

> Preserve net neutrality ! Go fcc yourself.

------
iguana
Hello Mr. Schneiderman,

I hope that by "AMA" you really do mean, anything :)

What is your take on the outdated gravity knife law?

------
marcoperaza
Mr. Schneiderman, it seems to me that what you’re proposing, holding up the
regulatory process because some people faked comments, would create a highly
perverse incentive for those opposed to a particular action to submit fake
comments appearing to support that action.

------
cbhl
Dear Mr. Schneiderman:

If a video steaming service (such as Netflix or YouTube) installs a
"appliance" or "cache" to provide faster video to a certain ISP's customers,
do you believe that violates net neutrality, and if so, why?

~~~
sliverstorm
That doesn't really matter in the context of a discussion about fake comment
submission, does it? Spamming fake comments for or against net neutrality,
either way, is a problem.

------
natch
Hi Mr. Schneiderman:

There are some great questions on here. I'm afraid the time window for this
AMA is just too short to do them justice! Any chance you could pop back on
here again over the next few days answer a few more of the best questions?

~~~
AGSchneiderman
Not finished yet -- I'll be in and out today to answer your questions. Thanks
to all for taking the time to join me.

------
westbywest
Hi Mr. Schneiderman:

If the FCC publishes rules intended to repeal NN and Title-II regulations, as
is expected, will your office petition Congress to invoke is powers via the
Congressional Review Act, to consider overturning said rules? Thank you.

------
Shivetya
How do we know that if the government decides how access is governed that the
same government won't abuse by deciding what we can do with said access, what
sites we use, what protocols we use, what apps we use, in our use.

------
verdverm
Searching my last name "worm" will give you a great example of the slightly
modified text used by the NN scammers that AG Eric described in a previous
communication. Lolz

------
eximius
Hm, my comment doesn't show up in the FCC tool provided. Strange.

------
fjabre
I wanted to thank you for your efforts here. Would you have legal authority to
stop the FCC from making this ruling? Would a judge actually be able to delay
the vote?

------
exabrial
Why isn't 'mandatory, complete, full disclosure of all network management
policies' not an option vs Title II?

------
edmanet
Un-related to the FCC nightmare, how do you, as AG, feel about bitcoin and
crypto currencies?

------
cabaalis
How do you overcome the argument from some that the cables/infrastructure/etc
are owned by the Telcos who should therefore be able to control what data
flows through them? The argument is that if they take that right too far, the
market will attempt to react to fix the problem, without government oversight.

------
dec0dedab0de
My name is so common that this search feature is useless without a zipcode.

------
mathattack
Thank you for meeting us here!

------
AGSchneiderman
Timing update here: I'll be on to answer some questions between 3 PM and 4 PM
ET. Thanks all!

------
omg_ketchup
If they pass net neutrality, can we legally build our own
internet/ISP/distributed network?

~~~
bifrost
You can, it'll just be a lot more expensive AFAIK.

~~~
DiThi
Why?

~~~
bifrost
Regulatory and compliance costs are regressive - they target small businesses
because they're aimed at large businesses but tend to adversely affect smaller
ones at a greater rate.

~~~
DiThi
Are we talking about net neutrality here? Because I don't think NN can be
costly. Net Neutrality is the _natural_ state of computer networks, you don't
have to do anything special.

~~~
bifrost
NN regulation is not at all the "natural" state, which is why I think its a
bad idea.

~~~
DiThi
Suppose you're a new ISP. Explain what is the cost of complying with NN
regulation.

~~~
bifrost
To a new ISP, I'd say budget %10 of subscriber fees to regulatory costs till
you reach 5-10k subs.

~~~
DiThi
I mean, what would you use that budget for? Why would it need to be 10%? I'd
say it's 0%.

------
fjabre
I just wanted to thank you for your efforts here. Would you have legal
authority to stop the FCC from making this ruling? Would a judge actually be
able to delay the vote?

------
DoctorNick
Thanks Schneiderman.

Thneiderman.

------
ikeboy
How do these comments harm real people? Definitely seems shady but I don't
really see how using fake names actually hurt anyone.

~~~
tclancy
I feel the harm is caused by appropriating a process that's supposed to be a
way for citizens to voice their opinion and rendering it useless, regardless
of which names are signed to the content for or against. It seems like another
attack on citizens' trust for government process.

~~~
ikeboy
There were hundreds of thousands of real comments. There's no way they were
going to make a difference anyway, it's not like the vast majority of them
were informed.

------
dingo_bat
I understand the motivations behind net neutrality. What I don't understand is
why do we not extend this to all kinds of communication monopolies. Some
examples:

1\. Reddit is the monopoly in online newsboards. As long as it is there,
nothing else can prop up and gain traction. However, I cannot exercise my
right to free speech on the website without risking getting blocked by a
moderator or even admins. Net neutrality should force reddit to carry my
opinions and preserve my comments as I typed them. Also, they shouldn't be
allowed to display ads. That results in a "fast lane" for people who pay them.

2\. Facebook is the monopoly in social networks. As long as facebook exists,
nobody can become relevant. Sure there is stuff like instagram and snapchat,
but my Facebook profile is my de facto online phone number. Facebook should
not be allowed to block my profile, flag my posts. They must carry my posts
and content like anybody else's. Again, no ads can be allowed in a neutral
net.

3\. Youtube is the monopoly in user created video. They should not be able to
block my account or pay me less money if their advertisers don't like my
content. All content must be treated equally. Everyone should get access.

All of these areas are natural monopolies, just like last mile
broadband/fiber. At any time, there can only be one "Youtube". It can be
replaced by something else, but there will always be one highly dominant video
website, which people will inevitably visit to see the latest movie trailer or
music video. Why does net neutrality exclude all these?

~~~
Hasz
I wouldn't be so quick to conflate market share with a monopoly. We're one a
message board other than reddit, and I could name hundreds with 10K+ users. Is
reddit popular? No doubt. But it's far from a monopoly. A monopoly is
generally defined as having a high barrier to entry, combined with price
discrimination.

You can certainly argue that the userbase/content of reddit/facebook/youtube
constitutes a high barrier to entry. However, the userbase/content of
facebook/reddit/yt is a feature, and not fundamental to the service itself
(you can have a video sharing site with just a few videos). This is why these
three are not natural monopolies. In contrast, serving packets is all an ISP
can do. It either serves them (at some speed), or it doesn't. I would
emphasize the barrier to entry is the real capital costs that are integral to
the (sole) function of the service. It's simply not possible for every New
Yorker to dig up the sidewalk to lay fiber. That is what constitutes a natural
monopoly.

As to the price discrimination point, Facebook/YT/reddit do not, as far as I'm
aware, solid control of ad pricing, although I'm sure they would love to. Your
ISP, however, exercises significant pricing controls, especially if they are
the only game in town.

~~~
dingo_bat
> It's simply not possible for every New Yorker to dig up the sidewalk to lay
> fiber. That is what constitutes a natural monopoly.

It's simply not possible for every reddit user to code up their own reddit.
Why is this not a natural monopoly?

~~~
Hasz
It’s very possible — the full source to an older version is on github.

That aside, it might be a poor example and explanation on my part. Other than
technical competency, there is nothing inherently stopping everyone from
having a shitty one man version of reddit, independent of everyone else’s
shitty one man reddit.

For the New Yorker example, everyone must work together — if I cut my
neighbors line putting mine in, there’s crosstalk etc, the whole thing falls
apart.

The point I am trying to make is that the ISP does one thing only and that
thing requires cooperation. Reddit does lots of things, but cooperation is not
integral to those things. Granted, it wouldn’t be worth a whole lot, but
that’s not the issue.

This is an amendment to the first clause of the original comment. My point
about pricing pressure still stands.

~~~
dingo_bat
> It’s very possible — the full source to an older version is on github.

What makes reddit "reddit" is the millions of users, not the code (which is
open and very basic).

> there is nothing inherently stopping everyone from having a shitty one man
> version of reddit, independent of everyone else’s shitty one man reddit.

There is: usage. My one-person reddit is useless if you and 100 million other
do not use it actively.

> For the New Yorker example, everyone must work together — if I cut my
> neighbors line putting mine in, there’s crosstalk etc, the whole thing falls
> apart.

Exactly, everyone must converge on a single reddit. There can be a very long
tail of similar sites but none of those will come close to within an order of
magnitude of reddit. They "fall apart" if everyone doesn't "work together".

> The point I am trying to make is that the ISP does one thing only

What would that thing be? To me it looks like they do several things. Digging
up the neighborhood, installing fiber, installing routers and switches,
operating the network, connecting to the internet via bgp, etc. And what has
the number of things you do got to do with the issue of nn?

> Reddit does lots of things, but cooperation is not integral to those things.
> Granted, it wouldn’t be worth a whole lot, but that’s not the issue.

It's exactly the issue. It is technically possible for me and my neighbor to
dig up our street and make a private network among ourselves. Is it in any way
a substitute for internet? It isn't. Just like a shitty one-man reddit.

Of course this is applicable to facebook, youtube and other such service, not
just reddit.

> As to the price discrimination point, Facebook/YT/reddit do not, as far as
> I'm aware, solid control of ad pricing, although I'm sure they would love
> to. Your ISP, however, exercises significant pricing controls, especially if
> they are the only game in town.

I didn't understand your point that's why didn't respond to it earlier. Care
to explain again?

~~~
Hasz
Dunno if you're still interested, but here's my clarifications.

What makes reddit great is the millions of users. Millions of user are
instrumental to its success and popularity. However, reddit can still exist if
no one used it. It wouldn't be very successful or popular, but it can still
exist. I fully agree a one person reddit is useless, but useless != impossible
to exist.

In the network case, you make a good point. However, I think there is still a
distinction to be made between an entity that lives on the internet vs an
entity that supplies the internet, which I think goes back to the original
barrier to entry argument.

If you decided reddit was awful, you could conceivably run your own with
fairly little cost. On the other hand, digging up your street, putting up
poles, buying switches etc is far more capital intensive, and that's just a
network for two people! Even if both groups are shitty, one is clearly
prohibitively more costly than the other. This distinction warrants a
difference in treatment, where the ISP is subject to NN but reddit is not.

To put it another way, it's totally reasonable to create a parallel reddit, so
much so that several exist. It may be popular, but it's reasonably possible.
Creating parallel internet infrastructure is downright inconceivable. No one
in their right mind would think laying fiber optic cable across the pacific
for a parallel network is a workable idea because local_ISP is awful.

A monopoly isn't just defined by being popular and having a large market
share. It needs to have several other features, one of the ones I think is
especially important is price control. Google/Apple/reddit do not have price
control, the ISP does.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on monopolies.

