
Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website - phr4ts
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/dead-people-are-posting-anti-net-neutrality-comments-to-the-fcc-website
======
awalton
It honestly doesn't matter. Nobody at the FCC is going to read these things -
it's there because it has to be there, not because they intend on listening.

They've set their agenda, now they're executing it. They have absolutely no
plans on listening to anyone along the way. Nobody in this entire
administration does.

~~~
ChuckMcM
But it does matter, because it shows malice and intent. All three data points
have to be taken together (FCC Opens up comments, Comments criminally spammed,
FCC decides the issue X). Given the clear and convincing evidence of
malfeasance in the comment stream, the FCC's actions can be judged as
reasonable or unreasonable.

So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not
possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies.

~~~
notadoc
> So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not
> possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own
> policies.

And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media?

Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it,
cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.

~~~
ohazi
It's a long game. This administration will (eventually) turn over, and we need
the new guys to be very clear about where the old guys fucked up.

~~~
Chris2048
The fake news is also in favor of the "new guys".

------
daxfohl
I hope that when I die I can stay as far away from politics as possible.

~~~
DannyB2
Dead people have opinions about net neutrality too.

Since ping times from the afterlife have such bad latency, they don't mind
letting ISPs get away with whatever they want.

------
upofadown
Comments the say the same thing just count for a single comment ... and they
don't count up. This isn't a vote. The FCC is a regulator. The government
calls the shots. Misusing the comment process as a sort of virtual petition
could in theory influence the government but there has to be a better way to
do this sort of thing.

~~~
Frqy3
Exactly this.

I've worked with many regulators on industry/public reviews. Submitting
opinions or copy pasta achieves nothing, no matter how voluminous. It will at
best end up refered to in the final report as something like "Mupltiple
unsubstantiated submissions were made supporting net neutralitity."

Things that make a difference, at least to the extent that some time and
effort has to be made responding to them in the final report, include:

1\. Summarising similar rulings in other jurisdictions. Ideally, including the
reasoning why they made their decision, and some analysis of the impact.
Comparisons of market similarities (e.g. level/structure of competition) helps
to show why those decisions are relevant to the local market.

2\. Arguing from local regulatory context. Working from the local
competition/telecoms laws and previous decisions by the regulator, construct a
structured argument why the desired outcome logically follows.

3\. Arguing from first principles. Often involving some market/scenario
modelling showing current market behaviour and how that would/would not change
under different regulatory outcomes. Most competition/telecoms legislation is
framed around benefits to consumers, so the modelling should focus on the
consumer impact, not just competitor impact.

Most industry submissions will utilise a combination of the above, and draw
upon global experts to strengthen their case and add credibility to their
analysis.

I can't speak to the FCC and this particular ruling, but I have seen
regulators change their draft recommendations on the basis of submissions
received during the public review process. Even when the regulator has
predetermined the outcome, having the submissions and the official responses
recorded in the final report provides a reference basis for additional
lobbying at a later date.

------
coldcode
It doesn't matter, they will do whatever they want anyway. Perhaps if the dead
start rising form their graves... maybe not even then.

------
westbywest
The URL syntax to search comments for the docket in question is
straightforward, in case you felt the desire to check on the quickness of the
dead:
[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-...](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&q=filers.name:\(Firstname%20Lastname\)&sort=date_disseminated,DESC)

~~~
morrad
Interestingly, according to that link Mr./Mrs. Firstname Lastname left them a
reply indicating his or her support for strong net neutrality. :)

------
sbov
Why use dead people? Property tax records are public information. There's more
than one website that lets you go through them.

~~~
marcosdumay
Whoever did this probably did some mass data collection like you are
suggesting. But some people died between collection date and message date, or
the data was not up to date, so we got dead people commenting on the issue.

------
Grue3
I never understood Americans' obsession of having the government control ISPs.
Like, I'm sure most of people here are liberals who hate Trump. Do you
seriously want the Trump administration having the means to control the way
ISPs deliver content? Take it from somebody living in Russia, you really don't
want that.

~~~
sangnoir
> I never understood Americans' obsession of having the government control
> ISPs

While I agree on principle, I always make exceptions for monopolies: ISPs in
the US are local monopolies: they carved up the market geographically and
deliberately choose not to compete.

The perverse thing is that the Republicans echo your hands-off sentiment at
federal level, while Republican-ruled states are busy passing hands-on laws
that ban municipal networks.

------
Rapzid
So, my ashamedly limited historical understanding of this, brought to me by
John Oliver, is that the FCC was assumed to have the powers of the whole Title
II thing prior to losing a court case.. Is this the case?

If that's the case, Pai's rationalization is very hand-wavy.

------
jondubois
The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually
makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives -
What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in
order to maximise profits.

~~~
acid__
Isn't Facebook's Internet.org project a direct affront on net neutrality?

~~~
fjdlwlv
No, Internet.org Free Basics is Facebook paying people's data costs for
traffic to Facebook services, akin to Amazon giving out Amazon gift cards. It
isn't preventing anyone from buying other traffic at standard destination-
neutral rates, or privatizing a publicly-financed utility.

~~~
qb45
> Facebook paying people's data costs for traffic to Facebook services

I think it could be argued that sponsoring 3rd party services required to
access Facebook under the condition they won't be used to access competing
sites is a novel form of dumping. Clearly the goal is to get poor people
hooked on FB before they can afford to buy actual Internet access and decide
for themselves.

And suggesting that this monopolistic propaganda initiative can be called
"Internet Basics" is a direct affront to the Internet itself.

If Facebook actually wanted to be neutral they would sponsor unrestricted
access with small data cap. Still good enough for browsing Facebook and
Wikipedia but without the vendor lock-in.

------
ams6110
A public comment forum is full of fraudulent posts? No!

~~~
sixothree
I think the disappointing thing here is that the anti-neutrality voice is most
entirely corporate suggesting someone has paid to get these comments added.

------
Chris2048
Maybe the real solution is open alternatives to the current internet
infrastructure?

Is it possible to release technology under the GPL?

~~~
majewsky
The hard part is not putting out a spec for a decentralized internet (though
that's an intellectually hard problem as well). The hard part is getting
people to purchase the hardware for your new internet in sufficient volume.

------
KiDD
Old people always complaining about stuff they don't understand!

~~~
labster
I don't understand why anyone would want telegraph neutrality stop

------
flatroze
zombie apocalypse, finally

------
notadoc
Wow incredible.

Who would have thought the first time humanity would see large scale
resurrections of the dead would be so that the corpses could post internet
comments about how much they hate the idea of net neutrality and show their
support and love for monopolies?

Simply amazing, I knew people would be passionate about net neutrality but I
wouldn't have guessed it was powerful enough to resurrect the lifeless.

Do you think they will start using this technique in medicine soon? In the ER
or hospitals? Imagine the amazing sequence of events:

"We're losing him, we're losing him... he just has no more will to live"

'No wait, give me that laptop.'

"He's dead, flatlined"

'SIR, SIR, HOW MUCH DO YOU HATE NET NEUTRALITY'

... grumble grumble.... beep beep beep beep

"Incredible! We have a pulse again!"

'SIR, DO YOU LOVE MONOPOLIES, YOU MUST COMMENT ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THIS,
HERE TAKE THIS LAPTOP'

... beep beep beep beep beep beep beep .....

"I... am ... I do.... I do love... I.... I DO LOVE MONOPOLIES, I.... I DO HATE
NET NEUTRALITY.... FINALLY... A REASON TO LIVE!! GIVE ME THAT LAPTOP NOW!!!!"

'It's a medical miracle!!!!!!'

