

One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments - fragsworth
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/16/one-group-dominates-the-second-round-of-net-neutrality-comments/?

======
anigbrowl
Meanwhile, here's how American Commitment spins the Sunlight Foundation
report: 'CONSERVATIVES OPPOSED TO INTERNET REGULATION WON FCC COMMENT PERIOD
BY LANDSLIDE.'

 _“We’re pleased that the Sunlight Foundation is finally confirming that
American Commitment and Americans opposed to regulation of the Internet won
the FCC comment period. Better late than never,” said Phil Kerpen, president
of American Commitment._

[http://www.americancommitment.org/content/conservatives-
oppo...](http://www.americancommitment.org/content/conservatives-opposed-
internet-regulation-won-fcc-comment-period-landslide)

Note how they say they 'won' the comment period, as if each letter or email
counted as a vote and the FCC is obliged to treat the input quantitatively
rather than qualitatively. This sort of lobbying is a win-win for the advocacy
organizations that engage in it (across the political spectrum): either the
government does what they want and they declare victory, or the government
does not in which case they fulminate about 'the will of the people' being
thwarted and do another round of fundraising/PR on the back of that. You can
make quite a nice living running a 'nonprofit' like this - $175k/year is a
decent salary for booking adverts using donors' money.

[http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/452/4526005...](http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/452/452600535/452600535_201212_990O.pdf)

~~~
deciplex
It's hard to reconcile the widespread success of this blatantly and openly
manipulative horseshit, with the claim that America is a self-governing nation
by the people.

~~~
uxp
It's interesting reading some of the form letters in opposition. Here's an
excerpt.

 _Regulating the Internet would be a job killer. All those who are employed as
tech support, companies that make and deploy servers, routers, coax and fiber-
optic cable will suffer job losses if the FCC chases billions of dollars of
investments away by regulating Internet services as if they were a public
utility. Every time Washington bureaucrats have grabbed massive new powers for
themselves, they have created economic and human wreckage in their wake.
Obamacare regulations on the healthcare system have cost millions of Americans
their health insurance, and raised the cost of insurance and deductibles to
millions more._

That's just an outright lie. Here's a rhetorical question. If a DDoS is
classified as an attack because the client consuming server resources doesn't
actually care about the resource, then what is flooding a comment board with
identically wrong and manipulative letters?

~~~
rayiner
None of that is a lie, it's just looking at particular pieces of the overall
issue. Obamacare has cost a lot of people their (existing, non-ACA compliant)
plans, and it has raised the cost of insurance for other people. That's
inevitable with the ACA: covering people with pre-existing conditions, etc,
means some people will pay more (particularly younger people). I think the ACA
is a good thing, by the way, but I'm not deluded enough to believe that you
can cover more of the sickest people without paying more money.

The point about telecom jobs isn't a lie either. What was the impact of local-
loop unbundling, which made investment into DSL unattractive, on DSL
installers? The mechanics of the telecom industry aren't any different than
that of Silicon Valley: people aren't going to spend a bunch of money hiring
people to build things unless there is a potential for a big payout at the
end. Companies like Verizon are already under the gun from investors for the
billions they spent deploying fiber. Making it less attractive to be in the
business of building infrastructure isn't going to increase the amount of
investment and jobs in the sector.

Now, you could argue that Title II might nonetheless be beneficial _on the
net_ , but it's not a lie to point out the things that could be hurt by the
Title II regulations.

~~~
knightofmars
I think you hit the nail slightly off center with, "...people aren't going to
spend a bunch of money hiring people to build things unless there is a
potential for a big payout at the end." Verizon and all other ISPs will make
money and lots of it, period. Whether or not they make insane profits or more
insane profits is what investors are looking at. Also, in regards to building
infrastructure they already play games when reporting how much they've spent
upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. Why would they do that? Because they
know that the total amount is so ridiculously small when compared with their
profits that they'll be laughed at if they try to make it a reason against
regulation.

~~~
rayiner
I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at. The ISP business isn't that
profitable. The biggest pure cable companies are TWC, Cox, and Charter. Cox is
privately-held, so we don't have information about their finances, but Charter
is losing money. TWC has almost 3x the revenue of Facebook, but only
marginally higher net income.[1] Moreover, the pure ISP business is even less
profitable. Both TWC and Charter would be $1-2 billion per year in the red if
you eliminated their video programming revenues and associated costs.
Verizon's FiOS is apparently profitable on an operating basis, but there is
question whether the company will be able to recoup its capital costs:
[http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2014/05/would-verizon-
recover-...](http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2014/05/would-verizon-recover-its-
cost-of.html)

[1] It's very profitable when your users generate your content for free, and
you can shift tax liability overseas.

------
steego
I think this article overlooks one teensy weensy tiny little event that may
have an effect on conservatives writing in to oppose Net Neutrality:

[President Obama Urges FCC to Implement Stronger Net Neutrality
Rules|[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-
ur...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-urges-fcc-
implement-stronger-net-neutrality-rules)]

The fact of the matter is most people don't understand a lot of the nuances
behind the issue. They don't understand the telcos actually leverage various
forms of local, state and federal regulation to reduce competition and they
cry to the public about excessive government regulation when anybody threatens
their duopoly benefits.

------
bendoernberg
For context, see Fight for the Future's blog post on why "numerous problems
with [the Sunlight Foundation's] data and their methodology make it impossible
to support their conclusions":
[http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/105475259503/why-
is...](http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/105475259503/why-is-sunlight-
foundation-playing-into-american)

~~~
nullsub
for context for that "context": Clearing up the confusion about our analysis
of net neutrality comments to the FCC
[http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/17/clearing-up-
th...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/17/clearing-up-the-
confusion-about-our-analysis-of-net-neutrality-comments-to-the-fcc/)

------
kokey
I don't see how this is different to all the pro net neutrality activism and
lobbying going on, except that it's an opposition opinion.

It also seems to play on the narrative that people who are against expanding
regulation are not rational individuals, they are instead reduced to mere
tools controlled by a pair of Koch villains intent on destruction of earth and
society to make themselves richer.

~~~
themartorana
The Republican Party and to a greater extent, the Tea Party, have mobilized a
mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class pool of voters who
_are_ in many cases irrational - voting against their better interests in the
name of conviction, mostly based on race and religion. It's why there is
constant saber-rattling about "wedge issues" like abortion and "takers"
despite a significant portion of Tea Party voters being around or below the
poverty line, or reliant on some degree of public assistance.

This army of people does often mobilize as a single unit, dictated to through
the likes of Fox News. Talk about how black people want free "X" and you can
get lots of people to fill out a form letter without trying.

We're a Republic for the very reason that it was known that en-masse, often
times people are irrational and do go against their own benefit for ideology.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/29/working-
class-v...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/29/working-class-voters-
america-republican)

~~~
refurb
_mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class_

This is a laughable statement. Let me address each point directly.

During the last election, 33% of Hispanics voted for the Republican party[1].
44% of women voted Republican[2]. And "mostly lower to middle class"? I though
the Republican's were the party of the rich? Who do the rich vote for then?

I strongly suggest you take a more open-minded approach to politics.

[1][http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/07/hispanic-voters-in-
the...](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/07/hispanic-voters-in-
the-2014-election/)
[2][http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/22/poll-
wo...](http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/22/poll-women-plan-
to-vote-for-republicans-in-midterms-n1908484)

~~~
themartorana
I invite you to read the article I posted before commenting next time.

I also invite you to understand that 33% in politics is a huge minority. 67%
of Hispanics voting Democrat, in an election, make the Democrats the clear
winner of that particular demographic.

Finally, the "rich" are the top 10%, or 1%, or even 0.1% based on what
particular income inequality chart you're looking at, leaving the entire
bottom >=90% available for the demographics I mentioned.

~~~
refurb
33% Hispanic and 44% women (I noticed you didn't address that), don't
constitute "mostly white and mostly male".

~~~
themartorana
I said the Republican and Tea Parties are predominantly white male. When you
show me that minority amounts of women and minorities voted Republican, it
only reinforces my point that the Republican and Tea Party bases are
predominantly white and male.

~~~
refurb
You and I have different interpretations of minority. Apparently 44% women is
regarded as a "small share"?!?

~~~
themartorana
Statistically speaking, that's a 12 point spread - 44% and 56%. Indeed, that's
huge in politics. Most modern Presidential elections are won with 52-53% of
the popular vote at best. [0]

Hispanics, as you noted, are over a 30 point spread.

So politically speaking, having only 44% of the female vote and still winning
requires a very large (political) majority of voters voting Republican to be
male. Add to that age, and again we're seeing clearly that old white men are
the key demographic. [1]

It's not that you and I see percentages differently. It's the political
significance of the margins that define the argument.

[0]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_preside...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin)

[1] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-
celeb...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celebrates-
win-no-sign-of-narrowing-gender-age-gaps/)

------
mmcconnell1618
In the age of zero cost "letter writing" why would anyone consider the count
of letters received as a valid indicator of sentiment? There are other
legitimate means to determine public opinion if that is what the FCC really
wants to know. My fear is that they don't really care what the public thinks.

------
4ydx
Framing the idea that ensuring private companies adhere to the status quo is
somehow "bad" regulation which will destroy the fabric of the internet is
really hilarious. While the decision hasn't been made yet, I would be
absolutely amazed if pro-isp tiered rules are not implemented.

------
mikeyouse
In what I'm sure is just a coincidence, the group bragging about 'winning' the
comment period (who are a notorious Koch front group:
[http://i.imgur.com/YE4kpt1.png](http://i.imgur.com/YE4kpt1.png)) just
happened to have written a legal opinion to the FTC in support of the Comcast
/ TWC merger as well:

[Warning, .RTF file download since Imgur is down, page 196:]
[http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/activeedgardoc.cfm?f=rtf...](http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/activeedgardoc.cfm?f=rtf&companyid=CMCSA&id=10192356)

Excited to see which new donors show up in their 2014 financial filings.

------
Matt_Cutts
A follow up post: [http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/17/clearing-up-
th...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/17/clearing-up-the-
confusion-about-our-analysis-of-net-neutrality-comments-to-the-fcc/)

------
sinwave
Glad to see a shoutout to Radim Rehurek and gensim. The library is really a
joy to work with.

------
brohoolio
I hope the FCC sees this or has tools to detect these manipulations.

~~~
astrodust
I would not be surprised if the FCC dealt with comments in _paper_ form.

