Astroturfing doesn’t require a fake organization, just fraudulent use of an organization claiming to be grass roots.
I guarantee you that the majority of the communities represented by those organizations probably don’t even understand the issue. Of those that do, I suspect that if you polled them, you’d find most of the not backing the position contained in the document. Somehow, the anti-internet-freedom collection of monopoly/oligopoly interests managed to coopt the leadership of those organizations into this astroturf. Owen On Jul 27, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Richard Bennett <rich...@bennett.com> wrote: > So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations but > pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge that admit to > collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long history, I > think this is a bit of a stretch. > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that net > neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money from the > pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of super-heavy > Internet users and some of the richest and most profitable companies in > America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising networks. > > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when that > nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who provided free > broadband starter plans that allowed access to Facebook and Wikipedia were > required to charge the poor: > > "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of > neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put an end to the > practice, widespread in developing countries > <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, > of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has > reported > <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, > companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals > <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> with > mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones version of their > service without charging customers for the data. > > "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee > <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> > from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. Internet > giants like it because it encourages use of their services in places where > consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it because Facebook > or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the > wonders of the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay > for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the practice: > Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of zero-rating as a way to spread > its free, non-profit encyclopedia." > > http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ Actually, I don’t see this ruling as such a bad thing. > Internet Freedom? Not so much. We can agree to disagree. I don’t think leveraging one semi-captive audience to build a captive audience for other companies is a good thing. It reduces the potential for new entrants to compete on an even footing. (Not that there aren’t already plenty of barriers to competing with Facebook and/or Google, but adding cross-subsidies from TPC shouldn’t be an additional one. Owen
