Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wrote my US Representative. Rarely have I done this. Here's my letter:

Representative La Malfa,

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your service to the First District and to Siskiyou Co in particular. Although, I have a great many areas of concern, few are more far reaching and more concerning than the proposed roll-back of the "Net Neutrality" rules. It is my opinion, that this will directly impact the ability of Americans to assemble, express political dissent (or consent), and access to a free press.

Although our founding fathers and perhaps even our parents could not have foreseen the ability to assemble "virtually" in chat forums, comment on News articles and give chorus to public outcry in such an instantaneous fashion it is still enshrined in the Constitution. The ability of an ISP to limit the speed at which a site can be accessed or news obtained limits speech and participation of all Americans.

As the old adage goes "a Lie would travel from Maine to Georgia while Truth was getting on his boots."

Net Neutrality will allow the Truth to catch up.

Representative LaMalfa, I feel certain that I am not the only concerned constituent to have contacted you about this. Please don't let this happen for the sake of all of us.

Thank you for your time and I hope you have a happy and healthy holiday season.

Very truly yours,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Feel free to cut and paste this. I did recognize a grammatical error though in the last sentence of the first paragraph "access to a free press" would likely sound better as "access a free press." And of course substitute the representatives name and district and county/parrish.

 whembly wrote:
I think the concerns are a wee bit overwrought here...

While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept... I just have serious concerns about Net Neutrality being justified to reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under the previous FCC ruling. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean it's the wild, wild west... this new ruling would effectively revert much of the oversight back to the FTC.

The biggest concerns to me ought to be focused on two things...

A) The vertical integrations in the industry... ie, the Comcast/NBC merger... and the proposed ATT/DirectTV/TimeWarner merger. When you have content providers who are ALSO ISPs... the incestuous nature of these companies should give us pause.

B) How powerful Google / Twitter / Facebook can be. (see this bloomberg piece that we may already be losing neutrality).

Clearly this infrastructure is too important to be allowed in the hands of private entities and should instead be nationalised for the common good.

 Peregrine wrote:
[And blocking access to Fox News entirely means a lot of angry customers, a lot of lost customers,

Not this, unfortunately, due to many ISPs being tied to cable franchises. By law you have once choice in many locations.

I liked this article from NYTimes. Interesting.

So, what happened with this? I hear that there were rumours of them attempting to force a sneaky vote in over Thanksgiving. Did that happen? Is it still to?

 LordofHats wrote:
I liked this article from NYTimes. Interesting.

Person considered as the "father" of net neutrality wrote an op-ed in opposition to latest change.


Using the FCC telcom's provision to reclassify ISPs as "common carriers" is asinine as ISPs are nothing like the telcomms that necessitated the FCC oversight.

Instead, Mr. Wu need to engage congress to pass something more permanent, that can withstand when the US Presidency changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
So, what happened with this? I hear that there were rumours of them attempting to force a sneaky vote in over Thanksgiving. Did that happen? Is it still to?

...just checked... still scheduled for December 14.

Though he's played a big role in popularizing the conception, Tim Wu just coined the term net neutrality. He didn't invent the concept of a common carrier, nor is he the "father" of anything. And arguing that ISPs are nothing like the telecoms is asinine. They are telecoms, and most of the internet runs on the same lines or lines built alongside the phone system. Years of throttling, blocking, and anti-competitive (i.e. anti-free market) behaviors by ISPs makes the idea that the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, shouldn't regulate the most used communication network in the country is asinine. Your use of the term asinine is itself asinine.

 LordofHats wrote:
Though he's played a big role in popularizing the conception, Tim Wu just coined the term net neutrality. He didn't invent the concept of a common carrier, nor is he the "father" of anything.

Never said he invented the concept of common carrier... where did you get that?

And arguing that ISPs are nothing like the telecoms is asinine.

Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).

They are telecoms, and most of the internet runs on the same lines or lines built alongside the phone system.

Running lines parallel to Ma Bell's lines doesn't make them *like* Ma Bell.

Years of throttling, blocking, and anti-competitive (i.e. anti-free market) behaviors by ISPs makes the idea that the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, shouldn't regulate the most used communication network in the country is asinine. Your use of the term asinine is itself asinine.

FTC... as in the "Federal Trade Commission" can regulate the ISPs... especially under Section 5 (which they have done so in the past):

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibits 'unfair methods of competition' (UMC), including conduct that violates either the antitrust laws or Section 5 standing alone.

Your objection to my use of 'asinine' is itself... asinine.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
"Just need to be upfront about it"

Which will be great when they all hold hands and enact horrible restrictions in unison so you don't have an alternative. I live out in the sticks and there's not a lot of choices, this means I'm at the whim of whatever company wants to push me around. If this is allowed to happen it will be bad for everyone save a few POS executives who already milk us for every penny as is.

Absolutely ridiculous, does anyone know a way to protest this or call in? From the sound of it this isn't a traditional situation where you can call your senator and complain. I mean I'm going to do it anyways, if we raise enough of a stink to our representatives we might be able to get congress to step in, but I'm not holding my breath.

If the service providers did collude on what/how to offer things, they could be sued over it. Price/service collusion is illegal in the US. The fact that many areas have only 1 or 2 providers does make this semi irrelevant though. It's why power/water/natural gas companies are regulated as there is usually only 1 supplier in an area.

Then it becomes a question of, "who can afford to sue them?" doesn't it?

We could solve a lot of these issues if we took anit-trust laws seriously in the US.



I mean, it's not like we have never faced these type of issues in the past and don't have solutions for them.

ya that should have been the solution to the banking problem in 08. A monopoly by anyother name: To big to fail? to big to exist.

 doktor_g wrote:
I wrote my US Representative. Rarely have I done this. Here's my letter:

Great letter, and much respect for contacting your representative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).

Uh... telecoms. Telecommunications companies. Telecommunications - the use of technology to facilitate communications of any kind.

You're trying to argue that the internet does't fit tht definition because it uses some new technologies in addition to the old technologies. It's a fairly ridiculous argument, really.

 whembly wrote:
Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).

Transfer of any information over distance via the use of electric signals is telecommunications. Sending out course corrections to a probe heading to Jupiter via a parabolic antenna? Telecommunications. Phoning someone from a landline? Telecommunications. Transmitting morse code via a telegraph machine? Telecommunications. Converting electric signals into flashing light down a fibre optic cable to send an email to your buddy in Canada? Telecommunications.

Even a quantum entanglement communication device would fall under telecommunications.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).

Uh... telecoms. Telecommunications companies. Telecommunications - the use of technology to facilitate communications of any kind.

You're trying to argue that the internet does't fit tht definition because it uses some new technologies in addition to the old technologies. It's a fairly ridiculous argument, really.

You're parsing out a statement to give that line a different context. I'm arguing that Ma Bell ≠ NameYourISP.

The common carrier designation from the FCC title II section was derived from the technologies and business practice of those Big Bell days.

It's a bit silly to apply those same standards to today's internet ecosystem because the technologies AND business practices are vastly different than the business/technologies that gave rise to that FCC reguation. You have WAY more discrete companies who are part of the fabric that makes up the internet.

The only similarity between Ma Bell and NameYourISP would literally be the local regulations that mandates one ISP provider simply because of limited pole space.

Now, if you believe ISPs ought to be regulated as no different than the local power/water/gas utilities... I can certainly see the angst over the FCC rescinding the common carrier designation.

Here's the kicker: That common carrier designation isn't REQUIRED to mandate Net Neutrality policies. In fact, I'd argue that it ought to be passed by Congress so that we avoid seeing these sorts see-saw that we're seeing now simply because whomever's in the Whitehouse every 4/8 years.

What I find funny over this whole ordeal is that the oversight shifts back to the FTC... who has enormous power to review and sanction the ISPs (which they have done prior to the 2015 change).

 whembly wrote:
You're parsing out a statement to give that line a different context. I'm arguing that Ma Bell ≠ NameYourISP.

But both companies use technology to facilitate communications. They're both telecommunications companies. One basic aim of good regulation is to make legal treatment consistent across all similar services. In fact this was the original aim of the 1934 act, and the aim of the 1996 amendment, among other things, was to make treatment of the emerging internet telecoms regulated consistently with other telecoms.

Here's the kicker: That common carrier designation isn't REQUIRED to mandate Net Neutrality policies. In fact, I'd argue that it ought to be passed by Congress so that we avoid seeing these sorts see-saw that we're seeing now simply because whomever's in the Whitehouse every 4/8 years.

Running it through the common carrier designation was the Dem workaround, because they didn't have the numbers in congress. The only issue with the workaround is, as you say, that when Reps get in power they undo it because that's what their lobbyist dollars want from them. Resulting in the seesaw.

But you know, most people when they see an issue seesawing between something they want, net neutrality, and something they don't want, providers rent seeking from content providers, they usually credit the group trying to do the right thing, and criticise the company trying to do the wrong thing.

But this is US politics, so it becomes 'both sides' somehow.

Just a heads up, the New York Attorney General is asking for help with regards to Net Neutrality and the flood of fake comments on the FCC's website in support of removing it. To that end, they opened a website where you can check to see if there are fake comments under your name and file a complaint with the NYAG's office.

Hilarious - I checked my last name and came up empty, but I found one from my dad's ex-wife, who does not own a computer and can barely read. I would literally bet everything I owned she didn't write that and likely doesn't know what the FCC is.

My first/last name was on there 3 times, but the locations aren't mine and my name is not rare. Same thing with my wife.

This quote attributed to my name gave me a chuckle:




My sister's name, a bit more rare, had 9 full pages from the same address:

I am in favor of strong net neutrality under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
Sincerely, Kronk's Sister

9 pages with 25 posts per page, all exactly the same.

Classic Obungle.

My last name came up 18 times and half of them are obvious bots since their comments damn near matches.

6+ pages that my name popped up. I went through a handful of them, and they were all against the repeal.

So found the 2 comments I sent as the only ones for my name. Good thing cause I'm strongly against this change to net neutrality

Same, and I live on the opposite side of the US.

I got about 10 results for my name and about seven of them were copy/paste of the exact same bit:

"Before leaving office, the Obama Administration rammed through a massive scheme that gave the federal government broad regulatory control over the internet. That misguided policy decision is threatening innovation and hurting broadband investment in one of the largest and most important sectors of the U.S. economy. I support the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to roll back Title II and allow for free market principles to guide our digital economy."

Two of the others were worded differently but had the same concept and started with blaming Obama as well.

Edit: Only found one for my wife but it was exactly the same as one of the latter two that I mentioned.

So there were bots for both?

 LordofHats wrote:
So there were bots for both?

Seems like it.

Facebooks/Twitter/Big Forums sites deals with bots all the times. Heck, dakka isn't immune of getting weird bots when we write certain key words.

Curious what, if any, bot mitigation strategy is deployed on site like the FCC?

Huh, one of the fake posts they have listed.... really was me.

Sent them a note about that....

The Auld Grump

That search isn't to a list of fake posts but to posts in general and you can search it to see if someone (or something) posted to it using your identity.


Search. I just wanted to say it again.

Read through it, and found a post in my name, and I'm betting it came from a online petition I signed a while back.