Now, this is astroturfing. http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Bennett <rich...@bennett.com> wrote: > This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" > allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what > the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes an > organization. > > Groups like Free Press are arguably astroturf because of their funding and > collaboration with commercial interests, but even if you buy the blogger's > claim that AEI is taking orders from Comcast (which it isn't), it doesn't > pretend to be speaking for the grassroots. After 76 years in operation, > people engaged in public policy have a very clear idea of the values that > AEI stands for, and the organization goes to great lengths to firewall > fundraising from scholarship. AEI's management grades itself in part on > being fired by donors, in part; this is actually a goal. > > The thing I most like about AEI is that it doesn't take official > positions and leaves scholars the freedom to make up their own minds and to > disagree with each other. Although we do tend to be skeptical of Internet > regulation, we're certainly not of one mind about what needs to be > regulated and who should do it. AEI is a real think thank, not an advocacy > organization pretending to be a think tank. > > The article is riddled with factual errors that I've asked Esquire to > correct, but it has declined, just as it declined to make proper > corrections to the blogger's previous story alleging the FCC had censored > 500,000 signatures from a petition in support of Title II. See: > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net- > neutrality?fb_comment_id=fbc_734581913271304_735710019825160_ > 735710019825160#f35206a395cd434 > > The blogger came to my attention when he was criticized on Twitter by > journalists who support net neutrality for that shoddy piece of > sensationalism; see the dialog around this tweet: https://twitter.com/ > oneunderscore__/status/489212137773215744 > > The net neutrality debate astonishes me because it rehashes arguments I > first heard when writing the IEEE 802.3 1BASE5 standard (the one that > replaced coaxial cable Ethernet with today's scalable hub and spoke system) > in 1984. Even then some people argued that a passive bus was more > "democratic" than an active hub/switch despite its evident drawbacks in > terms of cable cost, reliability, manageability, scalability, and media > independence. Others argued that all networking problems can be resolved by > throwing bandwidth at them and that all QoS is evil, etc. These talking > points really haven't changed. > > The demonization of Comcast is especially peculiar because it's the only > ISP in the US still bound by the FCC's 2010 Open Internet order. It agreed > to abide by those regulations even if they were struck down by the courts, > which they were in January. What happens with the current Open Internet > proceeding doesn't have any bearing on Comcast until its merger obligations > expire, and its proposed merger with TWC would extend them to a wider > footprint and reset the clock on their expiration. > > Anyhow, the blogger did spell my name right, to there's that. > > RB > > > On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > >> Provided without comment: >> >> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality >> >> Drive Slow, >> Paul Wall >> > > -- > Richard Bennett > Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute > Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy > Editor, High Tech Forum > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -