28
votes
New York Attorney General issues report detailing millions of fake comments, revealing secret campaign to influence FCC’s 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Word count
- 1035 words
And of course, there's ton's of legal liability shielding so the broadband companies don't get punished for their behaviour. Just like always.
At least the shady lead generator companies are getting punished for the shitty things they do.
40 years can seem like always in internet-time, but the stampede to de-regulate infrastructures and to market them as commodities is rather recent on a historical scale.
Also, the big telcos used to be very profitable before the advent of packet-switching, which they resisted as much as they could. The network becoming non-neutral would be for them a way to re-capture part of their pre-digital supremacy.
I've never heard about this before, and I'm really curious about it. Do you have a link I could read up on about why the advent of packet switching was so bad for their bottom line?
I don't have one precise reference, but I remember this book as giving a rather good overview of the "pre-history" of the internet.
Not precisely about circuits vs. packets, but check this chronicle. It's about some of the baby steps of an adolescent internet leaving the confines of government laboratories and going to the market.
Of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
Related article from the AP:
Broadband cos paid for 8.5M fake net neutrality comments
Edit - Ars article with way more details:
Biggest ISPs paid for 8.5 million fake FCC comments opposing net neutrality