All 1.1 Million Comments to the FCC on Neutrality, Visualized
As noted recently
, the FCC decided to dump all of the comments they received on net neutrality out in the open in the form of six XML files, allowing analysis of what people and companies were thinking on the issue. Initial dissection of that data was largely superficial, with stories exploring things like the fact that people sure like to say the f-bomb a lot
San Francisco data analysis firm Quid offered a significantly more interesting graphical look at the data
this week, creating a cluster map that details word use and general sentiment. According to the data, the vast vast majority of commenters supported net neutrality, with the firm also showing that almost all of those opposing net neutrality and the creation of rules came courtesy of form letters:
The comments did include "anti" net neutrality positions. They included statements opposing the "FCC's crippling new regulations," as commenters wrote. But they came from a form letter, or template, and all comment clusters that came from templates (five separate ones in all, four of five supporting net neutrality) were collapsed into a single node. Taken with the entire body of comments sampled, there weren't enough unique or organic anti-net-neutrality comments to register on the map.
Net neutrality supporters (groups like Free Press, Public Knowledge, the EFF) all used templates as well ("outrage-o-matic" forms, I like to call them). It's notable that nobody opposed to net neutrality rules could apparently be bothered to write an original letter. While the FCC rules will be more influenced by campaign contribution cash than democratic representation, it's pretty clear the vast majority of consumers aren't impressed with AT&T, Comcast and Verizon's vision for the future of the Internet.
Forest Hills, NY
·Time Warner Cable
how we know it's rigged companies opposed to net neutrality could have hired shills to write how paid fast lines would be great »www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2161315 instead of just using automated forms.
they did not hire shills because they already know the million feedback comments will NOT be taken into account at all when the bought and paid for FCC ultimately decides in their favor.
| |Camelot OnePremium,MVM
Re: how we know it's rigged Exactly. The industry knows the comments are nothing but show, so tgeir money is better spent continuing to line the pockets of wheeler and his clan.
Re: how we know it's rigged I believe the request for comments was just window dressing at the FCC, to give the general public a warm fuzzy thinking someone might actually listen. They won't.
Nobody at DSLR will be surprised when nothing changes, net neutrality remains gutted and neutered, and paid "fast lanes" become the norm.
Re: how we know it's rigged For fun, imagine this future a decade from now. Many municipalities wire themselves for broadband, and (of course) buy transit from a few NSPs.
But then something slightly revolutionary happens. They begin to interconnect with each other.
Then they connect themselves to several major internet exchange (IX) points.
Then they freely peer with major content providers and anyone else who wants to participate on an SFI basis.
Now the major players like VZ, Comcast, AT&T, are far LESS relevant.
It would be somewhat of a rebirth of the internet, but without the giants holding it by the throat. That doesn't mean they go away, but they WOULD lose some brute force, and WOULD have to change how THEY do business.
I wrote a letter opposing net neutrality rules
I wrote a letter opposing net neutrality rules and it wasn't a form letter. So the above assertion is wrong.
nobody opposed to net neutrality rules could apparently be bothered to write an original letter
Re: I wrote a letter opposing net neutrality rules This letter fails to mention that companies like Netflix have their own data connections and capacity concerns and they must pay their own ISP/transit providers. THIS should be all they have to pay, and they should only have to pay once. There should be no requirement to have to pay an ISP for access to a captive customer base.
It's not as if Netflix is magically pushing data to the ISPs, the ISP's paying customers are demanding the content, and it really should be of no concern what data is being requested.
This is just an attempt at creating another revenue stream in an industry with market saturation that wholly relies on investors that demand growth on their investments now rather than later. This is not sustainable.
The major US ISPs can get away with this practice only because they have dominant control in their region, with little to no competition to deal with in their operating footprint.
Reasonable network management is expected, but pay-per-pipe is only good for the powerful conglomerates looking to make even more profits at the expense of innovation and customer satisfaction, just to make Wall Street happy.
Forest Hills, NY
·Time Warner Cable
Re: I wrote a letter opposing net neutrality rules yup, the whole notion that average subs "subsidize" heavy users is ridiculous - if that were true, rural isp service would be far better, as isp's do get paid by the state to subsidize those last miles, and they still don't get done - isp's simply eat those tax payer handouts. so if isp's got extra "fast lane" revenue, it would not go into plant & equipment, it would simply get eating by wall street fat cats at the expense of the middle class. if anything, streaming has become a huge profit windfall for isp's not just in the transit fees being paid by hosting companies, but in the data cap overages most wireless networks demand of roaming smartphone users addicted to high bandwidth apps while on their wired home wifi. "unlimited" is no longer unlimited thanks to them. isp's today are also hidef tv program sellers, and had to upgrade their old analog systems to new high bandwidth addressable systems so we'd have something to watch on our 1080p screens. if anything it's been ISP customers subsidizing CableTV watchers, as ISP customers have not come close to consuming that much bandwidth until recently.
Picture a scale Put public comments on one side of it, and 'campaign donations', PAC money, and other forms of financial contributions on the other side.
The money will always weigh more. This is American politics at work. Until people stop voting for party members and vote for independents (independents with integrity) it will never change.
Re: Picture a scale
said by Flyonthewall :FCC Commissioners are appointed, not elected.
Until people stop voting for party members and vote for independents (independents with integrity) it will never change.
Re: Picture a scale Why did Obama appoint Wheeler? For the same reason he let AT&T off the hook for mass 4th amend violations. Money buys politicians. And our supreme court legalized it saying that corps have constitutional rights. We are doomed.
People won't wake up until one day, they will have large scale denial of service on multiple web sites they use, they will then call support and will be offered a option to pay more money so they can have access. Or charge the site more so you can access them and then your fav web site goes bye bye. Big companies already control the message on big media. Its their intention to control the message on the internet.. just like China does. Although, that's a tricky task.. the internet is a large place. But its slowly moving in that direction. What needs to happen is a reversal on the supreme court decision. But how do you do that? They are suppose to defend the constitution. Once you have corruption at that level things get rapidly dire.