17 ms·

AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

• JCharante 9y ago
  > Approximately 1 million of those comments may have been submitted using real people’s stolen identities--including those of as many as 50K New Yorkers, such as a dead person and a 13 year old child. I'm not familiar with the story about the 13 year old child. Has anyone gotten in touch with them to see if they submitted it? Maybe they're the next Aaron Swartz.
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    This comment was submitted under the name and address of someone we will call Jill, in Rochester, New York. As it turns out, Jill’s father wasn’t very happy about that submission because the real Jill is only 13 years old and never submitted any comment. We also saw a woman in Albany who supposedly submitted a comment in July of 2017. Sadly, her son reached out to us to say that was impossible because she had died in June. Even right here in my office, my assistant press secretary had a phony comment submitted under her name using the address of her childhood home. These are just a few of the thousands of comments that have been reported to my office.
• randyslegacy 9y ago
  Hello, NY resident from Orange County here. Does the investigation have a good likelyhood of suing the FCC for the current situation? Also how do the possible ramifications of a Net Nutrality repeal affect the Spectrum litigation?
• SydneyCohan 9y ago
  Can states implement their own net neutrality rules? Will the Trump administration be able to sensor online content like Putin does in Russia?
  • rosser 9y ago
    Pai has specifically said he wants (and has the power) to Federally pre-empt state-level NN initiatives.
• gizmo385 9y ago
  How do you feel about Ajit Pai's decision to not postpone the upcoming Net Neutrality vote as many across the nation have called upon him to do?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    I think it's the wrong decision. We live in a democracy, and our country has clear laws requiring federal agencies to honor every citizen’s right to have his or her voice heard on any policy, like net neutrality, that impacts all of us. Our investigation has already shown that the legally required public comment process was deeply corrupted by bad actors. Until we are able to investigate who did this and why, and determine with greater certainty which comments are legitimate and which are bogus, our citizens’ voices are not being heard. Chairman Pai has not disputed that the fake comments we identify exist – both supporting and opposing net neutrality -- or that Americans’ identities were illegally misused. Instead, his office has tried to paint the issue as a partisan attack. As I’ve repeatedly made clear, this is not about the merits of net neutrality. It’s about the integrity of the process by which a hugely important policy decision is made, and that’s a matter everyone has a stake in, regardless of their view on a particular issue.
• hiq 9y ago
  Proof: https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/938104469375594496 https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/938104469375594496
• GalacticDomin8r 9y ago
  What does your actions mean for residents in other states who have fake comments posted in their name? Should they still report them to you and are those fake comments actionable in any other way?
  • dgritsko 9y ago
    Additionally, have you been working with any other state AGs regarding this issue?
    • burkaman 9y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855676
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    We've received and we welcome submissions from people across the country. As New York's Attorney General, my responsibility is to the people of New York. But what happened in the NN comment process affects all of us. I think that's why we've had AGs from other states reach out to us for information along these lines. So if your identity was misused, I encourage you to notify your state officials as well.
• terravion 9y ago
  What actions can state and local governments take to support net neutrality? Is New York going to consider revoking cable franchise agreements for companies that do not support net neutrality, or require it (maybe nationwide?) for bidders on franchise agreements?
  • eurticket 9y ago
    This might be related so I wanted to tack on a question: Does the FCC, especially Pai consider one of the only options for providers of broadband in the North East considered a competitive market?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    Great question. State and local governments should do definitely take action to support net neutrality, because the overwhelming majority of their citizens – regardless of politics or ideology -- favor net neutrality. That’s been proven again and again in every survey and study to measure public sentiment. Right now, the most effective thing state and local government officials can do is to join the chorus of citizens calling on their state’s Senators and Representatives in DC, demanding that they oppose Chairman Pai’s proposed rollback of the existing Title II protections. If enough folks in Congress--from both parties--feel pressure to stand up and demand that the FCC preserve net neutrality, it'll be much harder for the FCC to disregard the will of the public.
• jefe_ 9y ago
  Is this the same FCC Commenting System that sent API keys to anyone who asked? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/fccs-public-comment-api-lets-you-post-just-about-anything-to-gov-website/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/fccs-...
• rhino369 9y ago
  Can a state AG not subpoena a federal agency?
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    Correct, because of federal supremacy. The state and federal governments are “separate sovereignties”, but not co-equal ones.
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    The assistance we’ve requested should not require a subpoena. State and federal agencies cooperate all the time, especially when they are engaged in law enforcement investigations into illegal conduct. The FCC has worked with my office in the past under such circumstances, and there is no good reason for them not to work with us here. Regardless of any legal constraints that may exist on a state law enforcement office’s ability to compel a federal agency to cooperate in an investigation, cooperation always should be -- and usually is -- provided voluntarily.
• mc32 9y ago
  Would you mind commenting on these findings? They seem to have found that both sides have been stuffing the ballot box: http://www.emprata.com/reports/fcc-restoring-internet-freedom-docket/ http://www.emprata.com/reports/fcc-restoring-internet-freedo... Also, can you work on net neutrality for all bits? That is Google, Facebook, Twitter, as the main gateways to public discourse treat all comments equally without promoting one viewpoint over another that does not enjoy elite sanction? What good is NN as it stands if edge providers can treat bits differently? Basically NN says all bits _allowed_ to get to you by edge providers shall be treated the same, but it does not say edge providers have to allow all bits on their systems. Thanks.
  • matt4077 9y ago
    Net Neutrality has a specific meaning, and is supposed to protect against one specific mechanism that would undercut the internet's openness. The fear of Non-Net-Neutrality goes far beyond the usual "there's only two ISPs where I life and they both offer the same deals". It's something in completely its own category of nefariousness because they could be as anticompetitive as they want, and the market could not solve it. That's because the injured party isn't their customers, who could take their business elsewhere, or at least loudly complain on the internet (if they have any). It's someone not part to the ISP<->customer contract, namely that unknown video startup in Nantucket, or the e2e-encrpyted messenger app your friend Lauren is working on. They're going to be forced into paying ISPs if they ever want to reach the ISPs' customers. And there's no risk to the ISP, because nobody is going to change ISPs for some startup they've never heard about. The result could be ISPs capturing almost every cent of value created by new startups. We will also have a fractured internet, because small companies will have to negotiate contracts with every single ISP. Also want to reach those 500,000 people in eastern Montana? That'll cost you $2,000 per week. Anyone not living on the US coasts, and people in other countries, will constantly run into "HTTP Error 469: go suck a bag of.."
  • avs733 9y ago
    both paragraphs are whataboutism. The first talks about comment content which the AG did not reference. The second talks about an entirely irrelevant issue and tries to shift the definition of a term to something broader that clouds discussion.
• DoctorNick 9y ago
  Thanks Schneiderman. Thneiderman.
• twobyfour 9y ago
  If one discovers one's name has been used in fake comments, what can/should one do about it?
  • RpFLCL 9y ago
    Report it: http://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments http://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    My office put up a web page where you can easily check if your identity was misused and, if so, report the abuse to us: ag.ny.gov/fakecomments. In just a few days we’ve received thousands of comments, not just from New Yorkers but from all over the country. My team is reviewing those submissions for further evidence and leads in our investigation. Those submissions help us learn more about the attributes of different fake comments. We've also been sharing information from these submissions with the Attorneys General in other states who have reached out to us for more information about their own constituents’ identities being illegally misused.
• ikeboy 9y ago
  How do these comments harm real people? Definitely seems shady but I don't really see how using fake names actually hurt anyone.
  • tclancy 9y ago
    I feel the harm is caused by appropriating a process that's supposed to be a way for citizens to voice their opinion and rendering it useless, regardless of which names are signed to the content for or against. It seems like another attack on citizens' trust for government process.
    • ikeboy 9y ago
      There were hundreds of thousands of real comments. There's no way they were going to make a difference anyway, it's not like the vast majority of them were informed.
  • GalacticDomin8r 9y ago
    > How do these comments harm real people? When they are used to justify policies that harm real people. That question is so silly I first thought it was rhetorical.
    • ikeboy 9y ago
      Do you really think regulatory decisions are made based on which side gets more public comments? And that that is so obvious anyone who disagrees is silly?
      • temp123123123 9y ago
        It can certainly be used as an excuse, instead of having to come up with a separate reason to justify. Moreover, the precedent is set that this kind of thing isn't worth investigating.
      • now_l93 9y ago
        Regulatory decisions are supposed to be made with public input. We're all aware that the agencies often ignore input. That doesn't mean it's ok to make fake input. The FCC will use these fake comments to create the illusion that the public has given them a mandate. That's unacceptable.
• matt4077 9y ago
  Could you give us an impression to what degree a trustworthy comment period matters legally in the agency decision-making process? I believe many people consider the comment period a PR gimmick with no relevance, but I got the impression that it is legally required to some degree. If so, is this a substantive requirement with actual protective powers against agencies deciding arbitrarily, or just a veneer of rationality and transparent easily neutered?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    The law in our country requires federal agencies to provide every citizen with the right to notice and the opportunity to have his or her voice heard in policymaking. We now know from my office’s investigation and other reports of major flaws in the current proceeding that our citizens have not been given the opportunity to be truly heard, because the real voices are being drowned out, negated, or undermined by fake comments, stolen identities, and other irregularities. I disagree with those people who call the comment period a mere “PR gimmick.” For approximately 70 years America has had laws requiring federal agencies to provide citizens with notice of certain policy changes and an opportunity to make their voices heard. The last time net neutrality was up for consideration, the FCC received an outpouring from the public in favor of Title II net neutrality protections, and the FCC ultimately adopted those rules.
• AGSchneiderman 9y ago
  Timing update here: I'll be on to answer some questions between 3 PM and 4 PM ET. Thanks all!
• gregwtmtno 9y ago
  Hi Mr. Schneiderman: As a constituent, thank you for your work. I can't help but notice that your office is the only state AG vocally supporting net neutrality. Has your office attempted to coordinate with/gain support of other state's AGs?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    Fortunately, it's not just my office that’s publicly supported net neutrality. (My office did submit its own public comment in support of net neutrality because we had an issue we wanted to address that was unique to our experience.) Several other state AGs submitted a comment in support of net neutrality as well (available here: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717283141719/2017.07.17%20Attorneys%20General%20Comments%20on%20Docket%20No.%2017-108.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717283141719/2017.07.17%20Att...) You are right that a broad bipartisan coalition could make a big difference. Some other state AGs have reached out to us for more information about the problem and about my office’s investigation, and we’re providing information to any of them that want to investigate and act on behalf of their own states’ constituents whose identities were misused.
    • gregwtmtno 9y ago
      Thank you for your response.
    • retromario 9y ago
      For those like me wondering which states (pulled out of the pdf above): Illinois, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington
      • karmelapple 9y ago
        I found one comment that is likely fake, although it is for someone in Nevada, rather than where I live. This person happens to share my name, which is why I found it. I’ve called both the NY and NV Attorney General. I hope NV is ready to cooperate to investigate this serious identity theft issue.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• beager 9y ago
  Is there anything that states can do to promote municipal broadband or maximize competition for ISPs? If Ajit Pai is ultimately successful in rolling back net neutrality in spite of evidence of foul play and the pleadings of agencies such as yours, is it possible to fight against consolidation and to encourage consumers to vote for net neutrality with their wallets? Thank you.
• charter_sucks 9y ago
  Can you require Apartments to have more than one ISP. Charter is the worst and that's all that's available while my neighbors have FIOS available to them and RCN
• avs733 9y ago
  Do you personally believe that this was enabled either passively or actively by the FCC to cloud the public discourse surrounding the net neutrality vote?
  • RpFLCL 9y ago
    As a follow up, if it was intentionally done, can/will there be any legal consequences?
• xena 9y ago
  What actions are you going to take to make sure big players like Comcast don't just split the internet up into packages?
• panic 9y ago
  Thanks, AGSchneiderman and staff, for fighting for this issue! Here's a clickable link to the fake comments tool: https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments
  • djb_hackernews 9y ago
    Hmm, I just found a comment using my same name (rare, but not unique) but an address for what looks to be an abandoned house in the next town over from where I grew up...
• JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Dear Attorney General, I am beyond thrilled to see you on our forum. You're a gem to our country and make me proud to be a New Yorker and an American. In your review of this forum's discussions on net neutrality, what do we consistently miss, exaggerate or get sidetracked by? Are there technical projects we can contribute to or technical problems take on that would help you defend net neutrality? Thank you again, from all of us.
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    Wow – I’m honored! The volcano of bad ideas coming out of this administration has kept me busy on a lot of fronts, so I haven’t had as much time as I’d like to keep myself up to date on the boards here. But I can say that my staff – especially in my Bureau of Internet & Technology – does try to keep up on the news in tech and any potential problems we need to address. My understanding from them is that the tech community has been incredibly active on net neutrality, and incredibly helpful and supportive of our efforts on the issue. I thank you all for that. If you have a specific proposal for how to help our office's investigation, I encourage you to get in touch and my team will get back to you as soon as they can. https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general
    • 0xfeba 9y ago
      > Bureau of Internet & Technology BIT, I see. How refreshing to see a non-strained and more importantly, non-Orwellian acronym come from the US/a State government.
  • efo5 9y ago
    you are so ignorant. "our forum". net neutrality has become a partisan wedge issue. https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-s-plan-to-toss-net-neutrality-a-win-for-5g-analyst https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-s-plan-to-toss-n...
• turkishgetup 9y ago
  Hi Mr. Schneiderman, NY resident here. Thank you very much for your work. I'm proud to have you as our State AG. In your view, do the fake comments delegitimize FCC's rule-making process, if the FCC does not delay the vote until after the investigation is over? And can the FCC's Net Neutrality decision (regardless of whether or not they vote to repeal NN) be challenged in the court, on the grounds that the integrity of its rule-making process has been seriously compromised? Thanks!
• RpFLCL 9y ago
  Can you briefly expand on what congress is capable of doing to delay or stop this? I would like to be able to convey specific actions I want to see from my representatives, but I currently only feel comfortable asking "please do something!" Are we to demand that they require the FCC delay the vote until your investigation has concluded? Do they have that authority? I was under the impression that the telecom lobby was using the FCC as an end run around congress. What does a delay gain for us if those involved in the vote are beholden to lobbies, not citizens? Thank you for taking the time to come here today, and for your involvement.
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    On Congress: Many members of Congress have already spoken up and called on the FCC to halt the process until the problems with public comments can be investigated. I hope more of our elected officials in Washington take up that call. If enough members of Congress support net neutrality, especially if it is a bipartisan group, then I believe the FCC is less likely to repeal the strong Title II net neutrality protections that we know the overwhelming majority of Americans support. On what you can do: I’ve called on the FCC to delay its vote. So has FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the leading champions of net neutrality. And so have at least 28 U.S. Senators. Americans absolutely have the right to make their preferences known to their elected representatives in Washington, and I encourage you to do so, especially if those officials haven’t already spoken publicly about net neutrality. If members of Congress – speaking on behalf of their constituents – speak out on any issue, their statements matter. My interest in a pause in the process is to get to the bottom of the fake comments and misuse of New Yorkers’ identities, and to make sure real Americans are given the right to have their voices heard. At heart, what we're talking about aren't the merits of net neutrality -- it's the integrity of the democratic policymaking process and the rule of law. In that way, I believe such a delay would be very beneficial to any ultimate result.
    • RpFLCL 9y ago
      So it's not a matter of demanding my representatives create new legislation, so much as it is trying to convince them to make my voice (our voices) heard on the national stage. That makes sense.
• jimkleiber 9y ago
  It seems that the internet is being flooded with accounts that use real people's stolen identities and this is yet another example. Which, if any, laws did the creators of these accounts break by posting these comments to the FCC under other people's identities?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    It may violate a number of laws, including laws against impersonation or misuse of identity and falsification or forgery. Depending on facts we uncover, it could also be a form of a deceptive business practice. Some of that conduct is criminal under NY law, and some of it also constitutes a civil violation.
• m0ther 9y ago
  Do you need help? This is one of the best communities in the world to ask to write free analysis software to help you determine which entries were likely to have been automated.
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    If you have ideas for how to help my office's investigation, we welcome them. You can get in touch at https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general. Generally speaking, I encourage anyone who wants to get involved in the fight to protect net neutrality to reach out to organizations they support that have been active and vocal here, and offer their support. Nonprofits and advocacy organizations are always in need of committed, talented people who are willing to help organize, including people with technical talent. Don’t be afraid to reach out.
    • m0ther 9y ago
      I am one, of I am sure many, here who have written automated fraud prevention software. Post a dataset somewhere that we can run our algorithms against, and a way of getting our findings back to you. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130138427A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130138427A1
• _red 9y ago
  For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed for ~20 years without the need for regulation, why now? 3. Please explain how is the very same government who allows the communication monopolies to exist, supposed to also ensure that they are "neutral"? It seems awfully convenient that the solutions to problems that government creates is to have more government. 4. Wouldn't more competition be a better course to ensuring a freer net?
  • jerkstate 9y ago
    My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" So Comcast shaping Netflix when Cogent won't pay their share to upgrade their peering point is probably still legal, but they would probably have to go to court to prove that it was "reasonable network management" and depending on the technical prowess of the court, could easily go the other way. The outcome is that telcos lose a lot of negotiating power to content providers. More last mile providers probably wouldn't solve this problem, because people pay money for what they actually want (streaming video) rather than what they say they want ("free speech") and an ISP that protected freedom of speech would be protecting nazis, white supremacists, fake news, etc.
    • _red 9y ago
      >My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" Thanks for the points. A few further thoughts. 1. There are two sides to every connection. Couldn't Netflix itself traffic shape? 2. Can I pay for QoS from an ISP for elevated service (for instance say I also have VOIP service for my office and want low-latency to trunk)? Doesn't my elevated status neccessitate shaping of others packets (for mine to arrive with lowest latency, others must be delayed)? 3. Lastly, given that all communications (everything from postal mail, to TV, cellphone, etc) relies on oversubscription, QoS traffic shaping is baked into the pie, there is no network access without shaping. Literally every single packet is shaped constantly along the way. Given this fact, QoS is the not optional. It is in fact the entire business process. Thereby, how could an ISP ever be shown to not be engaging in "reasonable network management"? NOTE: I'm asking these questions somewhat rhetorically. My point always when NN discussions arise is to try to engage in actual technical discussion about the matter for the purposes of illustrating to others that its largely an undefined, impossible to enforce concept. In fact, the idea is impossible. To my repeated disappointment, few people - even on technical places like HN - bother to think about the technical aspects. To me this shows that NN is like a mind virus. Its the 2015 version of "won't someone think of the children" from the 80's. It is a crafty bit of wordsmith that makes it impossible for people not to support. Who could be for a "non-neutral" net? All of this is crafted for the politicians benefit, since they gain the power (and their monopoly lobbyist).
• cabaalis 9y ago
  How do you overcome the argument from some that the cables/infrastructure/etc are owned by the Telcos who should therefore be able to control what data flows through them? The argument is that if they take that right too far, the market will attempt to react to fix the problem, without government oversight.
• westbywest 9y ago
  Hi Mr. Schneiderman: If the FCC publishes rules intended to repeal NN and Title-II regulations, as is expected, will your office petition Congress to invoke is powers via the Congressional Review Act, to consider overturning said rules? Thank you.
• bosstime 9y ago
  Hi AG Schneiderman, I have an unusual last name. I searched it on your FCC comment site. Someone with my last name as their first name was the only result. Their comment was against net neutrality. Due to our unusual last name, it seemed odd it was someones first name so I decided to do my own research. By searching google, I came across a variety of social media accounts all of them were inactive with little to no followers or in some instances they were spamming links to other sites. I have little reason to believe this "persons" anti-net neutrality response was genuine. Is there any way to report this sort of expected fraud?
  • westbywest 9y ago
    AG published a form for reporting fake comments: https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments-form https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments-form
    • bosstime 9y ago
      I don't know, that seems like it's for comments made by you that you didn't actually do. I have little reason to believe the person who left this comment is real or rather if the person is real, I doubt they actually left the response. However I don't think I should file it on their behalf in case I'm wrong. I guess if they want the information, I'd pass it onto his staff and let him and his staff do the research to determine it's authenticity although that seems like a lot of work to authenticate one person.
• shmerl 9y ago
  * What do you think are the prospects of passing strong Net Neutrality law in the Congress? One of the main concerns isn't just FCC removing the rules, but the Congress passing a weak law which would solidify dysfunctional rules, making fixing them many times harder. * Why do you think, existing anti-trust law is not working to prevent abuse by ISP monopolists like using data caps and zero rating to disadvantage video competitors?
• legutierr 9y ago
  Mr. Schneiderman, Beyond efforts such as your lawsuit, what are some actions that local and state governments can undertake to ensure that net neutrality remains in-place within their jurisdiction, without the risk of being preempted by the FCC? Another commenter here suggests municipal broadband as a possible response to the weakening or elimination of net neutrality. Do you see any legal constraints that may be imposed by federal law and/or FCC regulation on the efforts of states and local governments to foster "network neutral" internet utilities that can compete with carriers known to discriminate within their networks?
• ABCLAW 9y ago
  AG Schneiderman, While not from the US, as a jurist I feel compelled to do my part to prevent abuse of process and misrepresentations from occurring in the public sphere. Is there any role available for American or Canadian jurists to help with your office's efforts in this matter? Tim Wu's assertion that this battle will ultimately be won or lost in the courts comes to mind: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutra... Would developing a case against Mr. Pai directly be an option you are considering? The revolving door/regulatory capture issue which is often raised in tandem with critiques of the FCC's current and past behavior is clearly contemplated at 47 U.S.C. § 154, (b) (2) & (b) (3). -=-=-=- I feel as if this situation is our creation as jurists. The Anglo-American legal tradition has a strong current against recognizing a general theory of abuse of rights/abus de droit which is often foundational in civilian legal traditions, instead relying heavily upon balance of rights analysis. Mr. Pai's argumentation relies heavily upon the balance of rights analysis, which discounts the importance of the purpose of the commission, his office and the rules in place in favour of a crude and arbitrary weighing of benefits and harms to stakeholders. In this case: If the benefit to incumbent ISPs is large enough, the balance of rights analysis would handily justify harm to consumers - even if it would conflict with the purpose listed in the FCC's enabling legislation. See: 47 U.S.C. § 151.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• zonethundery 9y ago
  Dear AG Schneiderman: Thanks for all the work you do on behalf of New Yorkers and consumers in other states. 1. Are there any federal statutes under which states could sue providers to effectively maintain net neutrality? (analogous to the UDAAP authority granted to states by Dodd-Frank) 2. What obligations does the FCC have under the APA (or other statute) to ensure the integrity of the comment process, rather than merely evaluating them and remaining "open minded"?
• edmanet 9y ago
  Un-related to the FCC nightmare, how do you, as AG, feel about bitcoin and crypto currencies?
• anechoe 9y ago
  AG Schneiderman: Thank you for doing this and setting up this website. I actually hadn't checked until now, and found a false comment - it isn't from me though, it's from my biological mom, who's been dead for almost 20 years now. Is there a way for me to file a report for this? My representatives are already for net neutrality, but I will see what else I can do to support this cause. Thank you for fighting for our freedoms and to uncover the fraud that occurred during this comments process.
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    That's awful and I'm sorry to hear it. You can report the fake comment to my office at https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments.
• anechoe 9y ago
  AG Schneiderman: Thank you for doing this and setting up this website! My representatives are already for net neutrality - but I will see what else I can do to support this cause. Thank you for fighting for our freedoms and to uncover the fraud that occurred during this comments process. (I thought there was a comment using my mother's name/etc. but it appears that there's somebody else with the same name living in New York? Maybe? My last name's really rare [on the order of 50 people in the US?], so I wasn't expecting this at all, but they do appear to exist as a different person.)
• tlb 9y ago
  If there had not been identity theft, would a law have been broken by foreign nationals submitting comments to the FCC? Under what conditions is it illegal for foreign nationals to buy political ads on US-based websites or TV? Net neutrality within the US is likely to affect the content available to people around the world, so it's reasonable for them to have an opinion. How should foreign nationals legally advocate for their positions in such a debate?
• doctorsher 9y ago
  Hello Mr. Schneiderman, Thank you for doing this AMA, for your investigation, and for your well spoken remarks at yesterday's press conference. Will you also pursue whether the FCC legitimately experienced a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack? Personally, I think that one of these two scenarios is likely: 1. The signs of the reported DDoS are natural artifacts of heavy traffic load on the FCC's web application. Large groups may have submitted through mechanisms unintended by the FCC, and users may have created malformed requests. When large groups of people use your system, it can be in ways you didn't anticipate when the system was designed. If this is the case, the FCC falsely claimed there was a DDoS -- this could be due to incompetence (poorly written application) or malevolence (willfully ignoring authentic human input that overwhelmingly supported net neutrality). Either of these outcomes are contrary to the FCCs mission. 2. There was legitimate DDoS activity. In this case, we must find out who committed this DDoS. Furthermore, we need to analyze whether there is any correlation between the faked identities and the DDoS activity. For example, let's say there is a clever ISP against net neutrality. They conduct this DDoS against the FCCs commenting system to drown out the voices of real US citizens. However, they know the DDoS might be analyzed, so they conduct the DDoS with pro net neutrality comments -- the content of the comments doesn't matter to them, so much as the ability to point the finger elsewhere while knowingly suppressing authentic comments. If there is extreme overlap between IP addresses used for such a scheme and other anti net neutrality comments, the true intention is revealed. Again, this is just an example. For your investigation, you would likely be interested in this angle in order to rule out whether the entity that conducted the DDoS was also responsible for the massive case of identity theft you are pursuing. Either way, if the state of New York could compel the FCC to release anonymized logs, our entire country would benefit. Thank you! Remain steadfast.
• riazrizvi 9y ago
  Mr Schneiderman, How can you enforce Net Neutrality today? I'm an ATT & Comcast user. It's clear to me that these companies are already throttling my service based on which websites I visit, which I understand is illegal. I have deduced this by switching to a VPN whenever a website does not immediately come online. In over a hundred trials in the last two years I have confirmed that over 80% of the time a website will immediately appear once it is masked to my phone ISP or to my home internet ISP. This is despite the increased distance the traffic must take to route through the VPN server. It seems to me Net Neutrality is a fight we are already losing because we cannot enforce it.
  • chopin 9y ago
    Nitpick: You just described a way to enforce it. For privacy reasons I would go that route anyways.
    • riazrizvi 9y ago
      Yes I can do it. But privacy and net neutrality needs to be in place for the general public who are not so tech savvy. Otherwise data gatherers will use information to destroy competition and sustain monopolies. If I make a new site that competes with some service that ATT sells, perhaps they knock on the door offering some crummy buy out deal. If I don’t accept they can just choke off the service. More likely though, they sell a choke off service to big spenders. Let’s say it’s the 90s. A scrappy website called Backrub, created by two Stanford grads, introduces a new internet search that is vastly superior to a Microsoft owned MSN Search. Microsoft pays ATT to throttle Backrub users. Fast forward back to 2017 and the world is forced to use Bing because Google doesn’t exist. I’m sorry if I created a horrific mental image for you but we need to make net neutrality the default for Joe Public otherwise this capitalist enterprise system will run itself into the ground.
• AGSchneiderman 9y ago
  Hey, everyone, this is AG Schneiderman, I'm here and ready to take your questions. Just a reminder that you can check to see if your identity was misused during the NN comment process by clicking here: https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• omg_ketchup 9y ago
  If they pass net neutrality, can we legally build our own internet/ISP/distributed network?
  • bifrost 9y ago
    You can, it'll just be a lot more expensive AFAIK.
    • DiThi 9y ago
      Why?
      • bifrost 9y ago
        Regulatory and compliance costs are regressive - they target small businesses because they're aimed at large businesses but tend to adversely affect smaller ones at a greater rate.
        • DiThi 9y ago
          Are we talking about net neutrality here? Because I don't think NN can be costly. Net Neutrality is the _natural_ state of computer networks, you don't have to do anything special.
          • bifrost 9y ago
            NN regulation is not at all the "natural" state, which is why I think its a bad idea.
            • DiThi 9y ago
              Suppose you're a new ISP. Explain what is the cost of complying with NN regulation.
              • bifrost 9y ago
• CDeGroot93 9y ago
  Dear Attorney General, If the vote proceeds will you sue this repeal, to protect New Yorkers?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    Thanks for this question. We think there's still time to stop repeal, so we're hoping everyone with a stake in this issue--especially the tech community--will mobilize to force the Chairman to reconsider his proposal. You can be sure that we'll scrutinize the final rule very closely and seriously consider possible next steps at that point.
• fjabre 9y ago
  I just wanted to thank you for your efforts here. Would you have legal authority to stop the FCC from making this ruling? Would a judge actually be able to delay the vote?
• fjabre 9y ago
  I wanted to thank you for your efforts here. Would you have legal authority to stop the FCC from making this ruling? Would a judge actually be able to delay the vote?
• iguana 9y ago
  Hello Mr. Schneiderman, I hope that by "AMA" you really do mean, anything :) What is your take on the outdated gravity knife law?
• natch 9y ago
  Hi Mr. Schneiderman: There are some great questions on here. I'm afraid the time window for this AMA is just too short to do them justice! Any chance you could pop back on here again over the next few days answer a few more of the best questions?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    Not finished yet -- I'll be in and out today to answer your questions. Thanks to all for taking the time to join me.
• Invictus0 9y ago
  Hi AG Schneiderman, I'm a resident of Westchester County, NY and support your investigation into the FCC's process. If you are successful, or even if you are unsuccessful, do you think your efforts will embolden other state AGs to investigate the federal government, and do you think that is a good or a bad precedent to set?
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• shortformblog 9y ago
  Hi Eric, we've seen a lot of back and forth on net neutrality issues between administrations. How do we solidify the ground so it's not tied to one party or another? And if this goes through (as it looks like it will), are there legal recourses that you're prepared to use? This feels like it's going to be a consumer issue as much as a communications issue.
• bifrost 9y ago
  In an era of increased government surveilance and personal intrusion, why should Americans be ok with more oversight from a broken organization like the FCC?
  • thomastjeffery 9y ago
    The FCC is only broken in the sense that its leaders are dismantling it. The most recent successful dismantling was getting rid of ISP customer privacy protections. ISPs are now allowed to collect data from customers without even notifying them, and sell that data. Without a strong FCC, ISPs are quickly becoming a new "Big Brother", with similar abilities to diminish individual privacy and trust by collecting and profiting from their customer's data, and stifling competition between internet services.
• freedomben 9y ago
  Hello and thank you for taking the time to do this. My question: Do you see net neutrality as the end-all solution to this, or would further regulation/deregulation be required beyond simply creating these rules? Also, is there a place for deregulation of ISPs and infrastructure to allow for more free-market competition?
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    There’s a long history of neutrality regulation for networks – going back even before the internet – even though the requirements have taken different forms over the years. And when those regulations were enforced they ended practices that hurt consumers and companies that wanted to provide services over those networks. Here’s a great summary of the history: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan.... The current net neutrality regulations under Title II are strong and address the many forms of discriminatory (i.e., anti-neutrality) conduct we’ve seen in the past. I have to respectfully disagree with a premise in your second question, that deregulation is what would allow for more market competition. The history clearly shows that when neutrality regulation was in place and enforced, it increased competition, for example: in 2005 it protected VoIP against discrimination by a phone company with a competing service; in 2008 it protected online video against discrimination by a cable company offering cable video on-demand. Moreover, ISPs invested in broadband infrastructure over the years because net neutrality was protecting edge providers, which led to huge innovations like online video, which in turn helped drive ever greater consumer demand for broadband that justified further infrastructure investment.
• fosco 9y ago
  Thank you for your leadership in many areas and especially this one! on a side note, I live far out east on Long Island and only have one viable option for an ISP that enables me to work, others (like satellite) are not viable for me to vpn to different clients, is there anything I can do to help increase competition out here so myself and neighbors have alternatives to "Optimum online"? Thank you again I am very happy to see you on this forum!
  • AGSchneiderman 9y ago
    You’re not alone. Many Americans – especially those far from major cities -- have only a single ISP available, others have only two ISPs. That’s why competition is more limited in the market for broadband than in other markets (because consumers can’t “vote with their feet” by switching to a competitor), and that’s a major reason I believe the existing net neutrality regulation under Title II is needed.
• _d8fd 9y ago
  If net neutrality fails, would it makes sense aggressively pursue a legal effort to break up "big cable"? Back in the long distance/DSL days, the local telcos were forced into allowing alternate vendors to sell long distance & Internet service over the copper wire running to one's house. Can we bust up Comcast's strangehold on the Internet service available to my apartment by forcing them to allow any vendor to sell Internet over that single Comcast-owned coax line? They lobbied against neutrality, so take away their monopoly!
  • pwnage 9y ago
    Did this make sense in 2014 before the regulations?
  • guelo 9y ago
    The legal authority to regulate the telcos is partly based on their common carrier status, which is the exactly the regulatory category that Ajit Pai wants to remove from ISPs.
  • randogogogo 9y ago
    This is exactly the way it was until W's FCC changed it removing wholesale line sharing regulations by declaring ISPs information services. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/10/appeals-court-upholds-fcc-anti-line-sharing-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/10/appeals-court-up...
  • wyager 9y ago
    We don’t even need to bust up telcos. All that needs to happen is the FCC needs to switch from huge, infrequent bandwidth sales to frequent regional bandwidth auctions. This will basically solve any last-mile oligopoly woes.
    • dsr_ 9y ago
      You appear to be mixing up cellphones and last-mile access.
  • thomastjeffery 9y ago
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• marcoperaza 9y ago
  Mr. Schneiderman, it seems to me that what you’re proposing, holding up the regulatory process because some people faked comments, would create a highly perverse incentive for those opposed to a particular action to submit fake comments appearing to support that action.
• arca_vorago 9y ago
  Mr. Schneiderman, what power does the NY AGs office actually have to halt or slow this egregious deriliction of duty on the part of the FCC and it's chairman, and under what specific laws? More generally, it seems that petition and protest do very little to change congress's stance on subjects of importantance to it's real constituencies, the people, as shown by multiple studies and events. Does this potentially violate any laws and which, and if so why has prosecutorial discretion been exercised so frequently with the rich and powerful (cabinet members, congress, bankers etc) while minorities and the poor are almost never afforded it? Finally, if the repeal of net neutrality is passed, what recourse is there for the people, your office, or any other relevant office?
• Shivetya 9y ago
  How do we know that if the government decides how access is governed that the same government won't abuse by deciding what we can do with said access, what sites we use, what protocols we use, what apps we use, in our use.
• Natanael_L 9y ago
  This may be completely off the mark, but it's worth asking; If the FCC repeals net neutrality, and if the FCC blocks state level net neutrality laws, and if a state / municipality has a de facto monopoly contract with one ISP, and finally, if that ISP engages in filtering / blocking / throttling content... Then wouldn't that imply a first amendment violation, in that the state sanctions (via contract) treating protected speech in violation of the first amendment rights? Because the people involved are trying to engage in protected speech which is hindered by state laws?
• libman 9y ago
  COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
• avivo 9y ago
  FYI, there are some folks at http://datafordemocracy.org http://datafordemocracy.org / http://www.startuppolicylab.org/ http://www.startuppolicylab.org/ coordinating a study of this, including Jeff Kao, whose work on this was cited in https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/24/fcc-net-neutrality-process-corrupted-by-fake-comments-and-vanishing-consumer-complaints-officials-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/24... If you want to help analyze the data and see what happened, it could be worth checking that out (I’m not involved, but it seems like valuable work).”
• swapsmagic 9y ago
  It's so easy to identify those fake comments by just looking at few. I figure this is one of the comments that seems fake. Why is it taking long to identify there are lot of fake comments in it? 'The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone.'
  • cr0sh 9y ago
    I would say that this comment is "real" - in the sense that it was actually wordsmithed for the position it supports, but that it is likely that the purported person's name and address are fake/misattributed to the comment. This wordsmithed position likely came from some partisan political action web site gathering automated signatories; you go to it, fill out your info, and it posts to the FCC input form/api or whatever. Similar ones exist as well for the opposite view ("for net-neutrality rules"). At that point, it's a matter of generating the information and pasting and sending (the actual text is usually pre-filled on the form, sometimes with allowances to allow a real user to edit the form). For instance, I looked up my name on the AG's site - it found several hits. Most of them were "against net neutrality" - essentially with the text you posted - but the addresses didn't match my address. But a couple were posted "for the current net neutrality rules" urging the FCC not to change anything; even so, I didn't post them, and the addresses didn't match. Curiously, one of those two comments had a small sentence tacked onto the end, reading "Don't fuck this up!" - which is something I would never put into a public comment to a govt agency or request. So even though I agreed with the position, it still appalled me to see that vulgarity applied to the comment. All comments though were fake - I never sent any of them in to the FCC.
    • keenerd 9y ago
      > All comments though were fake - I never sent any of them in to the FCC. Or your name isn't that uncommon. Have you ever tried being the first google result for your name, as an SEO experiment? It is hard! I say this as someone who shares a name with a minor league baseball player, numerous facebook/linkedin/etc profiles and a baby whose life/death was covered by the BBC. I don't go around accusing all of these people of being fake.
• vinylkey 9y ago
  Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear, concise manner? My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are from a "liberal source." Any help on swaying someone for this issue would be greatly appreciated.
  • peterwwillis 9y ago
    (my weak attempt follows) The FCC's mission is (among other things) to "make available [..] communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges". They are also supposed to promote competition, neutrality, affordability, innovation, etc. The only way to do that is with regulation. The only thing the FCC does is regulate. It regulates to stop monopolies and unfair business practices, which harm consumers and businesses. In theory, we shouldn't need so much regulation of the internet. But the internet is an interwoven, complicated beast, and one single company can have a huge impact on lots of businesses and consumers - even ones that have nothing to do with them directly. Net Neutrality is just a term to refer to a "common carrier" - a person or thing that carries goods or services for other people, and is responsible for them along the way. Think of UPS, carrying your Christmas packages from you to your loved ones. Imagine if UPS was allowed to unpack your Christmas present and replace it with a cheap, shoddy replacement - and then demand more money to deliver the real thing!!! On top of this, UPS is the only carrier that will deliver from your area. This has already happened multiple times on the internet, and the FCC has been the only thing that has stopped it. If internet companies aren't required to treat everyone fairly, they can make life miserable for businesses, and for you. You could end up with different access than other people, depending on who you pay, or how much you pay, or where you live. You could be forced to make choices you don't want to make, simply because someone has unfair power over your internet. Companies have no incentive to protect your right to an affordable, competitive, neutral, innovative, free internet. And that's why we need the government to meddle in it. Because in this case, nobody else is going to. But right now, the FCC Chairman doesn't care about ensuring your access to a fair, neutral internet - he cares more about the interests of a few rich companies, who stand to make a lot of money by walling off parts of the internet from you, and from competing businesses, so they can then turn around and charge you double for what you were already paying for. Does this sound fair to you? No? Then you're a supporter of Net Neutrality. Now, how the government enforces Net Neutrality will be debated, and there isn't one set way to do it. But they will have to use regulation to enforce it, one way or another. And what they're doing now is the opposite of that. So if you want your internet to be fair, tell your representatives that. Tell them you support Net Neutrality, and that you demand equal and fair access to the internet for everyone. Let them figure out the details. But know that what you're supporting is for you, as much as everyone else.
• cbhl 9y ago
  Dear Mr. Schneiderman: There are many places where I can get faster internet from my cell phone than I can from DSL or independent ISPs. How do we get ISPs to invest in faster internet (such as gigabit FTTH)?
• cbhl 9y ago
  Dear Mr. Schneiderman: If a video steaming service (such as Netflix or YouTube) installs a "appliance" or "cache" to provide faster video to a certain ISP's customers, do you believe that violates net neutrality, and if so, why?
  • sliverstorm 9y ago
    That doesn't really matter in the context of a discussion about fake comment submission, does it? Spamming fake comments for or against net neutrality, either way, is a problem.
• feelin_googley 9y ago
  FCC allows written comments as well as electronic submissions. Written comments require submission of four copies and must include a contact address. All must have original signatures. Should the FCC give more weight to written submissions than to electronically-submitted comments? Will the FCC contact the submitters for permission to use their comments in the decision-making process? I know that e.g. in some smaller democratic governments, legislatures accepting written submissions from the public will contact the submitters to obtain permission to use the comments, regardless of whether the legislative committees use them or not. This could function to some extent as a verification of identity. Can we challenge the FCC's electronic comments submission system as fundamentally flawed? Due to numerous data breaches, there is significant, known availability of personally identifiable information on US citizens available to anyone, anywhere in the world with an internet connection. Can FCC ignore this and provide a comment submission system that performs no meaningful checks on identity of commenters?
• sliverstorm 9y ago
  AG, I didn't find anything under my name, but interestingly the two results that popped up for my (uncommon) family name all happen to be for individuals who show up in court cases and arrests when I do a cursory Google search. These comments object to the Title II classification. It's not proof of anything whatsoever, but I wonder if "people who are in jail" might be another category the fake comments used along with deceased individuals and youths. Not to mention, court dockets and the news is a good source for the identities of real individuals.
• shostack 9y ago
  If Congress and Pai are seemingly bought and paid for without any regard for the wishes of the actual majority of their constituents, what recourse do the rest of us have? Speaking with our representatives seems to be completely ineffective (see the monstrosity of tax reform working its way through now behind closed doors). Can you open an investigation into Pai himself with regards to any compensation or future compensation he may receive as a result of this? What other creative options do we realistically have?
• eximius 9y ago
  Hm, my comment doesn't show up in the FCC tool provided. Strange.
• dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  My name is so common that this search feature is useless without a zipcode.
• exabrial 9y ago
  Why isn't 'mandatory, complete, full disclosure of all network management policies' not an option vs Title II?
• dingo_bat 9y ago
  I understand the motivations behind net neutrality. What I don't understand is why do we not extend this to all kinds of communication monopolies. Some examples: 1. Reddit is the monopoly in online newsboards. As long as it is there, nothing else can prop up and gain traction. However, I cannot exercise my right to free speech on the website without risking getting blocked by a moderator or even admins. Net neutrality should force reddit to carry my opinions and preserve my comments as I typed them. Also, they shouldn't be allowed to display ads. That results in a "fast lane" for people who pay them. 2. Facebook is the monopoly in social networks. As long as facebook exists, nobody can become relevant. Sure there is stuff like instagram and snapchat, but my Facebook profile is my de facto online phone number. Facebook should not be allowed to block my profile, flag my posts. They must carry my posts and content like anybody else's. Again, no ads can be allowed in a neutral net. 3. Youtube is the monopoly in user created video. They should not be able to block my account or pay me less money if their advertisers don't like my content. All content must be treated equally. Everyone should get access. All of these areas are natural monopolies, just like last mile broadband/fiber. At any time, there can only be one "Youtube". It can be replaced by something else, but there will always be one highly dominant video website, which people will inevitably visit to see the latest movie trailer or music video. Why does net neutrality exclude all these?
  • jjazwiecki 9y ago
    1. Is Reddit the only online newsboard you can access locally? If the answer is "no", I don't see how it's a monopoly. Aren't you...here? Posting?
    • dingo_bat 9y ago
      As I noted in my comment, it doesn't matter if I can access voat. Because reddit is much better and I simply won't get relevant news from voat. Just because you can access a 3G GSM network at home doesn't mean Comcast doesn't have monopoly.
  • Hasz 9y ago
    I wouldn't be so quick to conflate market share with a monopoly. We're one a message board other than reddit, and I could name hundreds with 10K+ users. Is reddit popular? No doubt. But it's far from a monopoly. A monopoly is generally defined as having a high barrier to entry, combined with price discrimination. You can certainly argue that the userbase/content of reddit/facebook/youtube constitutes a high barrier to entry. However, the userbase/content of facebook/reddit/yt is a feature, and not fundamental to the service itself (you can have a video sharing site with just a few videos). This is why these three are not natural monopolies. In contrast, serving packets is all an ISP can do. It either serves them (at some speed), or it doesn't. I would emphasize the barrier to entry is the real capital costs that are integral to the (sole) function of the service. It's simply not possible for every New Yorker to dig up the sidewalk to lay fiber. That is what constitutes a natural monopoly. As to the price discrimination point, Facebook/YT/reddit do not, as far as I'm aware, solid control of ad pricing, although I'm sure they would love to. Your ISP, however, exercises significant pricing controls, especially if they are the only game in town.
• jknz 9y ago
  Dear AG, I am wondering if net neutrality should not be enforced by international trade agreements, such as TAFTA and others. Net neutrality means that European ISPs cannot slow down the internet from American Companies and vice versa. What Pai is proposing will give frightening ideas to foreign ISPs. Ask Facebook a cut of its ads or slow down its traffic. Ask Apple a cut of app purchases, or slow down downloads from the app store. Ask a cut of the streaming of any Hollywood movie, otherwise the streaming quality will be inferior to local European movies. My intuition is that moving away from net neutrality is dangerous for healthy trade between countries and should be enforced at the international level. I am wondering if current trade agreements already have implicit net neutrality rules. If it's not the case, we should promote such measures for the next generation of international trade agreements.
  • thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Net neutrality only concerns edge providers, which do not deal with international data transfer. Net neutrality rules prevent ISPs from changing their customer's traffic, and their customers are not international.
• l3v3ll 9y ago
  I checked a lot of my family and friends names. I found my friend on the list. Without letting him know, I asked if he was for or against it. He said he's never made a comment, and there are 2 comments with his name and current address. I believed the fake comments were happening, but this is actual proof for me that it did happen. He is submitting a report on AG Schneiderman's website now.
• codezero 9y ago
  Well, I found someone with my same name, but they had a comment that very much aligned with my opinion! https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10510804518262 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10510804518262 > Preserve net neutrality ! Go fcc yourself.
• mathattack 9y ago
  Thank you for meeting us here!
• allnash 9y ago
  Guys Isn't it about time we refer to some other countries in the world for some reference point especially when our nation's media is polluted by Fake News, Fake Comments and #FakeWhatNot? For example in INDIA. India's TRAI is trying really hard to ensure Freedom is maintained on the "Service" of Internet itself. Referring to this Wiki Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India Section "2016" TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality[edit] The TRAI on 8 February 2016 barred telecom service providers from charging differential rates for data services, thus prohibiting Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero platform by Airtel in their present form. (Airtel was the largest Tel. Provider in 2016.)[62] In their latest ruling,[9] they have stipulated that: 1. No service provider can offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content. 2. No service provider shall enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract, by whatever name called, with any person, natural or legal, that the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged by the service provider for the purpose of evading the prohibition in this regulation. 3. Reduced tariff for accessing or providing emergency services, or at times of public emergency has been permitted. 4. Financial disincentives for contravention of the regulation have also been specified. @AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government, can we use some of these points to our favor? Capitalism is "Great"! but the powers vouching for "it" need to know that it CAN NOT go against the Constitution of the United States of America and the rights of Americans.
• joshamania 9y ago
  What's the possibility of using the RICO statutes against these companies? I'm thinking of Comcast in particular. Recently they made a "mistake" by adding services to my cable bill that I had not ordered. They very quickly erased the charges when I complained, but if their excuse for why they were there in the first place was valid, they should have fought to keep the money if they were in the right. I believe this was done to keep anyone from complaining too vociferously. I believe this behavior is consistent and intentional. Their behavior and attitude towards employees (anecdotal, I'll admit) seems very much like that of Bank of America concerning their recent accounts fraud scandal. I believe that Comcast either intentionally puts these charges on customers bills hoping they will not notice, especially on autopayment enabled accounts, or they pressure their employees so greatly that the employees are doing this themselves, like Bank of American claimed their employees did. I think this type of pressure put on employees is known to Comcast executives to cause fraudulent charges and is the desired result of said pressure. The executives can then claim they knew nothing of said behavior and deny any wrongdoing. I understand such a case would be difficult to make, but I think many companies behave in this way and we need to start using bigger hammers to bring them back within the law. I think RICO should also be applied to banks that repeatedly break the law, but that's perhaps another story. Thoughts?
  • ___ab___ 9y ago
    https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
    • joshamania 9y ago
      I think the link would be more useful if it weren't done in an explain-like-i'm-five manner. Some of it does seem to apply, especially if you look at the things on the list: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961 section 1343 (relating to wire fraud) section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents) ...and I could go on but meh. I believe that the link started out with "complicated conspiracy" law to describe what RICO is...isn't that exactly what I was accusing Comcast of? I understand that RICO is an extremely difficult case to make, and it probably should be so, so that the law isn't used flippantly. But I also think we need much more powerful tools to control these corrupt monopolies that control large parts of this country's infrastructure, especially as they seem hell bent on controlling even more of it. IF Verizon is found to have controlled a massive identity theft racket to bombard the FCC with fake comments, it seems to me that RICO is the exact tool to use.
• nabakin 9y ago
  Hi Eric! It's always great to interact with our politicians, so thanks for doing this AMA. Now onto my question. About a week ago Republican FCC member Brendan Carr posted this https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/no-the-fcc-is-not-killing-the-internet/2017/11/30/9205ac88-d457-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/no-the-fcc-i... opinion piece to the Washington Post. It gives his view on why repealing title II is good and makes some interesting points. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on it.
• verdverm 9y ago
  Searching my last name "worm" will give you a great example of the slightly modified text used by the NN scammers that AG Eric described in a previous communication. Lolz