Big Telecom Is Using Robocalls To Fight a Net Neutrality Bill in California (vice.com) 126
A group with financial ties to AT&T is sending automated messages claiming the law would raise cell phone bills. From a report: Big Telecom is once again trying to disrupt a net neutrality bill in California, this time by robocalling seniors to spread misinformation about the bill. "Your Assembly member will be voting on a proposal by San Francisco politicians that could increase your cellphone bill by $30 a month and slow down your data," says a voice on an automated call paid for by legal reform group the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC). "We can't afford higher cell phone bills. We can't afford slower data. We can't afford Senate Bill 822 (more popularly known as SB822)."
The call urges constituents to contact their state representative and ask them to vote no on the bill, which passed a senate committee last week and will be heard in the Assembly this week. It even provides an option to automatically connect to the recipients' Assembly member. At the top of the call, it cites the non-profit Congress of California Seniors, leading many -- including state senator Scott Wiener, the net neutrality bill's author -- to believe the calls are targeting senior citizens specifically. "The industry has engaged in a massive misinformation campaign around this bill for months," Wiener told me over the phone.
But the claim that cell phone bills will go up is not based on anything in the actual bill, which would simply restore the federal rules that telecom companies operated under from 2015 until the 2017 repeal, which only went into effect a few months ago.
The call urges constituents to contact their state representative and ask them to vote no on the bill, which passed a senate committee last week and will be heard in the Assembly this week. It even provides an option to automatically connect to the recipients' Assembly member. At the top of the call, it cites the non-profit Congress of California Seniors, leading many -- including state senator Scott Wiener, the net neutrality bill's author -- to believe the calls are targeting senior citizens specifically. "The industry has engaged in a massive misinformation campaign around this bill for months," Wiener told me over the phone.
But the claim that cell phone bills will go up is not based on anything in the actual bill, which would simply restore the federal rules that telecom companies operated under from 2015 until the 2017 repeal, which only went into effect a few months ago.
Where I am the local power company (Score:4, Interesting)
So they ran ads. The ads had a bunch of old folks sitting around a table talking about something scary. They didn't say what, just that it was scary as hell. The ad ended with an impassioned reminder to vote yes (or no, I can't remember) on proposition such and such. At no point in time did they discuss what the proposition was. It passed in a landslide.
Don't get me wrong. I'm still in favor of democracy. But something has to be done to counterbalance old folks with dementia being manipulated into voting for things they don't actually want because they can't understand. I'm in favor of mandatory voting. Force everyone to the polls with a few exceptions (e.g. if you're declared mentally unfit, and no, being convicted of a crime or even in jail shouldn't keep you from voting, that's the oldest voter suppression trick in the book).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where I am the local power company (Score:5, Insightful)
" But something has to be done to counterbalance old folks with dementia being manipulated into voting for things they don't actually want because they can't understand. "
No worries man, we got you covered. We have armies of unjaded, fresh, young voters who vote ( if you can pull them away from their phones long enough ) not based on any educated ideology, but rather who is popular or who promises them the world when election time rolls around.
They're still full of hope. They believe their vote actually means something in the grand scheme of things and their candidate is the political equal to the second coming of $deity.
It takes a few election cycles for them to realize otherwise but hey, by that time we'll have a fresh batch of new voters to prey upon. . .
The lesson here is: Age is irrelevant when you're outnumbered by the inexperienced or gullible.
Welcome to Democracy or, at least it's what we are supposed to believe.
Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
But even that's not really a problem. Polls show Americans support single payer healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
they're not realizing otherwise. They're getting scared of losing what little they have and turning conservative. Meanwhile the mega-corporations run their candidates on conservative rhetoric (all the while pushing radical policies like starting wars with nations that didn't attack us, forcing arbitration on us all and giving themselves massive subsidies while fighting against anything that would increase wages).
But even that's not really a problem. Polls show Americans support single payer healthcare. They support the "New New Deal" and ending the 8 wars we're fighting (again, against nations that have never once attacked us). But _voters_ OTOH... they're not so sure.
The point of mandatory voting isn't get get young folks to vote. It's to end voter suppression. I waited 3 hours in line to vote for Bernie in my primary. That was not an accident. In my state there were police stationed in riot gear outside polls in poor (and especially black) neighborhoods. And now we've got this Voter Id crap whree they just make it so you can't get an Id if you're not somebody who's "supposed" to vote.
Make voting mandatory and that goes away.
What makes you think mandatory voting will fix anything? The laziest part of the great masses of the people are just going to do the minimum required of them. They'll go in and tick a box, at most they will vote for whomever their favourite media personality tells them to.
Australia has mandatory voting, we've got all the same problems with regards to advertising, policies based on vote winning than doing anything for the good of Australia. You end up with parties being elected because they ran a good sc
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Electoral collage, lol.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
>> There should be an IQ test that needs to be passed before being allowed to vote.
IQ (Literacy) tests were used for many years to keep "undesirables" from exercising their ability to influence government. Wealth requirements (land ownership or poll taxes), race requirements, and other methods have also been used. Historically, these "undesirables" were poor rural black people. Maybe now these "undesirables" are poor rural white people?
The current method of "only people that care enough can vote" seem
Re: (Score:2)
There should be an IQ test that needs to be passed before being allowed to vote.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [wikipedia.org] But I'm sure the tests can be designed so only people who agree with you can vote.
And also once you start collecting Social Security, you forfeit your right to vote because people at that point will vote for anyone who promises them more money.
You are so smart! Let's just make your scheme airtight: And also once you start paying taxes, you forfeit your right to vote because people at that point will vote for anyone who promises them less taxes. So the only people who can vote are people who do not pay taxes, do not collect social security, are not retired (and thus receiving social security's pensions [wikipedia.org]),
Re: (Score:3)
Boo Hoo. You had to wait to vote.
Yeah. Holding elections on a Tuesday when most people have to work seems so uniquely [brilliantmaps.com] retarded [wikipedia.org]. It increases the likelihood of queues by ensuring most people try to vote at the time: either early in the morning before work, or late in the day after work as they cannot take enough time away during their workday, even more so if they have a long commute. Sure having to wait three hours if you're jobless or "financially independent" may seem to be ok, but if you're a cashier at a supermarket your boss is not go
Re: (Score:2)
This. I have to children, both in their early 20s. One of them is interested in voting, and informs himself on the issues. He votes almost every time. The other one has zero interest in politics or ballot issues. If you forced him to vote, the result would be based on whatever subliminal impressions he's formed from seeing ads. Forcing people to vote would not produce good results - if anything, it would reinforce the benefit of stupid ad campaigns.
The fundamental problem that you have are uninformed people
Re: (Score:2)
I presume, then, that you are absolutely fine with an "informed" vote that cancels out your vote?
How about an "informed" voter who casts their vote based on irrational fear?
How about an "uninformed" voter who casts a vote for the candidate that you agree with?
Re: (Score:2)
" But something has to be done to counterbalance old folks with dementia being manipulated into voting for things they don't actually want because they can't understand. "
No worries man, we got you covered. We have armies of unjaded, fresh, young voters who vote ( if you can pull them away from their phones long enough ) not based on any educated ideology, but rather who is popular or who promises them the world when election time rolls around.
They're still full of hope. They believe their vote actually means something in the grand scheme of things and their candidate is the political equal to the second coming of $deity.
It takes a few election cycles for them to realize otherwise but hey, by that time we'll have a fresh batch of new voters to prey upon. . .
The lesson here is: Age is irrelevant when you're outnumbered by the inexperienced or gullible.
Welcome to Democracy or, at least it's what we are supposed to believe.
You do know that young voters are the least represented age group. Old voters are pandered to as they're more likely to vote, middle aged are the most buttered up in terms of concessions and welfare as that's essentially two votes for one perk. Young voters can be ignored until they're in their 30's and have pushed out a kid and want that sweet, sweet child benefit perk.
Re: (Score:2)
We have armies of unjaded, fresh, young voters who vote
No, young people vote consistently less than any other group. By a very large margin. Half as many people in the 18-29 age range voted, by percentage, as people in the 60+ group in the 2016 election.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If people under age 18 are disallowed to vote, ostensibly because they're not experienced/wise/responsible enough to understand and appreciate the implications, then why are people with dementia allowed to vote, even if they can't remember what year it is or what country they're in?
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Where are your facts about those with dementia voting? At what measurable level can you provide solid statistics about anyone.. no matter what age that suffers from mental disease determining the outcome of any election? Nope..nope.. nope-sauce. Get back under your bridge we won't pay your toll.
You do realize that granting voting rights to non-adults is a very slippery slope. You want them to be able to influence elections at the same time that they:
Cannot register for selective service
Aren't o
Re: (Score:2)
He did not suggest giving those under 18 the vote. He asked how the elderly retain it as their minds age, often subtly. I admit that I'm not as clever as I was decades ago, for instance. I also admit that I have a greater sense of history and of recognizing familiar political pattterns.
Re: (Score:3)
and no, being convicted of a crime or even in jail shouldn't keep you from voting, that's the oldest voter suppression trick in the book).
If you are convicted of a felony, generally the only class of crime that triggers disenfranchisement, then after serving your sentence, in most states, you can re-register to vote after two years.
Care to guess the rate at which eligible felons re-register to vote? I'll give you a hint - it's pretty low.
I guess you could call it voter suppression, but the overall effect is pretty darn low.
It's low because it's very, very hard to do (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's low because it's very, very hard to do (Score:4, Interesting)
source: I know a few convicted felons. You typically need references plus a good chunk of money for court fees (something hard to do when you've got a conviction on your record).
It looks like that's true in nine states. The rest you either automatically get your voting rights restored after your sentence is complete, or parole, or probation.
https://www.nonprofitvote.org/... [nonprofitvote.org]
Let's take another tack. Do you think ALL felons should be able to vote? What if someone murders someone else. Put cynically, they have permanently disenfranchised someone else. Should they still get to vote?
Re: (Score:1)
> Do you think ALL felons should be able to vote?
> What if someone murders someone else. Put cynically, they have permanently disenfranchised someone else. Should they still get to vote?
Yes. The Constitution does not specify anything about criminal legal status in a locality. I do understand why felons don't get to vote though, they are IMMINENTLY at risk for fraud and state manipulation through the penal system. Bribes, expediency, etc could all be used to leverage votes.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are convicted of a felony, generally the only class of crime that triggers disenfranchisement, then after serving your sentence, in most states, you can re-register to vote after two years.
Hate to break it to you, but *registering to vote* isn't what gets people elected.
You actually would need to *cast a vote* to have any effect on that, and this is the part felons are not permitted to do.
If you can't be away from your job for more than 30 minutes without your employer turning you in for violating your parole requirements and going back to prison, you can't very well stand in line for four hours to cast your vote.
When a riot officer tells you to get out of the line and does so as an order, re
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing people to vote isn't going to be a good thing. If you force someone completely uninterested in politics to vote, you get exactly what you do NOT want: Someone who will fall for whatever ad he sees.
Instead, try more direct democracy. We are already voting on issues, so why do we need the sponges anymore anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fancy way of saying they pay you for the electricity your solar generates.
It's a fancy way of saying they pay you retail prices for the electricity you generate all the while also giving you bonus payments for infrastructure you don't support. As much as I don't like paying more, or being paid less, the idea of net metering when you're generating power is not sustainable in the long term. You can't pay people more money to generate than the power companies and then expect the power company to also support you with infrastructure too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, since you're not likely in a forest in the middle of nowhere, when you are providing power, you're taking load off of their infrastructure since the power can pretty much go up to the pole and back down to your neighbor's house.
Re: (Score:2)
you're taking load off of their infrastructure
A problem in itself for a few economic and technical reasons. For example:
Economic: You're underloading infrastructure that has already been paid for. That cost is sunk, the maintenance fees are unchanging depending on load. But one of the customers is now not paying the expected share of costs for this infrastructure which was originally provided.
Technical: And this is something a lot of people don't realise, the infrastructure can't handle backfeeding for the most case. Transformers need to be designed fo
Re: (Score:2)
At least around here, they're constantly promoting saving energy and schemes like interruptable power to air conditioning to lighten the load on their infrastructure. I must then presume that lightening the load on their infrastructure is a benefit to them.
Re: (Score:1)
> But something has to be done to counterbalance old folks with dementia being manipulated into voting for things they don't actually want because they can't understand
But something needs to be done to counterbalance young brainwashed imbeciles without life-long experience of resistance to mainstream progressive bullshit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's as though "the false belief that bandwidth is unlimited" comes from some source. It's eerily like advertisements made and distributed by certain companies explicitly using the term "unlimited" and then not meaning it leads customers to make purchases in bad faith. It's almost as though Net Neutrality was used to lure people into contracts and then rescinded in order to take the money and run.
Captcha: simplify
Re: (Score:2)
We recently saw how throttling helped fire departments communicate...
Thanks for coming Ajit.
Re: (Score:1)
EXCEPT: The FCC's Net Neutrality solution had an exception for public safety... so you're just trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
We recently saw how throttling helped fire departments communicate while by-standers were streaming their videos to Youtube and Facebook during fire emergencies. The entire idea of net neutrality resides on the false belief that bandwidth is unlimited, up for grabs by anyone. With Net Neutrality, the streamers would have eaten up all the bandwidth...
We also recently saw how throttling hindered fire departments' ability to do their jobs. [arstechnica.com] That one was really prominent, and it was posted here on Slashdot. It's kind of hard to believe you weren't aware of it. Were you cherry-picking? If so, then stop it - it's cowardly and intellectually dishonest. Then there's your whole implied-by-lack-of-addressing-it endorsement of a company out-and-out lying to its customers to try to get legislation passed that fattens their bottom line. If you're shilling, then sto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair queuing is perfectly compatible with net neutrality, and makes sure people streaming don't disrupt other customer's communications.
Re: (Score:2)
They believed that they were paying for unmetered service.
They were being lied to, then extorted from.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:They can fuck off (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's that net neutrality tends to increase regulation
Net neutrality was/is about forbidding the telcos from regulating our packets.
It is, by definition, anti-regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From the person with the sig "taxes are enforced exactations, not voluntary contributions..." come that link.
How can you read that and not see the underlying scheme is to force the bandwidth purchaser to make a choice of product based on extortion?
They artificially make competing products more expensive by essentially "taxing" the "foreign" product.
( an aside, you mention offering new services, you should know full well that these impounds make it harder for new services to start, yes? )
I purchase bandwidth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about only selling what you can actually supply. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? If you are a fruit vendor and you have a dozen apples, you sell one dozen apples. If you want to sell more than one dozen apples, you must either grow more apples or buy them from a wholesaler.
If you want to sell subscriptions to apples, you could do a fresh apple a day plan and make sure you have as many apples each day as you have subscribers. You could even sweeten the deal and say if there are apples left over
Re: (Score:2)
How about only selling what you can actually supply. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? If you are a fruit vendor and you have a dozen apples, you sell one dozen apples. If you want to sell more than one dozen apples, you must either grow more apples or buy them from a wholesaler.
So basically you have to have 100% full-time capacity for each person? So if they want to sell a 10 Mbps package to 1 million people, they have to have a constant 10 Tbps network? Should the power grid have the ability to supply max power to every home and business at all time? Should roads be able to handle 100% of all cars at all times? Really?
In the old days of networking we called that a committed rate on a burstable connection.
You can still buy that and have guaranteed bandwidth at all times. Of course, it's a LOT more expensive - but you can get it. Is your contention that dedicate
Re: (Score:3)
I know this sounds crazy, but perhaps you should sell 1Mbps burstable to 10!!! I know, crazy, huh? Selling what you have?!?
Now how about that fair queuing or if they even have an actual congestion problem?
Re: (Score:2)
With AT&T prez saying "Netflix gotta stop using my tubez*" and carriers all over throttling based on provider of service to extort, yes, it was bad and getting worse.
* unless they pay
Re: (Score:2)
That article you pointed to is a bit of a political hack. They lost me early when they held AOL up as an example. Had they done 5 minuted research, they would know that AOL bit the big one in spite of having a huge lead because too many other providers went with a 19.95 flat fee. They didn't even have the ability to be anything but net neutral. The going rate soon fell to $9.95.
We wouldn't need net neutrality regulations if it was still the case that an ISP wanting to create fast lanes and special packages
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are people deal with it
And money is speech. This is just the US political system in action.
You are not needed for it to function the way it is supposed to. Those with a real stake will make the decisions on the issues that will affect their bottom line, using the tools they purchased.
If the people who run your country decided that money would be the deciding factor in any important decision (and they did) then get out of their way. They have a country to run.
Re:citizens united, bitch! (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that once I can shoot one and it stays dead.
This is How Democracy Dies (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget Russian boogiemen, this is the REAL disinformation campaign threatening our democracy, with hundreds of times the manpower and money put behind it. Forget cloak and dagger, spies, and autocrats on the other side of the world trying to undermine their rivals. Pure unbridled greed combined with free-speech protections covering wide-scale public manipulation campaigns are the REAL threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to send them to prison (Score:5, Interesting)
ALL of the c-levels of any company that pulls this shit, ought to be sent to maximum-security prison for a minimum of one year. And 80% of of the company's profits, for the next five years, should be confiscated and used to feed and shelter the homeless. Shareholder dividends, and the price at which they can sell their stocks in the company, should be cut in half for five years. These measures would immediately put an end to this kind of behaviour.
If I was ever in the presence of any of the despicable psychopathic bastards who approved this criminal propaganda campaign, I would be hard pressed not to take keys in hand and sucker punch him at least once. If I came across one of them on fire, I'd be tempted to piss on him - but not so much that it might extinguish the flames.
Yeah, none of the above is ever going to happen. But fantasizing about it takes some of the edge off the anger I'm feeling right now ...
Re: (Score:3)
ALL of the c-levels of any company that pulls this shit, ought to be sent to maximum-security prison for a minimum of one year.
I'd be fine with banning everyone from doing robocalls. Not just people and entities that you don't like; everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just robocalls (Score:5, Interesting)
The efforts to fight Net Neutrality have really heated up here in California. There must be some huge money lining up to fight this thing, because there are non-stop anti-NN commercials showing up all over televised sports, on Hulu, and on every cable station and web video. These aren't cheap little local spots, but very slickly-made ads with dire music about how these rules will mean your bills will go way, way up, and your internet will slow down (!) and even how Net Neutrality is "bad for small business" and will probably give you flesh-eating disease. The ads are all paid for by organizations with anodyne-sounding names like, "California Families for Freedom and Morality", and it all smells to high heaven.
There happens to also be a very similar campaign being waged by PG&E here, who has been funding a shit-ton of commercials supposedly from an organization called, "The BRITE Coalition" (the acronym stands for Building Resilient Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s Economy). Every commercial tells you how wildfires are bad, m'kay? and if you don't want more wildfires, the solution is to a) give PG&E a hefty rate hike, and b) remove any liability PG&E has when their faulty equipment starts a wildfire. Again, the money being spent on this campaign is just huge. You can't watch anything without seeing one of their commercials about how these giveaways to PG&E will mean that you support those brave first responders, who gosh, are just trying to keep your kitty-cat safe from being burned the fuck alive. It's really something.
Further, I get the impression that the same ad agency is doing to spot buying for both of the above campaigns because they almost always run one after the other, and in some cases, fill every commercial slot in a 1-hour episode of Castle Rock.
So, in summary, fuck these guys. If your name is so toxic that you can't even use it on your own goddamn advocacy commercials, maybe you have more important issues to deal with as a company, you know?
Re: (Score:1)
skynet bitch (Score:1)
There is nothing more endearing than (Score:2)
robocalls. Especially from companies I hate almost as much as I already could.
Net Neutrality as imposed a president ago was fraught with a bunch of BS, it should have been one page long.
Someday maybe someone with less financial interests could actually do what needs to be done with telecoms, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Robocalls? (Score:2)
Backfire (Score:2)
If anything deserves to massively backfire on the instigators, it's this. I really hope it does. It'll prove:
Misinformation? Perhaps. Or... (Score:2)
... by robocalling seniors to spread misinformation about the bill. "Your Assembly member will be voting on a proposal by San Francisco politicians that could increase your cellphone bill by $30 a month ...
It's abundantly obvious that the telecoms themselves are who would be enacting the consequences that they're describing. As such, I wouldn't necessarily classify that as misinformation, so much as a threat -- nay, even blackmail.
Thanks, telecoms! (Score:2)
DId anyone even notice... (Score:2)
would simply restore the federal rules that telecom companies operated under from 2015 until the 2017 repeal, which only went into effect a few months ago.
So we enjoyed a net-neutrality provided Nirvana for "a few month" last year?
In other words, we need net neutrality to re-establish the long-standing principles of a free and open internet, just like we had for a few months last year - never mind that these "absolutely mandatory regulations" only existed for a few brief weeks, we simply can't go on without them!
Oh no! (Score:2)
Big telcom is using robocalls to sway public opinion! That tool should only be employed by politicians and causes I support, not those I don't!
Re: (Score:1)
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah I just don't like projecting like you are.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think he's keen on support from people so stupid that, not only are the unable to spell the word "villain", they do so in CAPITAL LETTERS as if to EMPHASISE their STUPIDITY?