The FCC's public comment period on net neutrality was ripe with fraud, Pew analysis concludes

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,312   +193
Staff member

The Federal Communications Commission earlier this year – from April 27 to August 30 – allowed members of the public to weigh in on the subject of net neutrality. Millions of comments were submitted electronically and posted online for review and almost immediately, it was clear that something wasn’t quite right.

A study from consulting firm Emprata funded by industry lobbyist group Broadband for America that came out shortly after the public comment period closed found a high level of form use and bots. Now, we have another source weighing in on the matter.

Pew Research Center on Wednesday published findings from its analysis of the net neutrality comment period. Of the 21.7 million comments that were submitted, 57 percent utilized either duplicate e-mail addresses or temporary e-mail addresses that were created with the intention of being used for a short period of time then discarded.

Pew also notes that many individual names appeared thousands of times in the submissions, making it even more difficult to determine if a submission came from a specific person or someone submitting multiple comments using unverified names and fake e-mail addresses.

There’s also evidence that many people didn’t use their real names when submitting comments. While some may have accidentally done so, there appears to be a pattern of intentionally entering in bogus personal information.

The FCC was supposed to use an e-mail validation system to verify the authenticity of comments but according to Pew, only three percent of comments were subjected to the validation process. In most cases, it is unclear whether there was any attempt to validate the e-mail address a “commenter” supplied.

Also worth noting is that only six percent of the 21.7 million comments posted were unique. That means the overwhelming majority originated from organized campaigns to flood the system with repeat messages. According to Pew, the seven most-submitted comments made up 38 percent of all submissions during the four-month comment period. Each of these comments can be found in their entirety over on Pew’s website.

The stats, if nothing else, suggest that most people didn’t put much time or thought into their response.

More damning, however, is evidence showing that thousands of comments were submitted at precisely the same moment. Pew notes that, on nine different occasions, more than 75,000 comments were submitted at the very same second and that often, they were identical or highly similar. According to the analysis, three of these instances were pro net neutrality while the others were against it.

If you’ve got the time, I’d suggest looking over Pew’s findings. Even if you’re not all that interested in net neutrality, it’s fascinating to see how the whole fiasco played out.

Permalink to story.

 
As I see it, Pai should delay the vote and complete the validation process instead on every single comment received. It is almost beyond probability that 75,000 comments would be submitted at exactly the same time.

Right now, this whole process is an unbridled fiasco as I see it. IMO, to go through with the vote at this time is an egregious attack on US Democracy.
 
This is nothing new, and the fact that it hasn't been spotlighted before shows just how big of a joke online petitions and similar efforts really are. Almost 90% of all email is spam and most petitions and similar mechanisms are dominated by whoever can hire the most effective trolls. As AI becomes more advanced it will only get worse. What I'd like to know is why companies that specialize in producing fake user opinion are allowed to exist.
 
As I see it, Pai should delay the vote and complete the validation process instead on every single comment received. It is almost beyond probability that 75,000 comments would be submitted at exactly the same time.

Right now, this whole process is an unbridled fiasco as I see it. IMO, to go through with the vote at this time is an egregious attack on US Democracy.

The guy did nothing when it was found out that spam bots from a central source were creating fake anti-NN comments. He has repetitively shown the American public he doesn't give one iota about what they think.
 
This is nothing new, and the fact that it hasn't been spotlighted before shows just how big of a joke online petitions and similar efforts really are. Almost 90% of all email is spam and most petitions and similar mechanisms are dominated by whoever can hire the most effective trolls. As AI becomes more advanced it will only get worse. What I'd like to know is why companies that specialize in producing fake user opinion are allowed to exist.

Would be a great opportunity to create a new system to replace SS numbers that would be very secure that could be used to verify online petitions.
 
Several thousand votes coming from same address is not an indication of fraud. I've seen and read many articles on nn that end with the opportunity to agree or disagree and to notify commission of stance by clicking agree/disagree buttons. it stands to reason those counts will be from one address but represent unique individuals and/or I.p. addresses
 
Right now, this whole process is an unbridled fiasco as I see it. IMO, to go through with the vote at this time is an egregious attack on US Democracy.
HMM; U.S. does not OWN the Internet - - it's a Global asset. The FCC is a department of the U.S. government and does regulate broadcast stations and how U.S. ISP's provide service to it. To imagine that the FCC is free of politics and the influence of money would be naive. HEY - - this is the 2017 administration.

Europe, Australia, Africa and Asia have their own ISP and related governing bodies.
 
Back