AT&T Boss Asks Employees to Fake It

AT&T has "asked' its employees to fake it in the fight against Net Neutrality.

The company’s top policy officer sent a memo to workers on Monday urging them to hide their company affiliation before posting anti-Net Neutrality comments to the Federal Communication Commission’s Web site.

“We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet,” AT&T Senior Executive Vice President James Cicconi wrote in an internal communiqué forwarded to Free Press (and posted here). “It can be done through a personal e-mail account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the ‘Join the Discussion’ link.”

Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.

If that weren’t bad enough, Cicconi urges them to choose from a list of talking points sanctioned by the PR department -- fearful perhaps of what employees might say if they went off script.

Some of the talking points are hard to read without rolling your eyes.

For example: Cicconi suggests that employees write that Net Neutrality will “jeopardize efforts to deliver high-speed Internet services to every American.” Yet he’s unable to provide any rationale for this claim, other than saying that universal access is a goal that “can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure.”

Really?

AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and invested considerably less when it didn’t.

As a requirement of its 2006 merger with BellSouth, AT&T agreed to operate a neutral network (by adhering to the four principles of the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement as well as a fifth principle of nondiscrimination) for two years.

AT&T’s network investments increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition and continued to rise over the two years of the merger agreement. When the neutrality condition expired on Dec. 29, 2008, the company sharply reduced its investment.

So when Cicconi says that Net Neutrality means no buildout, the opposite is true.

By pressuring the company’s employees to pose as average citizens and post AT&T talking points, Cicconi is asking them to be doubly deceptive. Not only are they asked to hide their true identities but also to spread misinformation on behalf of a company that seems to be getting more desperate by the day.

Comments

Michael Walker's picture

I was just reading about AT&T

By Michael Walker (not verified) on October 30, 2009

I was just reading about AT&T supporting net neutrality. I guess that is just a cover.

Are you sure about this?'s picture

Hoax?

By Are you sure about this? (not verified) on October 21, 2009

This is looking more and more like a hoax (the original site that this one links to, that is). I wouldn't put it past AT&T, but this site links to a blog, and that blog links to a...RICKROLL'D IMAGE! Yeah, the LA Times link is a dud, and the LA Times site doesn't seem to have anything on this.

James Cicconi is still evil, and his views on net neutrality are a bit...skewed...but I don't think that this ever really happened.

Tim Karr's picture

Not a hoax. AT&T has admitted

By Tim Karr on October 22, 2009

Not a hoax. AT&T has admitted to several reporters that it did indeed circulate the memo.

Here's another link: http://www.freepress.net/files/Cicconi_0.jpg

India's picture

at&T decepetion

By India (not verified) on October 21, 2009

When I worked SBC (now AT&T) we were given time off work to make charitable donations whether or not we wanted to make the donations or not. They would have supervisor standing over you to make sure you donated. This money would come out of your check every week. I always felt like I was being forced and the last year I was there, I learned how to fake the donation. I had previously given 4 years in a row. This is not a stretch to imagine them doing this because they have also done similiarily in other situations asking us to email our senators and congress person to say how we felt about new legislation whether we felt that way or not. We were even driven to Lansing to picket during a senate vote. Scumbags

Anonymous's picture

Brave

By Anonymous (not verified) on October 21, 2009

Gee everyone is so brave when they are anonymous. Easy to lie when your name isn't attached, huh? So big companies are made up of a bunch of regular people. It's easy to hate those big entities, but let's not shine the light on ourselves, because I guarantee the same things are there too. You've never sped or ran a light on "orange"? I guarantee there were a ton of people who saw you do that and think you too are an idiot and they "hate people like you" who do that. Stereotypes are a #*(&% huh?

Anonymous's picture

Yes, it's just a suggestion, not an order

By Anonymous (not verified) on October 20, 2009

I'm not in the PR department, and I'm not speaking for AT&T unless I'm wearing a suit and tie, which I'm not. It's just a suggestion - our supervisors aren't checking whether we've sent in our astroturf bits yet, and we don't get fired if we do or don't contribute. By contrast, if I assert that what I'm saying is the company's position on some topic, when I'm not authorized to do so, I would get fired, just as at most big companies - they don't mind if employees point the press to the PR department or the corporate web site papers and press releases, or express our own opinions as our own, but they don't want 300,000 opinions all claiming to be the company's. They have enough trouble with just Ed Whitacre's opinions :-)

Jamen R's picture

I really don't like AT&T, not

By Jamen R (not verified) on October 20, 2009

I really don't like AT&T, not because of the service it offers, but its business practices just seem what you would expect if a dirty scheming lawyer, a greasy used car salesman, and a shady mechanic made a 3way evil lovechild and reared it to be a company executive. I really wonder how these people sleep at night. And you wonder why America is going down the sh1tt3r? Prime example. What ever happened to people just being good honest people? I always did wonder when greed overtook our morals.

claudia krenz's picture

when did greed overtake honesty?

By claudia krenz (not verified) on October 21, 2009

I don't know whether greed overtaking honesty is inherently cyclical, but, in the U.S., said phenomena has happened several times, the most recent one beginning imho with the massive feeding at the public trough that began under Reagan, back when Abrahmoff (sp and who cares) was a rising star amongst the then young "college republicans." Thomas Frank's _The Wrecking Crew_ provides an excellent chronicle of how and why the U.S. has deteriorated so rapidly in the last 30 years. The U.S. is, of course, not alone in having greedy citizens. But its health care system speaks volumes. I hate to sound unpatriotic, but the French revolution appears to have turned out better than did our own.

Anonymous's picture

just after

By Anonymous (not verified) on October 20, 2009

Somewhere about 1776 I guess...

Anonymous's picture

I really don't like AT&T, not

By Anonymous (not verified) on October 20, 2009

I really don't like AT&T, not because of the service it offers, but its business practices just seem what you would expect if a dirty scheming lawyer, a greasy used car salesman, and a shady mechanic made a 3way evil lovechild and reared it to be a company executive. I really wonder how these people sleep at night. And you wonder why America is going down the sh1tt3r? Prime example. What ever happened to people just being good honest people? I always did wonder when greed overtook our morals.

Alan Miller's picture

AT&T

By Alan Miller (not verified) on October 20, 2009

Gee, why does this not surprise me. Corporate dictates to employees what to do , what to say? Not in America. Aren't there rules?
Same thing happened when General Motors told employees not to talk about the exploding gas tanks in their pickup trucks. It was cheaper to pay the death benefits( If there is a benefit in death) than to fix the problem. Cheaper to tell employees to lie than give up a percentage of market share. The key word here is SHARE. AT& T doesn't seem to grasp that concept.

Anonymous's picture

Very unethical

By Anonymous (not verified) on October 21, 2009

I worked for SBC as a manager before they merged with AT&T, I was told to lie in court and not to worry because the judge was a "friend". One of many instances where unethical practices were issued down from above. Just another day for corporate America.

ben 10 oyun's picture

john

By ben 10 oyun (not verified) on November 17, 2009

thanks for all admin
owe you gratitude..