Groups Co-Opted To Spread Telco Propaganda
April 6th, 2007 by tkarrAs if telco Astroturfing wasn’t bad enough.
Bruce Kushnick of Teletruth this week exposed the dirty ways that AT&T and Verizon further manipulate public opinion by “co-opting” not-for-profit groups and aligning their leaders against Net Neutrality — even when it’s not in the best interests of their constituents.
Over the last few weeks groups representing minorities, disabled and low-income constituents have been hyping AT&T and Verizon efforts to stop any Net Neutrality legislation, Kushnick writes.
These groups appear to be saying that blacks, Hispanics, seniors, poor, deaf or disabled persons universally oppose the principle that maintains the Internet’s level playing field — and that they want to help “these ‘poor’ misunderstood companies” deliver better services.
But there’s more to it than that.
Follow the Money
“What do these groups have in common?” asks Kushnick. “They all receive funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, and then lobby for them.”
This is nothing new. Over the past decade, the phone companies have left a trail of broken promises to deliver faster broadband to disadvantaged populations in exchange for government giveaways and favorable P.R. from their community leaders.
Taken alone, this is outrageous. But it’s only one shady tactic in the phone companies’ multi-million dollar campaign to destroy the principle that prevents them from manipulating (they like to say “shaping”) content on the Internet and taking away users’ ability to choose for themselves.
Coin-Operated Analysis
According to Ed Mierzwinski of SavetheInternet.com member U.S. PIRG, creating such propaganda has long been the business model of one of the Bells’ favorite PR firms — Issue Dynamics.
Blogging about Issue Dynamics in 2005, Mierzwinski reported that the company helped create a “think tank” known as the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC) with the sole intention of dressing up Bell-friendly opinions and hoisting them before the public as objective economic analysis.
NMRC is just one in a long line of coin-operated think tanks — a list that includes the Phoenix Center, Heartland Institute, Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Cato Institute, among others — that routinely trade industry-friendly analysis for corporate dollars.
Selling Out the Public
And this brand of sock puppetry is just one voice in the Telco choir — a group including “consumery” sounding groups and pro-competition sounding payola pundits, among other PR firms and lobbyists. They have all been convened to create “a very loud ’sound wall’ of consumer support that actually doesn’t exist,” according to Karl of Broadband Reports.
It’s a collection of shills and sellouts, which in 2006 cost the phone companies more than $175 million to assemble. It’s money spent at the expense of those who most need access to a fast and neutral Internet.
About these groups Kushnick concludes: “While they themselves benefit from the phone companies’ funding, [they] certainly harm their own constituents.”
Net Neutrality should be debated openly, based upon the merits of the issue. But with so many players secreting away telco money to spread propaganda, it’s hard to separate those on the take from those who really want to make a better Internet for us all.
April 7th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
It’s interesting to me that anyone that doesn’t have the exact same view as you on the open internet must be a “shill” of the phone companies. The CWA has a website and a campaign called SPEED MATTERS–http://www.speedmatters.org. We believe that the US needs public policy to build really high speed, affordable internet for all Americans. We believe the best way for an open internet (though we believe there should be requirements against discrimination against sites and content) is to have high speed build up nationwide.
I am a telephone worker and a CWA member. I have spent the last 27 years fighting against various telcos for decent wages and benefits and more recently against Verizon for red-lining. Most cable companies, wireless companies (except Cingular), and IP companies do everything in their power to keep themselves Union free and their wages and benefits reflect it. Just because we have some disagreements doesn’t mean I am working for them, anymore than all those for net neutrality are getting support from Google and EBAY, who make billions from the “open” internet. Let’s have discussion on content. I think if you read our policy paper you could find many things to agree with in it.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I’m no telephone worker/CWA member but it seems to me like the best way to promote faster speeds and lower prices is more competition. In my area it’s either “meh” cable (the “meh” part comes from the fact that comcast just bought the ISP I was on, timewarner, and are fucking up the transition as much as possible) or shitty DSL. If there was another cable ISP to switch to or fiber optic ISP I’d be there already.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Laura — Don’t believe the AT&T line that Net Neutrality hampers their ability to bring broadband services into new communities.
From a union perspective buildout = job security for telecom workers. This is good not only for you and your coworkers, but also for our common goal of providing cheaper, faster Internet for more people.
On that we agree.
You said “We believe there should be requirements against discrimination against sites and content.”
So it seems we also agree on Net Neutrality requirements that bar the telcos from discriminating against content — the sort of discrimination they have, time and again, said they plan to implement in order to pay for infrastructure.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is that your colleagues in decision making positions at CWA have bought the telco argument that AT&T and Verizon need to discriminate (erect new tollbooths that allow the ISPs to pick and choose which content gets access to their special lanes and which does not) in order to build out services.
This is a red herring and your colleagues should know better. The telcos are already making the investment in buildout and will continue to do so with Net Neutrality conditions (AT&T acceptance of NN conditions in its merger with BellSouth didn’t stop them from further buildout investment. It didn’t hobble the company in any way. In fact, the company’s stock value rose by more than 10% in the 30 days after it agreed to the conditions).
It’s of absolute importance right now that we have public policy to create the conditions for a massive build out to all communities in America. The Internet is that important to free speech innovation and economic growth. But if you provide communities with an Internet that is stripped of its most fundamental freedom, Net Neutrality, you’re giving them something less than the true Internet — where ultimate choice is in the hands of the Telcos and not the end users.
So why is the CWA so opposed to Net Neutrality? What happened at the upper levels of the union to force a decision to side with the telco effort to fundamentally undermine the (small “d”) democratic values of the Internet?
That’s the real mystery here.
We’d be happy to support your speedmatters effort. All the CWA needs to do is support Net Neutrality. You can’t truly “connect Americans to each other” without it.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
As a Telecommunications Technician and a CWA member I am wondering why you seem to think that we are opposed to an open Internet. We realize that unrestricted Internet access is good economics. More access and demand for bandwith reduces cost. But there needs to be a set of standards that Americans can expect. Minumum speeds at a reasonable price is a must and it has to be available to everyone. So why not let the ISP’s make some money by providing video and other private services. That is the incentive they seem to want, so let them do so provided they give something back in return. Change the USF so we can all have decent access and at the same time provide good paying Union jobs. Laying fiber lines and maintaining them can’t be done from India or the Phillipines.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
ISPs are already making money to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in gross profits. CWA position on an open Internet and Net Neutrality is clear. They’re against it. I suggest you read Art Brodsky’s analysis for more on that. I believe CWA too often works with the phone companies to enact policies that are against the best interests of its members. I would suggest that, as a concerned member of the union, you start lobbying CWA to put the interests of net users before the bottom line of AT&T. In that way we will all benefit.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
So why shouldn’t they make money. Or should it be regulated that Google and the like be allowed to use up all the bandwith that they want (making tens of billions) and not have to pay anything for the use of the infrastructure that I and my co-workers have worked to provide for decades. Yes the folks at Google have great paying jobs (much more than a Union worker) and benefits for the few lucky ones that work there. They can afford it because they don’t have to pay for much else.
As far as the CWA being against an open internet, mabey you read the info on the speedmatters website that Laura spoke to. It sure dosen’t look that way to me.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I have. CWA now needs to prove by its actions that speedmatters is not merely propaganda. The first and best move would be to support Net Neutrality, the principle that prevents ISPs from restricting or limiting access to sites that users choose. You can’t truly “connect Americans to each other” without it.
And btw — no one said the ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to make money. The notion that they aren’t already is ludicrous — as is the idea that they want a world free of regulation.
The 2006 revenues of the nation’s four largest ISPs exceeded $200 billion. Of that, more than $100 billion is recorded as gross profit. (Yes. These are the same companies — AT&T and Verizon included — that routinely plead poverty when it comes to investing in broadband buildout).
For decades they have lobbied for favorable legislation that has cleared the path for their near monopoly control of broadband access in many U.S. markets. As Cory Doctorow wrote: “They themselves are creatures of government regulation, basing their business on government-granted extraordinary privileges.”
That the U.S. has fallen from 3rd to 16th in broadband penetration strongly indicates that these “privileges” have not been extended to the U.S. public. As is the fact that the consumer cost per bit of broadband access in America exceeds — in some cases by 100 times — the cost for access in countries like Japan, South Korea, France, Canada, Australia and Sweden.
It’s discouraging to see a CWA member mouth telco executives’ talking points without blinking. Google, eBay, Yahoo and others pay millions of dollars to the telcos for access to the Internet. It’s helpful to this debate NOT to buy into AT&T’s line that they’re getting ripped off. And don’t fall into the trap that’s ensnared telco shills who have spread similar myths without offering a shred of evidence.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Propaganda? How dare you use the words devastating in times like this to describe what is basically free market forces. Devastating? Corporates choose to provide a service. You choose to use it. Then you point fingers who don’t roll over, throw up their arms in placation. Dudes, if you really believe that Google is completely blemishfree in the ways and means of what, when, how and how fast information is accessed, I’d like to sell you a bridge. Telco’s or cable operators could just as easily put down stakes, hoist up the big top and put on the same dog and pony show, yo. Who do you think is really in control. They might lay the pipes, they might, might, control the valves but who do you really think is providing you with the diluvial sludge tide and sewage of the bulk of the flow? Hyperbole doesn’t make it so.
True neutrality is the real myth. We’ve got content laws, and rights management to protect the innocent to protect the creative, to promote the narcissitic, salvage reputation. Information in all forms does not flow freely.
Propaganda is what your selling with pointing at the few protecting free market forces and not caving into the hype of ‘Net Neutrality’.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
[…] and the FCC have left development of domestic broadband to the whims of predatory ISPs, which dole out untold millions in campaign contributions and fees to Washington lawyers, lobbyists and P.R. consultants to fight […]
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
career builder chimps 75…
Hi! http://2.aosauawl.info/70_0.html . Thanks!…
February 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
[…] There is hardly any competition in many areas that would keep prices down, and the corporations are trying their hardest to make sure it stays that […]