7/12/2007
Wow. Did AT&T go too far - and get caught?
TeleTruth Wisconsin. Nice ring. Made me think of Teletubbies (are they still around?). Really pretty creative. Tel[th]eTruth. Or Tele[com]Truth? Pretty good. Five self-proclaimed rights advocates have teamed up to fight big Ma Bell.
You won’t find me often on the same side of the aisle as some of these folks (League of Women Voters, WISPIRG, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC), Center for Media and Democracy and the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels). But I appreciate how they’re making sure critical issues are raised concerning cable competition and statewide franchising in Wisconsin.
In addition to raising important questions about the AT&T Cable Competition Bill, these folks are pointing out how critical it is that lobbying activities pass the smell test. And that lobbyists be straightforward and truthful. If you’re interested, the stories are
After reading a FoxPolitics News link, a reader shared with me that he actually performed on of those helpful smell tests. He had read a guest column by Stephen Pociask, purporting to represent consumers (the American Consumer Institute), and confidently predicting that cable rates would decrease under the bill before the Legislature.
Rich, a member of his community’s Broadband Telecommunications Commission, said that whenever he saw a name like the Apple Pie and Motherhood Institute -- or the American Consumer Institute, he wonders, "Who are those guys, anyway?"
As Rich says, twenty-five years in journalism in Wisconsin taught him to be skeptical, and it’s a habit he’s retained since becoming a recovering journalist himself.
So, what is Mr. Pociask's American Consumer Institute? Here is what Rich found Broadband.com has to say:
"The American Consumer Institute isn't actually a consumer group. It's an amalgamation of think tank reps pushing a free market ideological agenda under the guise of consumer advocacy. A quick WhoIS notes that the ACI website is registered to Stephen Pociask, a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic, who via groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, works to shape data that argues against government regulation of industry.”
Well, to these comments, Mr. Pociask responded saying the Broadband.com stuff was “a blog of old lies” and suggesting it was time “for the public to investigate how tax funded local governments pay lobbyists to fight for their own self-interests, instead of representing the public’s interest.”
Wow. Old lies or ideological agenda or consumer advocacy?
Now, in the interest of constructive skepticism, it must be acknowledged that Broadband.com is a group of “more than 30 leading services providers….” – in other words, those that might prefer the status quo without AT&T raising its big powerful head.
So, hidden agendas are everywhere. Be a good old fashioned skeptic, kick a few tires (on opinion writers and lobbyists), and practice looking under those covers, always doing the good ol’ fashioned smell test.
COMMENTS
I saw the piece at Wisconsin Democracy Campaign as well.
Astro turf (fake grass roots) is a technique the right wing noise machine created from the practice of real grassroots activism. It is a faux activism and is in widespread use on a much more local level to promote such things as more sprawlmarts.
On the teletruth subject regards ATT and cable: When will the public stop dancing when a few pennies of supposed (and short-lived) savings are dangled in front of them?
Lon Ponschock (Thu Jul 12 12:45:42 2007)
I was at the press conference for TeleTruth. I think it's interesting because of the diversity of objections to the bill. There's a lot not to like.
You can object to the way the bill's sponsors only listened to AT&T and cable lobbyists when they drafted the bill - and the way they were shamelessly proud of that. You can object to the 15 lobbyists and the money AT&T spreads around in campaign contributions. You can object to the frustratingly weak power of amendment to try to address only the worst offenses in the bill. You can object to city's loss of control over their right-of-way, leaving no supervision of the digging of holes and placement of fridge-sized telecom boxes. You can object to loss of control over franchise revenue - today it's local government that can adjust that tax/fee from zero to 5%, with the bill - it's static.
You can object to the loss of existing public access channels. Crazy as some of their programs may be, their unedited coverage of public meetings is a vital method of informing the public without filtering it through traditional media. Without these 100 mini-WisconsinEyes, you'll rely on your small-town paper to send a reporter to a meeting, then rely on them to get it right, then hope that they'll report the item you're interested in. The bill prevents any new public access channels, too, for towns that don't have them yet. You can question the ambiguous claims of job creation by AT&T, and those unions who support this bill because they unquestioningly think they're going to get them.
You can object to the outright disinformation spread by Astroturd group TV4US, an AT&T-paid lobbying group run by Thad Nation, Doyle's former PR hack. You can object to the unethical behavior of TV4US, who submitted binders of names - one per page, that's why they're thick - to legislators, telling them that these are supporters of SB107, and you can read the news reports of Assembly Reps who voted against the bill and who were surprised to find their own names on the list. I went to my Senator's office and leafed through the binder. I found numerous duplicates. I also found three names of trustworthy folks I could call to confirm. One knew he'd sent in a postcard favoring TV choice, but it was months before the bill was drafted. Two had no idea how their name got on the list.
John Foust (Fri Jul 13 09:38:06 2007)
These blogs about the American Consumer Institute, including the one by broadband.com, are repeats of a series of lies and stretched truths. They are repeated again and again. The Institute is a 501c3 nonprofit and has so far not taken a corporate dollar. The blogger in Wisconsin can say the same thing, because he has finanacial interest in the debate. Repeat that, why don't you.
Steve Pociask (Tue Oct 30 18:11:01 2007)
|
