4 ms·

Astroturf hurts: leadership resigns after GLAAD supports T-Mobile sale

45 points by joelhaus 15y ago

joelhaus 15y ago
This is nauseating. It would be nice to see some investment in the network rather than in their vast lobby. It is heartening to see at least one non-profit hold their leadership accountable though. > And when the FCC considered its net neutrality rules, the nonprofit commentaries flowed like high speed data. Our examination of a letter written by 19 civil rights groups questioning open Internet rules found that most were recipients of Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon money. In the case of LULAC, a single grant came to $1.5 million. Groups that we have spoken with always deny any sort of outright opinion selling.
- econgeeker 15y ago
  They wouldn't need a lobby if they weren't put in a position where they had to spend a lot of money-- essentially paying off politicians-- to conduct basic operations of their business, such as offering new products or engaging in a merger.
  - Klinky 15y ago
    Exactly, because lobbying to allow a merger that would reduce competition & lobbying to block things like net neutrality are really essential to providing quality service. Maybe we should just give AT&T their monopoly back.
- radicaldreamer 15y ago
  Corporations, especially old school blue-chip ones, will generally follow the path of least resistance to profits.
  - yid 15y ago
    Also known as fiduciary duty.
    - Klinky 15y ago
      Also known as morally questionable & gaming the market.
      - mirkules 15y ago
        Also known as the nature of capitalism.
        JonnieCache 15y ago
        Capitalism is not a physical law. We have the power to implement it how we choose.
        alexqgb 15y ago
        Bingo. Also, "fiduciary responsibility" can justify absolutely anything, provided your timeframe is short enough. Bouncing paychecks, for instance, will do wonders for a company's cash position - provided your business plans don't extend further than the middle of next week.
      - fleitz 15y ago
        Why is getting paid to express an opinion morally questionable? When GLAAD's members pay them to express positions in support of gay rights, is that morally questionable? Or is it only morally questionable when they express opinions that you do not like? I suspect the conversation between GLAAD, AT&T, and their membership will go something like this: Members: You're losing $500K per year GLAAD: AT&T can you match this? AT&T: Will $600K suffice? GLAAD: OK.
        rbanffy 15y ago
        They are not only paid to express opinions, but to credibly do it. When they throw their credibility out the window by accepting money to express anything, they cease to be effective in supporting gay and lesbian interests.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
econgeeker 15y ago
The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions have done, but this essentially set out the competitive landscape to be (what eventually became the companies) of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Given that spread spectrum does not require allocation of bands, these auctions of spectrum essentially limit competition. They are near monopoly grants (triopoly, specifically.) If every operator were allowed to use the entire spectrum range, using spread spectrum signaling, with straightforward regulations on power, placement, etc, the cellular carrier landscape could consist of dozens or hundreds of operators-- however many the market would bear. Given that, at the spectrum level, competition is limited by the government, the idea of worrying about there not being enough competition is kinda funny. For anyone other than the three ordained spectrum holders to operate, they have to do deals with the three majors. Many of these smaller companies are already essentially owned by the majors. This merger is just a consolidation of the two carries using the same protocol. GLAAD doesn't represent me, even though I am queer. And if they took money for this, then I don't really have a problem. This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.
- klenwell 15y ago
  I'm less worried about the lack of competition than the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers. Ah, a visitor from a universe without regulatory capture.
- pyre 15y ago
  > This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise. Really? I find that hard to believe. They are using (abusing) their position as a respected non-profit to further the goals of their benefactors. Now, there might be nothing illegal about this, but I posit that if we live in a society that largely accepts this as par for the course, then the FCC should be largely disregarding whatever these groups are saying, rather than taking them into account. Personally, I find this to be a form of fraud. They were being paid to have a particular opinion, while obfuscating the fact that they didn't reach that opinion on their own and without coercion in the form of money donations (or the real/perceived threat of receiving no future donations). Let's face it, their 'opinion' would be much less effective had they disclosed that they were being paid to have it.
Apocryphon 15y ago
"What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger." I do believe that someone can write a grand satire of this whole circus. "The Marriage of T-Mobile." Do I smell a Tony?
- fleitz 15y ago
  They could call it "Rent: Seeking"
theoj 15y ago
>> GLAAD's letter declared. "What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger." So let me guess this straight: a merger that reduces competition by reducing the number of market players will get you competitive pricing, more access and faster service. Don't make me laugh.

45 points by joelhaus 15y ago

This is nauseating. It would be nice to see some investment in the network rather than in their vast lobby. It is heartening to see at least one non-profit hold their leadership accountable though. > And when the FCC considered its net neutrality rules, the nonprofit commentaries flowed like high speed data. Our examination of a letter written by 19 civil rights groups questioning open Internet rules found that most were recipients of Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon money. In the case of LULAC, a single grant came to $1.5 million. Groups that we have spoken with always deny any sort of outright opinion selling.

econgeeker 15y ago
They wouldn't need a lobby if they weren't put in a position where they had to spend a lot of money-- essentially paying off politicians-- to conduct basic operations of their business, such as offering new products or engaging in a merger.
- Klinky 15y ago
  Exactly, because lobbying to allow a merger that would reduce competition & lobbying to block things like net neutrality are really essential to providing quality service. Maybe we should just give AT&T their monopoly back.
radicaldreamer 15y ago
Corporations, especially old school blue-chip ones, will generally follow the path of least resistance to profits.
- yid 15y ago
  Also known as fiduciary duty.
  - Klinky 15y ago
    Also known as morally questionable & gaming the market.
    - mirkules 15y ago
      Also known as the nature of capitalism.
      - JonnieCache 15y ago
        Capitalism is not a physical law. We have the power to implement it how we choose.
        alexqgb 15y ago
        Bingo. Also, "fiduciary responsibility" can justify absolutely anything, provided your timeframe is short enough. Bouncing paychecks, for instance, will do wonders for a company's cash position - provided your business plans don't extend further than the middle of next week.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      Why is getting paid to express an opinion morally questionable? When GLAAD's members pay them to express positions in support of gay rights, is that morally questionable? Or is it only morally questionable when they express opinions that you do not like? I suspect the conversation between GLAAD, AT&T, and their membership will go something like this: Members: You're losing $500K per year GLAAD: AT&T can you match this? AT&T: Will $600K suffice? GLAAD: OK.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        They are not only paid to express opinions, but to credibly do it. When they throw their credibility out the window by accepting money to express anything, they cease to be effective in supporting gay and lesbian interests.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

econgeeker 15y ago

The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions have done, but this essentially set out the competitive landscape to be (what eventually became the companies) of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Given that spread spectrum does not require allocation of bands, these auctions of spectrum essentially limit competition. They are near monopoly grants (triopoly, specifically.) If every operator were allowed to use the entire spectrum range, using spread spectrum signaling, with straightforward regulations on power, placement, etc, the cellular carrier landscape could consist of dozens or hundreds of operators-- however many the market would bear. Given that, at the spectrum level, competition is limited by the government, the idea of worrying about there not being enough competition is kinda funny. For anyone other than the three ordained spectrum holders to operate, they have to do deals with the three majors. Many of these smaller companies are already essentially owned by the majors. This merger is just a consolidation of the two carries using the same protocol. GLAAD doesn't represent me, even though I am queer. And if they took money for this, then I don't really have a problem. This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.

klenwell 15y ago
I'm less worried about the lack of competition than the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers.
- anamax 15y ago
  > the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers. Ah, a visitor from a universe without regulatory capture.
pyre 15y ago
> This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise. Really? I find that hard to believe. They are using (abusing) their position as a respected non-profit to further the goals of their benefactors. Now, there might be nothing illegal about this, but I posit that if we live in a society that largely accepts this as par for the course, then the FCC should be largely disregarding whatever these groups are saying, rather than taking them into account. Personally, I find this to be a form of fraud. They were being paid to have a particular opinion, while obfuscating the fact that they didn't reach that opinion on their own and without coercion in the form of money donations (or the real/perceived threat of receiving no future donations). Let's face it, their 'opinion' would be much less effective had they disclosed that they were being paid to have it.

Apocryphon 15y ago

"What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger." I do believe that someone can write a grand satire of this whole circus. "The Marriage of T-Mobile." Do I smell a Tony?

fleitz 15y ago
They could call it "Rent: Seeking"

theoj 15y ago

>> GLAAD's letter declared. "What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger." So let me guess this straight: a merger that reduces competition by reducing the number of market players will get you competitive pricing, more access and faster service. Don't make me laugh.