(ATT Rolls Out Astroturf to Push for T-Mobile Deal)
by Karl Bode Tuesday 12-Apr-2011
Reprinted with permission
One of the most effective ways the phone companies have gotten what they want politically over the years is to fake the fact that they have consumer support for often anti-consumer policies. This is done via PR, farmed think tank science, hired bloggers (who don't allow comments), fake consumer groups and astroturf (fake grass roots) campaigns. Such efforts can make it appear that anti-consumer positions -- such as the elimination of consumer protection laws -- have broad consumer support. Another tool at their disposal is the "co-opting" of existing groups. Groups receive significant sums of money from these providers, and regurgitate their positions on political matters as a favor.
 |
| Randall Stephenson, CEO and president of ATT, and Rene Obermann, CEO of Deutsche Telekom AG |
With their bottomless lobbying budget ATT is the largest player in this shady space, over the years using phony consumer groups to cheer for metered billing, or senior citizens groups (run by ex bell marketing execs) to fight against network neutrality (the process by which all information on the Internet is delivered at the same speed, regardless of which service provider you use to access the web). They can also take the form of a phony opposition group, or infiltrate a real one, with the intention to make a lot of noise in order to drown out the voices of true opposition groups, then leading the opposition down a dead end, and stopping members from taking action independent from the group as they believe they are being represented well.
With ATT's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile immensely unpopular, it's not surprising to see ATT firing up their disinformation engine to try and pretend the deal has broad support. That has involved ATT using groups like The Hispanic Institute whose website suggests they simply adore less competition in the wireless space:
“The proposed merger of ATT and T-Mobile will move us closer to universal mobile broadband deployment. When we consider how essential mobile technology is to empowering communities, we conclude that this proposal is good for Hispanic America...it creates an opportunity to harness and support America’s innovation economy. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to amplify the growth in mobile broadband adoption by both English and Spanish speaking Americans.”
You'll find very similar gushing for the deal by the Latino Coalition:
“The proposed merger of ATT and T-Mobile holds great promise for all Americans, and especially those of Hispanic heritage.”
The similarity in language is, of course, because these groups are being told what to say by ATT. One DC insider informs us that rumblings on K Street suggest ATT had called every civil rights group in the United States for support within fifteen minutes of the deal being announced. Fearful of losing ATT donations -- most of these groups quickly got to parroting prepared ATT statements, unconcerned about the actual impact of a T-Mobile deal. Getting funding for a new events center apparently dulls any ethical pangs felt using your organization as a hired stage prop.
As we've noted, ATT's acquisition of T-Mobile does virtually none of what ATT suggests it will accomplish, has little to no impact on national next-generation wireless deployment, and aside from satisfying ATT's desire for relentless acquisition and expansion -- offers few if any benefits to anyone -- especially consumers.
What the deal will do is reduce competition, raise prices and degrade the quality of service for T-Mobile users, something any real Latino or minority group worth its salt would find runs contrary to their constituents' best interests.
GLAAD Drops Support For ATT Deal With T-Mobile After Activists Speak Up
Sarah Lai Stirland
The Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD,) reversed its support for ATT’s proposed merger with T-Mobile Wednesday after its initial endorsement of the deal caused an uproar within its own community.
“A rigorous review process considered GLAAD’s unique mission and concluded that while ATT has a strong record of support for the LGBT community, the explanation used to support this particular merger was not sufficiently consistent with GLAAD’s work to advocate for positive and culture-changing LGBT stories and images in the media,” said Mike Thompson, GLAAD’s Acting President in a Wednesday press statement.
Thompson sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday after an initial supportive May missive from his predecessor Jarrett Barrios.
That letter caused a firestorm of controversy within the activist community, members of whom believed that GLAAD had been bought off by AT&T’s charitable donations.
POLITICO reported early June that GLAAD had received $50,000 from ATT. It also noted that many other non-profit groups supporting the merger had received money from the telecommunications company.
Comments
when will you start supporting the merger, and how much did you cost?
I would have a high sell out price myself, but i don't run a website or anything, so i won't get any offers.
how does one get hired as a corporate shill, i wonder?
________________________________________________
have they ever approached this website with an offer? i'd be curious how much they have hinted at before being told to pack sand.
________________________________________________
Even someone in kindergarten could figure out that taking away competition brings nobody closer to so-called universal or near universal broadband. Verizon will get there all by itself whether the merger occurs or not. Besides what difference does it make if T-Mobile plus AT&T equals 100 percent coverage or AT&T (after gobbling up T-Mobile) on its own equals 100 percent. 100 is 100 no matter how many companies are involved. There is absolutely no logic to AT&T's position and it gives me a headache thinking about the shills who support it.
__________________________________________________
Jonesboro, AR Re: Dumb
But we are dealing with pre-K minds in CONgress.
__________________________________________________
@rr.com Re: Dumb
pro is the opposite of con, thus congress is the opposite of progress.
said by mtech:But we are dealing with pre-K minds in CONgress.
__________________________________________________
·Millenicom
What AT&T means is universal higher prices!
Once the merger takes place what an excellent opportunity for AT&T to conspire with Verizon to raise prices. By the way why hasn't any government regulator asked why the contractual prices both carriers charge are basically the same.
__________________________________________________
Re: What AT&T means is universal higher prices!
said by Mr Matt:contractual prices both carriers charge are basically the same.
Because it's not.
The base plans might appear to be the same but when you factor in the differences between them (rollover for AT&T, friends and family for Verizon, mobile to mobile for each carrier) the actual per-minute cost you wind up paying will vary depending on your needs and usage.
Nor do they charge the same for data since the last time I checked Verizon still has unlimited plans for smartphones and AT&T doesn't.
__________________________________________________
payoffs take away our rights to at&t
So att can payoff everyone in usa. Well bottom line is they sold off their rights to company that bite you later. HOPE ALL THE SELL OUT GROUPS ENJOY THE PRICE THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR SERVICE LATER. THANKS for how you treat your follow poor and middle class to not being able to pay att service later. Hope you calls drops like the do now forever guys.
__________________________________________________
Marietta, GA I really have been shocked at the dishonestly
that AT&T has used . The Latino support media blitz was a real eye opener . The headlines that went to multiple sources never really said anything about supporting the merger . It had catch phrases like it " recognizes " the positive this or that . This merger would hurt Latinos maybe more than any other group . A GSM standard seems like it would benefit them more than any other group . I wonder what the fringe latino groups got just for letting their name be used ? The other blitz I noticed was how it is able to roll out the " most advanced mobile broadband experience" to this city or that city due to this merger . Thus the merger is good for you . I never really noticed the lengths a company would go though to deceive from the CEO down. Just really evil stuff . Everyone will pay more if this merger goes through indeed . Just really shocked at how this merger has grabbed my attention . It almost has a good vs evil feel.
__________________________________________________
Hello! That's why AT&T is a.k.a. "The Death Star". Just look at their logo
__________________________________________________
AT&T is right! If they control all the pipes they can spoon feed us via walled gardens/portals.
It will be a more open internet, because it'll be their version of it
Welcome to the future!
__________________________________________________
Why do members of minority groups allow for other groups, which may or may not hold their individual interests at heart, to speak for them? Why do these organizations get to be allowed to "state" with what "everyone" in that particular minority group is "supposed" to be thinking?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.
__________________________________________________
Re: You Know
said by pnh102:Why do members of minority groups allow for other groups, which may or may not hold their individual interests at heart, to speak for them?
There are many rea$on$ why any group, minority or not, allow corporation$ to $uggest talking point$ to them. Merger or no merger, The Hispanic Institute and The Latino Coalition aren't really directly affected. $o if they pro$titute them$elve$ as corporate mouthpiece$, they really don't hurt their member$hip on way or another.
__________________________________________________
Hazelwood, MO I guess it is the same reason in that a corporation gets to speak for its stock holders and make it's (current board) political opinions known.
Lets ignore the fact that not every stock owner of the company is even a US citizen having US voting rights (thus should not have any say) and every US owner already has a vote and is able to speak on their own with their own donations.
__________________________________________________
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
__________________________________________________
said by pnh102:Why do members of minority groups allow for other groups, which may or may not hold their individual interests at heart, to speak for them? Why do these organizations get to be allowed to "state" with what "everyone" in that particular minority group is "supposed" to be thinking?
They get to do it, because in the US it has been legal forever to sell your support to anyone you want to. I am sure they all see it as getting a piece of the corporate pie any way they can. Can't get good jobs in these companies like AT&T & Verizon, so take a payoff instead. At least they get something.
__________________________________________________
At the end of the day, GREEN is the only color that counts
AT&T has the cash to buy comments from consumer groups, bloggers and so-called minority groups. When you think it is a black and white issue, simply follow the money trail and you will see it is really a GREEN issue. The question that AT&T asks is how much green can we get?
--
A citizen of The United States of Amnesia. How quickly we forget.
__________________________________________________
kudos:2 Wow, SOMEONE doesn't like AT&T
As a T-Mobile customer I'm not thrilled about the takeover, but could this writing be any more biased and
__________________________________________________
Re: Wow, SOMEONE doesn't like AT&T
said by quatrix:As a T-Mobile customer I'm not thrilled about the takeover, but could this writing be any more biased and inciting?
__________________________________________________
Oh hey you must be new here.
__________________________________________________
kudos:4 i HATE T not because its "cool to hate at&t" but because of years of crap service.
The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese
__________________________________________________
Mobile, AL makes me sick
It makes me sick to send AT&T my hard earned money every month. Their dishonesty is enough for me to switch carriers. When VZW deploys LTE in my market I'm gone.
__________________________________________________
I am just wondering if they are buying T-Mobile as a band-aid solution to their broken network and they will just let it fall into further disrepair once the two networks are merged.
__________________________________________________·Verizon FiOS
how abouts that astro turf:
at&t's new salespitch men: Mit Romney and (J.J.) Jimmie Walker...
__________________________________________________
After you become an AT&T customer, you will feel like Florida Evans:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap5Sw3xsZhU
__________________________________________________
A citizen of The United States of Amnesia. How quickly we forget.
permalink · 2011-04-13 11:36:22
__________________________________________________
AT&T... really? Smart people can already figure out this is a good thing, as long as the FCC puts some conditions on it.... why the need for astroturf? It just makes you look bad, AT&T.
It doesn't really affect different groups particularly differently, if anything the affects are different urban vs. suburban/rural, but urban T-Mobile customers have the most to gain, although AT&T customers have a lot to gain too.
__________________________________________________
Marietta, GA Re: oooookay
I'm an urban T-Mo customer & the only thing I feel that will be gained is the size of my bill . I have what I want , a GSM phone with stellar rates & great service . A T-Mo customer will not come out ahead . The astroturf & AT&T's refusal to guarantee our rates while continually bring up that rates in theory should be dropping is just validation that in the end we will be getting hamered in this deal .
__________________________________________________
Re: oooookay
Why do you think you are entitled to cut-rate prices when you will gain the amazing coverage and superior building penetration of AT&T Mobility's nationwide network?
Rates per se won't drop, but rates relative to the speed, coverage, and quality of service have dropped significantly and will continue to drop in the future.
AT&T shouldn't rate guarantee Magenta SIMs just like they didn't for Blue SIMs. If you want a new phone, you should have to get an Orange SIM and an Orange plan. However, I would also say that AT&T should be required to unlock your Magenta devices so that they can work on Orange as a backup phone or whatever. Even 3G devices will work fine on EDGE post-AWS 3G.
__________________________________________________
Also, Orange plans have Rollover, A-List (which T-Mobile ironically invented and then killed with MyFaves), and AnyMobile, while Magenta plans don't.
__________________________________________________
I think they should clean out all the legacy as quickly as possible. And if that means losing our 850 minute legacy Orange plan too, that's fine. AnyMobile would probably even it out with the current 700 minute plan anyways.
_________________________________________________
Marietta, GA Re: oooookay
I think I'm entitled to keep my plan . I have fine coverage & speed right now . Why do YOU and AT&T feel entitled to buy the company I do business with ? Entitled ? If AT&T didn't feel so entitled they wouldn't have to buy out the only national GSM competition . They would work on their infrastructure & have real customer service not telemarketers . But they do feel entitled . Thats why they are sending another wave of lobbyists to Washington right now as I type . I guess we will see if anti trust still exists . What makes you sure this merger will benefit you ?
__________________________________________________
You're entitled to keep it for the remainder of your contract OR to be let out of your contract. I've had great customer service experiences at Corporate stores, better than the rest of the sleazeballs out there who sell cell phones.
I get more coverage. I get more efficiency. I get more spectrum. I get more capacity. I get more cell sites. I get more backhaul. I get a larger selection of phones. I get better competition since it throws the current duopoly off balance.
AT&T already has the best coverage and the fastest data of the two carriers, this is just going to make them even more awesome. Now Verizon will be in the position AT&T was in a few years back with a newer, faster technology, but more limited coverage, except that AT&T has built out blazing-fast 3G to virtually everywhere anyone goes (even though it is still less than probably 40% of the network land area wise).
__________________________________________________
Re: oooookay
Keep gorging on that corporate kool-aid. How does the elimination of competition bring better competition? AT&T may do some nice things to keep the FCC off their backs but once the deal is given the PASS stamp the real raping will begin.
More capacity, more spectrum? Faster data rates? So you can hit the draconian 2GB limit faster? Coverage is debatable, since you have done nothing to back up your claim that AT&T+T-mo will actually have any significant increase in coverage, since we don't know how much of it actually overlaps.
__________________________________________________
Marietta, GA It doesn't benefit AT&T or T-Mobile customers to have only one GSM provider . You seem to be suggesting that by having less competition you are getting more . I suspect unfortunately that this merger will go through . I more than suspect AT&T won't come out of this looking good . AT&T's unpopularity after this takeover might do more to " throw the current duopoly off balance " than anything else . 10's of millions of TMO customers are livid about this merger & there is growing sentiment that this falls under anti-trust .
__________________________________________________
Jackson, MI BiggA has a Verizon phone. He just wants the deal to go through so your service can go down in flames. Now that I think about it, so do I.
__________________________________________________
·Comcast
It brings better competition two ways:
1. Most people need a carrier with a true nationwide network, and low-band spectrum. There are two of those. This throws the duopoly, which is near deadlock now, and has been for years, completely off balance.
2. Sprint and T-Mobile are scraping at too small of a market to both be financially sustainable and build out a world-class 4G network. Now Sprint will be able to sweep up the lower-cost less coverage market while AT&T and Verizon duke it out at the top.
More spectrum and more tower both equal more capacity. This is fundamental and basic to wireless services.
The coverage boosts are all in urban areas, where they don't have the same tower sites. They will end up with a lot more tower sites.
It probably won't help on street, but in-building will increase a lot. Out in more suburban/rural areas, it won't help AT&T very much, although T-Mobile has been more aggressive in the last couple of years in building new towers, and does have a number of sites that AT&T hasn't gotten on yet.
What you people don't get is that NO ONE CARES about the whole GSM vs. CDMA thing. 95% of people don't KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, and even then, most people buy a phone from their carrier, AND there are VERY FEW phones that currently have both AWS and NAM. I know that all of my phones are NAM only, so they are effectively locked to AT&T in the US.
Correction: 10's of T-Mobile customers are livid. There's somehow still a lot of people who don't know this is going on, and after that, the majority either support it or don't really care.
This is NOT anti-trust. HOWEVER, I hope that the FCC puts some strict rules on ALL of T-Mobile's spectrum (which would basically carry over to AT&T's since the networks and spectrum will be combined and managed as one) about overage fees, bill monitoring, allowing SIM cards in any device and allowing tethering, open application access on platforms that support it (Android), and the like. This would be a win for everyone involved, and usher in even better mobile services.
__________________________________________________
If this merger is approved, I'll will be either dropping service completely or, dare I say it, switch to Sprint or __________________________________________________
@comcast.net What ignorance
There's an old name that keeps ringing in my head ..."Ma Bell" seems like we're taking several steps backwards. I'm all for competition. With competition, we the users can benefit from cheaper services. If we only had one company offering telecom do you really think rates would be so affordable? with T-mobile gone, the only other major carriers up for grabs will be Sprint and US cellular. We keep going on this path all we will have is VZ and ATT, their argument, we can't compete because they are bigger...common when does this stop. In the meantime most people forget that the way of the merger means less jobs. When did we start preaching comptetition isn't good?
__________________________________________________
New Jersey
kudos:1 maybe 100 % consoliation ?
Have ATT merge with Verizon and Sprint, and all the others. Of course data access prices would drop ? - sarc !
__________________________________________________
Shallow Astroturfing (The So-called Precusor Blog)
I just tried six times to post the following message on the Precursor Blog by Scott Cleland (www.precusorblog.com):
"I used to live in the UAE which had a single state run phone company (Etisilat). When the World Trade Organization required competition, they created a second primarily state owned phone company (Du) and nothing changed. ATT and Verizon may compete, but they generally march in lock step thereby denying customer choice. They are essentially our version of the UAE companies mentioned above. Canada has three large providers (Bell, Rogers, and Telus), but Canada found that there was inadequate competition and pried the doors open for new competitors Wind and Public who are shaking things up. A duopoly is very much the same as a monopoly. While your position is well argued, I just don't see it."
As the poster of the original article correctly noted, the precusor blog appears to be deliberately rigged to stop posting while maintaining the appearance that posting is permitted. Everytime I tried to post to the blog, Mr. Cleland's blog said I was not filling out the captcha correctly or that I wasn't hearing the audio captcha correctly.
I hope people who are searching for articles to get a sense of public opinion about the proposed ATT and TMobile merger do not regard Mr. Cleland's views is representatives or accepted because no one has "chosen" to put a post up on his "precusor blog."
Stu
__________________________________________________
Miami, FL Re: Shallow Astroturfing (The So-called Precusor Blog)
You mean the Google is the most evil company in America blog?
Scott doesn't care about the truth. Just that his checks from the telecomunication companies keeps rolling in.
_________________________________________________
kudos:29 Re: Shallow Astroturfing (The So-called Precusor Blog)
The frightening thing is he continues to be called before Congress as an objective and independent sector analyst.
__________________________________________________
