| All large corporations do not have one opinion... The author suggests that there is consensus among 'large corporations'. He neglects to mention that other corporations have opinions contrary to the telcos.
Sprint, Covad and MCI/Worldcom lobby for linesharing.
Google, Yahoo and other large content providers lobby against net-neutrality.
Google and Earthlink lobby for muni-wifi because they expect municipalities to contract with them to provide the service.
The individuals, corporations and interest groups that claim to be 'pro-consumer' want to make more money for the companies they represent.
If it is bad for the telcos to lobby for their cause, it must be bad for the companies mentioned above to lobby for their cause also.
I think that many of the people who lambast the telcos are actually shills for the telco's competition. |
|
| quote:
If it is bad for the telcos to lobby for their cause
More straw men springing up from the woodwork. I fail to see where the piece argues telcos, or anybody for that matter, shouldn't be able to lobby. When Google begins funding artificial consumer advocacy groups and spewing think tank analysis masquerading as objective science, I imagine they will face equal backlash.
Again people aren't arguing against capitalism, or telcos, or their right to profit, they're arguing against dishonest manipulative public relations efforts. They argue against taking away the community's right to vote on its own telecom future. They argue against pseudo libertarian think tanks who only despise regulation when it suits their donors' best interests. |
|
| I never claimed that the piece stated that telco's shouldn't lobby. I'm just saying that both sides of the debate employ the same tactics. I didn't hear anyone on this site complaining when Worldcom pushed for more regulation of the telcos.
The piece clearly implies that telco lobbying is 'bad' and compares telco lobbying groups with groups that dump 'toxic chemicals into river water.'
Whenever a controversial issue comes up, groups on both sides of the issues, funded by competing companies, draw different conclusions. If the Telco lobbying efforts are 'bad', then the pro-muni lobbying groups are just as bad.
My point is that anti-telco groups masquerade that masquerade as being 'pro-consumer' are not magnaminous. Earthlink, Sprint and Google do not lobby for rural broadband out of the goodness of their heart. They want to make money.
People that encourage the government to regulate the broadband industry, do so because it presents a business opportunity for themselves. Covad, Earthlink, MCI would not exist if the government did not regulate them into existence. Anyone who disagrees with me is a shill for one of those companies  |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Minister
said by Minister: More straw men springing up from the woodwork. I fail to see where the piece argues telcos, or anybody for that matter, shouldn't be able to lobby. These broadband black holes were created by the providers. They should either fill them or get out of the way, taking their cadre of subjective experts with them.
While there are certainly flaws with many municipal broadband models, these are decisions that should be made by the communities themselves, not subjective analysts on the payroll of major telecom providers.
You were saying? |
|
2 edits | Nowhere do I suggest people cannot lobby. But I do unapologetically despise paid public relation firms (which is what these are) faking consumer advocacy, regardless of the company pulling the strings. |
|
|
|
| reply to hoyleysox
Net Neutrality SupportersGoogle, Yahoo and other large content providers lobby against net-neutrality.
Oh, really? Maybe you should take a look at the list of supporters of one of the major net neutrality grassroots campaigns: »www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#support
(Hint: the list includes Google, Yahoo,and other large companies) |
|
