JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: Imagine, if you will...
said by RadioDoc  :Yeah, but by misrepresenting the number as 10 times larger it makes those nasty telco folks sound so much more evil. Like they need help in that regard. I don't think it was intentional but someone please fix.
"Telecom firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite...."
This statement is not accurate and is just being repeated by those who didn't bother to read the article. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | I've fleshed it out in the summary for the RTFA brigades. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to JSRoman
said by JSRoman :This statement is not accurate and is just being repeated by those who didn't bother to read the article. Ah, but that's the point of incendiary headlines, isn't it?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Sigh.... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Well? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well what?
"Net Neutrality Advocates Losing DC Battle" isn't an "incendiary headline" because net-neutrality provisions have been yanked after those who benefit out-spent those who don't.
The original line:
"Telecom firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite."
was a mistake and was corrected to read:
"Telecom & technology firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite."
It wasn't an intentional misrepresentation of anything. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| I didn't say it was.
I merely stated that the point of incendiary headlines is to appeal to those who do not bother to read the entire article before they express their opinion about it (or ever for that matter).
In this case, stating that Telecom firms spent 152 million lobbying in the first half of 2005 was clearly not right (unless you lump Microsoft and Motorola and a manufacturing trade group, among others, in there) and the implication of the summary text was that telephone companies and their lobbyists spent the entire amount.
If it was a mistake, then you may want to slow down and proofread a little bit better, because
National Association of Manufacturers, $8.3 million
National Association of Broadcasters, $7.8 million
Motorola, $7.6 million
IBM, $7.2 million
National Cable and Telecommunications Association, $7.4 million
Comcast and Time Warner, which each spent about $4 million.
alone add up to far more than the telcos spent. Hell, the cable companies and their trade group listed alone coughed up $15.4 million.
U.S. Telecom Association,$16.8 million
Bellsouth, $7 million
And before you point the shill finger at me again, I promised Justin that I would use facts and unemotional logic in responses here, and I expect you do the same.
The Telecom Act rewrite is much bigger than the net neutrality "issue", and the lobbying money spent covers a vast array of issues, the Internet being one small part.
So please quit trying to imply that all the money is being spent to defeat a pet cause.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
In this case, stating that Telecom firms spent 152 million lobbying in the first half of 2005 was clearly not right
The exact sentence:
"Telecom & technology firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite."
That sentence remains accurate. Users can RTFA to see this is all lobbying expenditures for all issues, and the exact breakdown. I'm not trying to hoodwink anybody. How much of that was dedicated toward the telecom Act re-write or preventing guidelines prohibiting traffic prioritization? Neither of us have those numbers. Lets assume plenty, unless we're naive.
quote:
and the implication of the summary text was that telephone companies and their lobbyists spent the entire amount.
"Telecom & Technology firms" was a tag-line pulled from the article these figures came from. "Telecom" includes cable, in their discourse. "Telecom Act rewrite" includes cable. Should that be "Communications & technology"? Probably. But it's not some evil anti-Rboc cabal.
Compare "Telecom & Technology" expenditures to what major content providers spent on lobbying, with plenty at stake including Chinese trade and net-neutrality: quote:
Yahoo spent $800,000, followed by Amazon.com ($460,000) and eBay ($400,000). Google had $220,000 in lobbying expenses for all of 2005
Is it somehow green pond-fairy magic Congress isn't imposing net-neutrality guidelines then? |
|
