dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Top Lobbyist Cicconi Has His Feelings Hurt
Over network neutrality and China discussion...
According to the Washington Post, AT&T's chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi is upset with some comments made by White House deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin. In a recent blog post, McLaughlin noted that "if it bothers you that the China government does it, it should bother you when your cable company does it." McLaughlin is pretty obviously speaking generally about any restriction of data, be it by carrier or government. He's pretty clearly not saying that cable companies are the same thing as the oppressive Chinese government, but apparently Mr. Cicconi couldn't (or more likely wouldn't) make the distinction:
quote:
"It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP. There is no valid comparison, and it's frankly an affront to suggest otherwise," Cicconi said.
Of course for Cicconi to get upset about misrepresentation is a bit funny, given that's his full time job as a lobbyist. And if you've watched Cicconi work over the last decade in the broadband sector, he does it as well as anyone. Cicconi, so intent on advancing his desire to see Google regulated, recently tried to argue that Google hates nuns, so he's not one to talk. You also have to recall that the network neutrality debate really began because of stupid comments made by AT&T's CEO back in 2005, when he clumsily first stumbled into the idea of nickel and diming companies and customers who already pay plenty of money for bandwidth.
view:
topics flat nest 

quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium Member
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI

quetwo

Premium Member

One of the takeaways...

But one of the takeaways we can get from this editorial is that while (T) is not acting like the Chinese government in restricting our data access (yet), we are powerless like the Chinese people if they do. If you only have one provider in your area, dropping them because they block a few websites is most likely not going to happen. Even if you have two, them creeping up the blocking rules would make it very difficult to move between two providers, especially if a provider like (T) makes you sign a multi-year contract to get their service.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: One of the takeaways...

said by quetwo:

But one of the takeaways we can get from this editorial is that while (T) is not acting like the Chinese government in restricting our data access (yet), we are powerless like the Chinese people if they do. If you only have one provider in your area, dropping them because they block a few websites is most likely not going to happen. Even if you have two, them creeping up the blocking rules would make it very difficult to move between two providers, especially if a provider like (T) makes you sign a multi-year contract to get their service.
You are exactly right. I've witnessed first hand what two providers, AT&T being one of them, provides -- the fastest choice of internet is 7Mbps/384Kbps. AT&T's product is even slower.

doublea
join:2007-06-04
Rancho Cordova, CA

doublea

Member

Re: One of the takeaways...

said by Matt3:

said by quetwo:

But one of the takeaways we can get from this editorial is that while (T) is not acting like the Chinese government in restricting our data access (yet), we are powerless like the Chinese people if they do. If you only have one provider in your area, dropping them because they block a few websites is most likely not going to happen. Even if you have two, them creeping up the blocking rules would make it very difficult to move between two providers, especially if a provider like (T) makes you sign a multi-year contract to get their service.
You are exactly right. I've witnessed first hand what two providers, AT&T being one of them, provides -- the fastest choice of internet is 7Mbps/384Kbps. AT&T's product is even slower.
Its true, people often suggest if you dont like the ISP, switch, most of us simply dont have a choice. Or we have a bad taste left in our mouth from an old ISP we once had and we alredy used our only option.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to quetwo

MVM

to quetwo
said by quetwo:

... especially if a provider like (T) makes you sign a multi-year contract to get their service.
I have never had to sign a multi-year contract to get DSL service. Ever. Even under the old SBC logo. I've taken a one-year contract to lock in a good price. But the only 'punishment' I would have received for not taking the contract is a higher monthly bill, not "No contract, no service."

So where do you see AT&T with a "No contract, no service" deal? Could it be something done by AT&T before SBC took over?

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Ban all Lobbyists..

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by Robert:

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.
For what? Because they dare to engage in their constitutionally guaranteed right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by pnh102:

said by Robert:

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.
For what? Because they dare to engage in their constitutionally guaranteed right to petition the government for redress of grievances?
Because they distract our politicians with shiny toys
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

1 recommendation

jimbo21503

Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by Robert:
said by pnh102:
said by Robert:

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.
For what? Because they dare to engage in their constitutionally guaranteed right to petition the government for redress of grievances?
Because they distract our politicians with shiny toys
Bribes.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium Member
join:2001-10-29
Indianapolis, IN

1 recommendation

GlobalMind to Robert

Premium Member

to Robert
said by Robert:

Because they distract our politicians with shiny toys
Squirrel!

Sorry, you were saying?

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by GlobalMind:
said by Robert:

Because they distract our politicians with shiny toys
Squirrel!

Sorry, you were saying?
You have me coughing and laughing at that, only reason was I have seen 3/4 of the movie. Especially that joke he tells.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

1 recommendation

karlmarx to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
Whoa! There's your problem. Where in the WORLD do you get the IDEA that a corporation, which IS NOT A PERSON, has ANY RIGHTS at all? If you are a PERSON, the government can put you in jail. If you are a corporation, you can NEVER go to jail, thus, the corporations should have NO RIGHT to 'redress their grievances' with the US government. The fundametal problem with a corporation is that you CAN'T IMPRISON them. Period. If you can't go to jail, then you have no rights or say on anything about any law that affects any person who COULD go to jail.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by karlmarx:

Whoa! There's your problem. Where in the WORLD do you get the IDEA that a corporation, which IS NOT A PERSON, has ANY RIGHTS at all? If you are a PERSON, the government can put you in jail. If you are a corporation, you can NEVER go to jail, thus, the corporations should have NO RIGHT to 'redress their grievances' with the US government.
You conveniently forget to mention that corporations can be and have been punished for illegal activity.

Corporations are also all owned by individual shareholders, who are persons, and who thus have the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

1 recommendation

karlmarx

Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

Again, please explain how someone who CAN'T go to jail, gets to write a law where the offender CAN go to jail? If you think that a fine = jail time, you are sadly mistaken. One is loss of money, the other is loss of FREEDOM, which, if I read the constitution, is one of our guaranteed rights. Tell you what, why don't you lend me some money. And I choose not to pay you back? You COULD get me sent to jail. Let's say you lend the same money to a corporation? Guess what, you CAN'T send it to jail. So why in the world are you willing to give rights to something that can't have them taken away? If a corporation pays a lobbyist to write a law that CAN take away the right of freedom from an individual, please explain how the individual can write a law to take away the freedom from a corporation?

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to pnh102

MVM

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

You conveniently forget to mention that corporations can be and have been punished for illegal activity.
I don't think he has. Forgotten anything about corporate "punishment", that is. Most times, government imposed fines are just written off by the corporations as "Cost of doing Business"; they are about as severe as the speeding fines we get for going 10 M.P.H. over the speed limit. Maybe not even as severe.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium Member
join:2001-10-29
Indianapolis, IN

GlobalMind to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx
I take it a bit more to the idea that if you aren't paying into the kitty then you don't get to lobby. Which is why I think all tax exempt entities should be barred from lobbying activities...and that includes religious institutions.

I don't particularly like that Big Corp, Inc. gets to lobby because their $$ far outweighs the consumer's ability to counter it.

And double that with the fact that Congresscritters tend to sway to Big Corp, Inc. rather than the interests of the public.
eco
Premium Member
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE

eco to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

Whoa! There's your problem. Where in the WORLD do you get the IDEA that a corporation, which IS NOT A PERSON, has ANY RIGHTS at all?
Legally, in the United States a corporation is a person. I don't agree with it but that is the law at the moment.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co ··· d_debate

dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

dib22 to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

Where in the WORLD do you get the IDEA that a corporation, which IS NOT A PERSON, has ANY RIGHTS at all?
it's pretty much the very definition of CORPoration (as most of the modern world sees them anyway)...
said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co ··· poration :
Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they may be responsible for human rights violations. Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.

33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned) to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
no because they act more like hte SOVIET STYLE oligarchs of the hated comunism that for 50 years they all whined on about, china has been an ally of production and capitalism and due to them and the evil corporates joining forces were able to defeat soviets NOT because of capitalism alone

anyone think8ing that is a lier a cheat and one of them that profits form blood and sweat

seriously ask yourselves what the world would be like if there were no chinese products

YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE REALLY NICE JOBS

ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC

ifarrell to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by Robert:

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.
For what? Because they dare to engage in their constitutionally guaranteed right to petition the government for redress of grievances?
Actually that's the right of "The People", not a Corporation.
Corporations don't (or shouldn't have) have constitutional rights.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

2 recommendations

Matt3 to Robert

Premium Member

to Robert
said by Robert:

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.
»www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· =topnews
said by article :
Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.

The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.
Well, it's a start.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 edit

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

Don't worry. These lobbyists weren't in any danger of being unemployed for too long.

»news.yahoo.com/s/politic ··· co/18128
said by the article :
So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists.

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.

To be fair, this article was originally posted on 01/28/2009, not too long after he was sworn in.

Some more links:

»www.huffingtonpost.com/2 ··· 909.html

»www.huffingtonpost.com/c ··· 378.html

»abcnews.go.com/Blotter/s ··· 8&page=1

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by pnh102:

To be fair, this article was originally posted on 01/28/2009, not too long after he was sworn in.
Did you even look at the list of lobbyists from your link? I'm not too concerned about the agenda of people who lobby for the likes of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by Matt3:

Did you even look at the list of lobbyists from your link? I'm not too concerned about the agenda of people who lobby for the likes of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
And that makes them good? The policy put in place made no distinction in the employment of previous lobbyists.

There was one lobbyist who worked for Goldman Sachs. Is that OK too?

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

said by pnh102:
said by Matt3:

Did you even look at the list of lobbyists from your link? I'm not too concerned about the agenda of people who lobby for the likes of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
And that makes them good? The policy put in place made no distinction in the employment of previous lobbyists.

There was one lobbyist who worked for Goldman Sachs. Is that OK too?
We're not talking about the same thing. Please read what I quoted from my link below, as I'm not sure you read the link at all.
said by article :
The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.

Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

Re: Ban all Lobbyists..

so what i [insert lobbyist] just pay off[bribery amount here] people already there
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to Matt3

Member

to Matt3
said by Matt3:

Did you even look at the list of lobbyists from your link? I'm not too concerned about the agenda of people who lobby for the likes of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
What about Obama's administrators enabling surprise tobacco drug testing dragnet at middle schools along with arresting the parents for endangerment of any kid who comes up positive? Second hand smoke kills according to the prosecutor, your now facing attempted manslaughter.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium Member
join:2001-10-29
Indianapolis, IN

GlobalMind to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3
said by Matt3:

I'm not too concerned about the agenda of people who lobby for the likes of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Yea but be concerned about who is actually behind some of those supposed good will organizations.

wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

wtansill to Robert

Member

to Robert
said by Robert:

C'mon Obama, just ban them all.
He's doing that:

»realclearpolitics.blogs. ··· -panels/
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Give Andrew McLaughlin credit.....

He did hit ATT with one hell of a dinger.

Seriously, that has got to sting a bit.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

Pardon me....

....while I have a hard time feeling bad for Jim Cicconi and AT&T. I have this tiny violin you see?

Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium Member
join:2000-09-20
Fort Worth, TX

Harddrive

Premium Member

the Star Wars saga continues...

Jim Cicconi: "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!"

dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

dib22

Member

Theres a bribe for that.

Let's hope AT&T doesn't let the marketing guys who are "handling" the Verizon map ads try to spin this... or they'll end up with AT&T proudly proclaiming they tap all your calls just like the Chinese government does
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

just watch next election

both democrats and republicans willget bribes er lobby cash

MAN do these people know they bribe people
What charity takes money form people that bribe people to screw , defraud and otherwise make the world a WORSE place
OH YEA they ALL TAKE CHARITY cash who'd say no so that the big bad space invader can look good.

SHAME on the whole system
capitalism is dead welcome to the new facism and oligarchy run by corporations
DONT BOTHER VOTING IT DONT MATTER
my question is when the total elegible voters is below 50% +1 what legal right do they have to tell me they represent me.
THEY DO NOT