GNG News Guy
03-03-2008, 10:28 AM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/12/3312.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/When-Civil-Rights-Groups-Become-Telco-PR-92323)
One of the most effective ways the phone companies have gotten what they want politically over the years is to have groups they donate to regurgitate their positions on political matters (dubbed "co-opting" in the industry). For example Verizon donates to (http://www.nad.org/atf/cf/%7BA2A94BC9-2744-4E84-852F-D8C3380D0B12%7D/NAD_FY04_AnnualReport(Gray).pdf) (pdf) and wrote the National Association for the Deaf's technology primer (http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=273994), and in turn the group often parrots support for Verizon policy -- whether or not it harms their constituents (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/82501).
When combined with PR, farmed think tank science and astroturf campaigns, such efforts can make it appear that anti-consumer positions (cherry picking broadband deployment, elimination of consumer protection laws) in fact have broad consumer support. It's a constant tactic used in the network neutrality debate -- most recently via a coalition of "civil rights groups," who last week came out against (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080229/180920393.shtml) network neutrality:"Regulations prohibiting network management risk undermining free speech on the Internet by allowing P2P traffic to overwhelm the network and prevent non-P2P traffic from reaching its destination," the coalition said in its filing. "The effective prioritization of P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and ought to be resoundingly rejected."
These groups are so busy pleasing donors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Black_Chamber_of_Commerce), they apparently don't much care if their arguments actually make any sense, in this case associating the desire for a content-agnostic Internet with racism and oppression of free speech. Compacting the problem, when the technology press reports on such stories, they apparently don't feel the need to mention (http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/29/Civil-rights-groups-FCC-should-allow-network-management_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/29/Civil-rights-groups-FCC-should-allow-network-management_1.html) who's paying these groups.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/When-Civil-Rights-Groups-Become-Telco-PR-92323)
One of the most effective ways the phone companies have gotten what they want politically over the years is to have groups they donate to regurgitate their positions on political matters (dubbed "co-opting" in the industry). For example Verizon donates to (http://www.nad.org/atf/cf/%7BA2A94BC9-2744-4E84-852F-D8C3380D0B12%7D/NAD_FY04_AnnualReport(Gray).pdf) (pdf) and wrote the National Association for the Deaf's technology primer (http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=273994), and in turn the group often parrots support for Verizon policy -- whether or not it harms their constituents (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/82501).
When combined with PR, farmed think tank science and astroturf campaigns, such efforts can make it appear that anti-consumer positions (cherry picking broadband deployment, elimination of consumer protection laws) in fact have broad consumer support. It's a constant tactic used in the network neutrality debate -- most recently via a coalition of "civil rights groups," who last week came out against (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080229/180920393.shtml) network neutrality:"Regulations prohibiting network management risk undermining free speech on the Internet by allowing P2P traffic to overwhelm the network and prevent non-P2P traffic from reaching its destination," the coalition said in its filing. "The effective prioritization of P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and ought to be resoundingly rejected."
These groups are so busy pleasing donors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Black_Chamber_of_Commerce), they apparently don't much care if their arguments actually make any sense, in this case associating the desire for a content-agnostic Internet with racism and oppression of free speech. Compacting the problem, when the technology press reports on such stories, they apparently don't feel the need to mention (http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/29/Civil-rights-groups-FCC-should-allow-network-management_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/29/Civil-rights-groups-FCC-should-allow-network-management_1.html) who's paying these groups.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/When-Civil-Rights-Groups-Become-Telco-PR-92323)