
Astroturf hurts: leadership resigns after GLAAD supports T-Mobile sale - joelhaus
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/glaadatt-meltdown-new-rules-for-teclo-backed-non-profits.ars
======
joelhaus
This is nauseating. It would be nice to see some investment in the network
rather than in their vast lobby. It is heartening to see at least one non-
profit hold their leadership accountable though.

> _And when the FCC considered its net neutrality rules, the nonprofit
> commentaries flowed like high speed data. Our examination of a letter
> written by 19 civil rights groups questioning open Internet rules found that
> most were recipients of Comcast, AT &T, or Verizon money. In the case of
> LULAC, a single grant came to $1.5 million. Groups that we have spoken with
> always deny any sort of outright opinion selling._

~~~
radicaldreamer
Corporations, especially old school blue-chip ones, will generally follow the
path of least resistance to profits.

~~~
yid
Also known as fiduciary duty.

~~~
Klinky
Also known as morally questionable & gaming the market.

~~~
fleitz
Why is getting paid to express an opinion morally questionable?

When GLAAD's members pay them to express positions in support of gay rights,
is that morally questionable? Or is it only morally questionable when they
express opinions that you do not like?

I suspect the conversation between GLAAD, AT&T, and their membership will go
something like this:

    
    
      Members: You're losing $500K per year
      GLAAD: AT&T can you match this?
      AT&T: Will $600K suffice?
      GLAAD: OK.

~~~
rbanffy
They are not only paid to express opinions, but to _credibly_ do it. When they
throw their credibility out the window by accepting money to express anything,
they cease to be effective in supporting gay and lesbian interests.

------
theoj
>> GLAAD's letter declared. "What our community wants in wireless phone and
Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access,
faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that
the facts strongly favor the merger."

So let me guess this straight: a merger that reduces competition by reducing
the number of market players will get you competitive pricing, more access and
faster service. Don't make me laugh.

------
econgeeker
The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish
three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions
have done, but this essentially set out the competitive landscape to be (what
eventually became the companies) of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.

Given that spread spectrum does not require allocation of bands, these
auctions of spectrum essentially limit competition. They are near monopoly
grants (triopoly, specifically.) If every operator were allowed to use the
entire spectrum range, using spread spectrum signaling, with straightforward
regulations on power, placement, etc, the cellular carrier landscape could
consist of dozens or hundreds of operators-- however many the market would
bear.

Given that, at the spectrum level, competition is limited by the government,
the idea of worrying about there not being enough competition is kinda funny.

For anyone other than the three ordained spectrum holders to operate, they
have to do deals with the three majors. Many of these smaller companies are
already essentially owned by the majors. This merger is just a consolidation
of the two carries using the same protocol.

GLAAD doesn't represent me, even though I am queer. And if they took money for
this, then I don't really have a problem. This is no different than anyone
being paid to advertise.

~~~
pyre

      > This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.
    

Really? I find that hard to believe. They are using (abusing) their position
as a respected non-profit to further the goals of their benefactors. Now,
there might be nothing illegal about this, but I posit that if we live in a
society that largely accepts this as par for the course, then the FCC should
be largely disregarding whatever these groups are saying, rather than taking
them into account.

Personally, I find this to be a form of fraud. They were being paid to have a
particular opinion, while obfuscating the fact that they didn't reach that
opinion on their own and without coercion in the form of money donations (or
the real/perceived threat of receiving no future donations). Let's face it,
their 'opinion' would be much less effective had they disclosed that they were
being paid to have it.

------
Apocryphon
_"What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly
what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive
pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the
merger."_

I do believe that someone can write a grand satire of this whole circus. "The
Marriage of T-Mobile." Do I smell a Tony?

~~~
fleitz
They could call it "Rent: Seeking"

