Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
AT&T Boss Asks Employees to Fake It
AT&T has "asked' its employees to fake it in the fight against Net Neutrality.
The company’s top policy officer sent a memo to workers on Monday urging them to hide their company affiliation before posting anti-Net Neutrality comments to the Federal Communication Commission’s Web site.
“We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet,” AT&T Senior Executive Vice President James Cicconi wrote in an internal communiqué forwarded to Free Press (and posted here). “It can be done through a personal e-mail account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the ‘Join the Discussion’ link.”
Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.
If that weren’t bad enough, Cicconi urges them to choose from a list of talking points sanctioned by the PR department -- fearful perhaps of what employees might say if they went off script.
Some of the talking points are hard to read without rolling your eyes.
For example: Cicconi suggests that employees write that Net Neutrality will “jeopardize efforts to deliver high-speed Internet services to every American.” Yet he’s unable to provide any rationale for this claim, other than saying that universal access is a goal that “can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure.”
Really?
AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and invested considerably less when it didn’t.
As a requirement of its 2006 merger with BellSouth, AT&T agreed to operate a neutral network (by adhering to the four principles of the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement as well as a fifth principle of nondiscrimination) for two years.
AT&T’s network investments increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition and continued to rise over the two years of the merger agreement. When the neutrality condition expired on Dec. 29, 2008, the company sharply reduced its investment.
So when Cicconi says that Net Neutrality means no buildout, the opposite is true.
By pressuring the company’s employees to pose as average citizens and post AT&T talking points, Cicconi is asking them to be doubly deceptive. Not only are they asked to hide their true identities but also to spread misinformation on behalf of a company that seems to be getting more desperate by the day.
- Posted in
22 Comments so far
Show AllLet's just cut through the phony facade and declare the USA a corporate Oligarchy. Democracy is just a phony PR stunt. Ed Bernays would be proud.
Progressives would be well advised to maintain their nerve and keep up their efforts that obviously has AT&T quite worried. We would also be well advised to eternally vigilant, because the death of Net Neutrality is merely one Republican or corporate Democratic administration away.
And this from the same company that illegally spied on Americans and then paid off our corrupt politicians to get retroactive immunity for their crimes. Everyone who can should divest from AT&T and find other service providers if possible. Do all you US iPhone users see what you're locked into supporting?
I agree with you totally. I've avoided AT&T like the plague. The corporation is the epitome of greed and general skulduggery. I've been with Sprint-Nextel for four years. It has great coverage and customer service is top drawer.
The fact is, all of the major Internet Service Providers are united in fighting Net Neutrality. As we've seen in other industries, mega-corporations tend to follow one another on every big issue, be it health care, corporate personhood or increasing the minimum wage. If you can provide solid proof of a major ISP that isn't involved in some way in fighting Net Neutrality, I'd sincerely like to know about it. Such firms as Sprint/Nextel may claim they are all for an open Internet, but they are still paying lobbyists to pressure the FCC and Congress to pass rules and laws favorable to their own ends, which, they perceive, includes limiting access to certain Internet websites.
I have been told by those who live outside the U.S. that internet service is much, much faster...and cheaper than it is here in the states!
It is. In (e.g.) Norway one can get 10Mb/s both ways (SDSL) for about €35 a month. Here in Massachusetts, I get a nominal 3Mb/s down/0.768Mb/s up ADSL for $30. I chose not to move to a nicer apartment recently because I couldn't get *any* DSL there.
The US and UK are *very* backward in this, compared to most of the countries in Europe.
Not really, I've checked with friends in China, Japan, Canada, Holland, Germany and the UK. The costs for like kind service very similar.
I'm forwarding this, leaving AT&T and telling all my friends and family to do the same.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
AT&T senior execs need to be stripped of immunity over warrantless surveillance and put on trial ASAP.
The phone companies are an arm of the Government didn't you hear?
Well, when you merge all landline phone companies into one...like Bell used to be...what do you expect??? You can call your members of congress and tell them TO STOP ALLOWING MERGERS TO TAKE PLACE!!!
Trust-busting is in need here...anyone who still uses AT&T after reading this article should have their head examined and then have a labotomy if you are going to continue to write a check every month to this corporate crook!!
Unfortunately, AT&T and other phone companies have regional monopolies, and the U.S. government essentially sanctions it. At one point, AT&T was THE monopoly in the country. It's been busted up at least a couple of times, but it lately has been coming back together again, especially as enforcement of antitrust legislation by the U.S. government has flagged.
In essence, your local provider is either AT&T or some other megacorp. The term that is used is "regional Bell operating company" (RBOC). The FCC allocates service areas to one RBOC or the other and you have no choice, short of Internet telephony through cable providers. Even then, your call likely will pass over AT&T's, or some other RBOC's, lines. The cable companies are similar unscrupulous monopolists.
So, I think there is little choice and it's hard to boycott your local carrier.
Really, AT&T and the other carriers should have been broken up and their assets sold after they tapped the public networks for the Bushies, in clear violation of the law. However, Obama and your other Congresspersons voted to let them off the hook.
-TIA
Actually, old Ma Bell was a monopoly, but it was a heavily and completely government regulated monopoly - books open, profits regulated, everything. Basically, it was a nationalized, single-payer telecommunications.
Considering the old technology of those days, service was petty damn good and cheap too. Just dial "O" or "411" and within two seconds, an operator answer and do anything from a repair call to police to fire to looking up a number to dialing the number for you - all for no charge.
I prefer that to what we have now.
If I had another AT&T account, I'd cancel again.
I got rid of AT&T and went TMobile after they cooperated with federal wiretapping. I say BOYCOTT everything they re affiliated with and write them to tell them. They are A$$hol#s!!!!!!!!
My impression is that all telecommunications companies are evil and have been for some time. But AT&T is the worst. Remember their role in overthrowing Allende in Chile? Now that we have some choices, boycott AT&T and choose a lesser evil.
Joe
ATT is awful, but it was ITT involved in the fascist coup in Chile.
Every corporation asks workers to fake it.
This article is extremely uninformative telling us nothing about the pros and cons of regulating the internet. I am not affiliated with ATT, not a family member, not even a client. Yes the corporations lie so blatantly they don't even care if we see their memos anymore. But what would regulating the internet actually do, or undo, for us common folk? Why is ATT against it? Back in the day being a proponent of the "open internet" or free internet was like being a freedom fighter. Now why does ATT join that cause? My guess is that regulating the internet would expose their role in spying on US citizens and would likely lead to criminal charges. But I'm left guessing because you'd rather "report" about what we already know, that corporations lie and bully their employees with impunity.
fcc wants to regulate against dirty tricks by att and toher large corporations to keep net neutrality in place
No! You are falling for the arguments of Ayn Rand/computer geek/libertatian cult.
What AT&T is calling "regulating the internet" is the passing of specific laws that assure all users - from a small blogger to Commondreams.org to Google - all have equal access to the same internet service at the same fee schedules. These are called "common carrier" laws. Right now, such laws only apply to landline telephone, mail, and some passenger and package transport services.
So, under the current "free and unregulated" internet, the owners of the networks can, and will because it is profitable, provide preferential bandwidth and speed, and fees to their big clients, and limited bandwidth and speed to small clients.
Under their concept of "internet freedom" when you want to access, say any Google site, it will come up instantly, but when you want to acess Commondreams.org, you well be left waiting for several minutes for the page to load. Ultimately, AT&T and other big owners of the network lines they could even block web sites and other data transmissions thay don't like altogether!