Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Suggests To 300K Employees To Lobby the FCC
Several readers sent in the news that AT&T's top lobbyist sent a letter to all 300,000 employees urging them to give feedback to the FCC as it gears up for rulemaking on net neutrality. He even supplied talking points approved by the PR department. The lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, suggested that employees use their personal email accounts when they weigh in with the FCC. Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing: "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."
This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation:
You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed.
My work here is dung.
What's the big deal? I also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business. It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.
AT&T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website. You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.
http://openinternet.gov/
But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate. She didn't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so. What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work. I'm sure there are some places where this doesn't hold, but I think most office drone jobs don't apply. I think it's pure bullshit and someone should call their sorry asses on the carpet for it. I'll vote or lobby whoever the fuck I want and however I see fit.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
...but supposing all the employees actually respond, what do you think the FCC is going to make of several hundred thousand email from a single domain owned by a company with vested interests in the process? If they can't spot such blatant astroturfing, I'd be amazed.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Spoke the sheep.
Actually, subtract 1.2 million because the American family averages 4 people and you know that every AT&T employee will have their spouse and 2 kids lobby. And, if you include the bogus ones that are named for the dog, well, the numbers just keep growing.
Let's just put it this way, every letter against Net Neutrality is bogus because of this.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
revoked.
Some of us would like to preserve the illusion that our government isn't totally at the beck and call of corporate interests. This sort of astroturfing is exactly what makes people cynical, when individual citizens are roped in to parroting the lines of the place they work for.
Perhaps they won't check to see if you have done their bidding, but what if they did? What if it turns out that was a job requirement buried somewhere in that huge contract you signed when you started your job?
The current lobbying system is bad enough, we don't need to make it even worse by blurring the line between the opinions of individuals and that of corporations.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I signed up to be Serena Williams training assistant, but what I got instead I still cannot believe. After being selected, I had an appointment at her estate. The front door was open, and I wandered through her place until I finally heard her behind a door. When I opened the door, I suddenly smelled the overwhelming scent of food. I walked in and saw her lying on a massive table, completely naked, surrounded by massive amounts of food. Loaved of bread, pies, steaks, gallons of water and several containers of buttermilk shakes. She was gorging down and stuffing mouthfulls of good into her mouth. She glanced at me and spoke.
"This is what 24,000 calories of food looks like, I'm gonna need it for for our workout."
I awkwardly stood in the corner until she finished, and watched her gut expand. Finally she hopped off, and squatted down, still nude. She told me to leap on her back. "I need a bit of extra weight so this isnt too easy" she said. I mounted her huge muscular back and hung on like a baby koala. She jumped up with me on her and began jogging through the house, and out the door. She ran for hours, uphill, downhill, across shallow creeks and even climbed up a cliff. I looked down and watched her huge hams of buttocks muscle bounce as she effortlessly carried me along, a perfect physique pulsing with power. Finally nightfall was coming, and she set me down. "Boy" she said "That was a little easy, and all that energy is gone, wanna see what 24,000 calories looks like coming out he other end?" Before I could respond, she bent over and moaned. Finally, a giant geyser of liquid shit launched out several feet, while a blast of urine came out with enough intensity to drill into the dirt. She went for minutes, moaning loudly. Then the pee finished and she began leaking thick white globs of juice. "Sorry" she said "That's because the whole time I was running, I was thinking of your cute face"
If you don't like it, see figure 1!!!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
When I've worked for large companies, the further up the chain the less likely I'd be to care whatsoever what it said. That makes this even less of a suggestion, and more like a wish, that anyone may or may not fulfill (or in fact even read as this sounds like a message I would have just skipped over). It's not like a "high level exec" is going to come by the office next Monday and ask how the letter to the FCC is coming!
I don't see anything wrong with a "high level exec" or anyone else saying that if you care about the issue, contact your congressman. Who are YOU to say that all employees agree with what he wants them to say? Meanwhile he has pointed out to them just who to talk to, one way or the other.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.
In many circumstances where the government asks people to comment (e.g. changes to SEC rules), all comments, along with names are made public.
So yes, they probably can tell.
I'm a Verizon employee and received an email sent to basically all different sub-companies and departments about this. They even created a theme site about it, how to take action in different ways...
Will be trying to switch job soon.
Oh noez, the koreprits are taking over everybody!!1
Businesses used to hire speakers to conduct speaking tours and preach the pro-business gospel to employees. The US once promoted one such speaker to President. This was back when the US still had an industrial base so this is probably news to our younger readers.
The fact is that business has, over time, become less presumptuous with regard to directly influencing the political thinking of its captive audience. There is nothing 'new' about this facet of 'worldorder' and claiming such is certain ignorance.
In any case this is all perfectly legal despite whatever knee-jerk anti-business reaction you've been trained to have.
This is the only sort of lobbying that should be allowed
(imnsho)
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
We need to do the last mile our selves. The FCC needs to do there job and give people the right to put our wireless router on the roof and forward local traffic. Until then its communications by the monopoly for the monopoly. We can not get a competition between ISPs until the last mile can be done without total control between 1 or 3 super providers.
After that, perhaps a work program can be set up to run backbone lines as a way to make jobs for people out of work. It's all about creating the infrastructure.
In fact, it was only a few days ago that Dilbert's company suggested the same thing.
See? Same old same old.....
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
-Possum Lodge Motto
suufering *BSD a productivity
Let AT&T censor their Internet, and we can all switch to the un-filtered Public Option. Hell, it would be way cheaper than Health Care.
now the FCC can just set a spam filter to trash ever email with the keyword "net neutrality" and go forward in implementing legislation enforcing net neutrality for all common carriers and anyone that breaks net neutrality will be find double and lose common carrier status.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
When I worked at UPS we were instructed to write letters to representatives. The supervisors recited, we wrote and signed. I knew then it was skirting legality, but I was 19 at the time and didn't put up much of a fight. Fast forward ten years and I was asked to do the same thing for another company in the pharm business. That time I laughed.
Memo: Add memo from Jim to existing and new employment contract.
I meant to indicate that what you said about the beliefs they had were sometimes true, but never accurate on the part of the high-level-exec believing them! Sorry for any bother..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How is this any different than, say, the Sierra Club or the FSF urging their members / followers to lobby their politicos on a particular point of view? It's OK for "us" but not for "them"?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
trouble if they do this. management telling employees what to do regarding political matters is risky. Ass soon as a few employees claim to feel pressured, their will be a lawsuit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Do what your corporations say, or get the whip... "nigger".
AT&T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website. You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.
I would urge Slashdot readers to comment AGAINST net neutrality.
At first the term sounds great, like warm puppies or brownies fresh from the oven.
But if you think about it, "net neutrality" is a guise for the FCC being able to tell companies how to manage a network.
And for what? Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen, but have not actually come to pass? Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.
Do you really gain significant benefit from it? And in the meantime you've given the FCC a mandate for even more power, even more oversight, even more people saying "well hey, I should control that thing over there too".
This should be the mantra going forward for every debate, on any subject - does it increase the power of government over the people they govern? The answer at this point, should always be no - we have gone way too far down the path of meddling and all the truly helpful regulations are in place already. It is time, to unwind.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Becasue when management starts applying pressure for you to be a team player people will write the email, and possible CC it to their boss.
That all sounds very frightening!!!
Until you click on the link and realize it's just a web form (the email is just to say who you are, though I didn't see the form required it). Plus they asked you to post from home, remember? So they can't even track access to the form or your email.
Honestly, how many people would even read the email much less be such a tool as to CC their immediate supervisor? That's an instant Brownnose Badge, I would say.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
From the FCC comments, this was too good not to repost here - credit to Len Grace, apparently with Cable Digital News:
The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net Neutrality Rules including, broadband speeds to be adopted for those companies using federal dollars to upgrade their networks. This comes at the same time the FCC is proposing to provide the underpinnings of a governmental mandate to; serve the underserved.
This is yet another dangerous road the FCC is attempting to navigate from a top-down regulatory standpoint, and could simply derail the original efforts to have success in the broadband investment philosophy it generated.
Here are the perilous implications:
Mandating ISP speeds on the front end of legislation could impede private investment from taking on the challenges of serving sparsely populated or lower demographic areas
Creating an open and share all approach for content access will again scare off potential investors who will be suspect of reaching respectable returns on their money
The burgeoning internet advertising market will be hampered, or even stopped, from investing in the very sector the FCC is attempting to help grow and prosper
These are the important issues related to recent discussions on Net Neutrality to be addressed, but need to be considered while proposing to regulate an industry on the verge of creating just the applications and services that consumers want with internet connections. My message to the FCC is; do not blow the very opportunity to let private investment create the infrastructure, content and applications which you have incented them to accomplish, by over regulating those companies into inaction.
It continues to be evident that the best incentive would be to take a hands-off approach to regulation while providing the capital incentive for the networks to build out their infrastructures. What scares Wall Street more than anything is the prospect of heavy regulation that will stifle investment opportunities. This has a negative effect on company stocks, shareholders, and the willingness of private investment to flourish, and in essence, get the job done.
The FCC should be promoting a healthy investment and competition environment rather than a heavy-handed regulatory approach for the future of Internet access. This would create the (win-win) situation the government agency is looking for, whether it realizes the implications, or not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your link won't load.
the front page loads but this specific link does not.
I'm tempted to jump to the conclusion of major ISP blockage, but I just tried from a dutch proxy and it appears the page really is totally hosed.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The Sierra Club and FSF are voluntary associations of people whose whole bases for association is a common ideology: members of those organizations pay the leaders of those organizations specifically to help them acheive particular shared ideological aims. So, advice from those leaders on steps the members can take to make the money that they pay to acheive those ends be more effective is consistent with the job those members are paying the professional staff of the organization to do. And the members of the Sierra Club and FSF aren't dependent on those organizations, generally, for their livelihood.
AT&T employees aren't, as a general rule, voluntarily paying AT&T management to help them defeat net neutrality, and are, OTOH, dependent on AT&T for their jobs, so the circumstances aren't even remotely parallel.
"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."
We get periodic emails along similar lines, couched as suggestions, in the large bank in which I am a cog. Know what happens? The vast majority of our 10s of thousands of employees just ignore them. They often get lost in the daily email noise. I suspect that the people at AT&T are no different. And surprise! no repercussions, because they /are/ just suggestions.
I don't like this in any way (it also irritates me when they do it at work), but to imply that people are somehow being coerced into actually doing as stated in the email it is its own kind of aggravating. Try to give us drones some credit, eh?
Now pardon me, I've got to go -- I almost forgot to write out my monthly check to our PAC!
True. The big difference between an employer trying to influence its employees politics and a union trying to influence its members politics is that an employer can fire employees, while a union can't.
They can just beat you when you leave work for the day, or have other member do unsavory things to you and your food through the day, or make veiled threats against your family.
Yeah, that's way better. And certainly never convinced anyone to quit who was against a union where they worked.
Meanwhile if you are fired for something like this, hello lawsuit.
That's kind of a large difference in terms of power influence.
I totally agree with the statement, just not who has the most power over the worker.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would ask that anyone voting me down have the balls to say what exactly you disagree with, rather than silently striking from the shadows just because you don't understand what "net neutrality" really means.
Has any government oversight committee in the history of mankind ever remained "Neutral"? If you don't like companies controlling the internet you should be fearful indeed of giving a group of ten or so easily bribed people huge sway over the whole industry. THAT is your "neutrality".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
they may as well lobby, they sure aren't working hard to extend coverage.
What scares Wall Street more than anything is the prospect of heavy regulation that will stifle investment opportunities.
You're right. Wall Street is going to have to choose between investment opportunities at AT&T and investment opportunities in content-producing corporations. Given the utter inability of the majority of Wall Street to think beyond next quarter's earning reports, I have full faith that they will choose to invest in AT&T, and once the steams, youtubes and itunes of the world close down and nobody bothers to pay for broadband anymore because there's nothing to download on it, these investors will be screaming and crying at the government for my tax money.
It used to be that establishing barriers to entry required either natural law or the participation of the government. The FCC should be promoting a healthy competition environment, but the only thing that would get the regulators assassinated faster than network neutrality regulations would be invalidating local franchise contracts and actually doing something about the monopolies.
Even with all of that, it's going to take more than some "healthy investment" to rout AT&T. It's going to take several waves of suicidal nutcases investing billions of dollars in "alternate" internet infrastructure, each round wearing down AT&T's monopoly war chest until AT&T can no longer deny the competition.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work."
You spend 40 hours a week at work, and the money you make a work provides for all your material needs at home. I don't see how the two could possibly be divorced. I'm not sure why that would be a desirable situation in any case. You shouldn't invest a lot of time in a company like AT&T if you feel that their economic and political goals are in disagreement with what you think is right.
So if "high level exec" can send such an email to 300k employees, then a low level grunt ought to be able to do the same, with a possibly dissenting point of view and talking points.
That's not very bright. I see why you posted AC.
The exec has more ownership over the company than you, and decides how to expend company resources (like emails).
He's allowed to express his opinions using those resources, if he wants. Who cares? If he puts people off a lot of people could be compelled to act against his wishes, just out of spite.
That's the tradeoff with a lot of power comes... not so much responsibility, as the potential to anger a lot of people very quickly and screw yourself.
His choice if he goes down that road. Be thankful at times you are just a peon without the ability to actually act on your impulse of mass communication to show any lack of intelligence. Oh wait, here you are on Slashdot...
P.S. - for the causal reader, posting A.C. is an invitation to be abused, I merely take him up on his offer (and yes, obviously it is a he).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tall about your Freudian slip!
Beware of the Leopard.
I've witnessed some slimy handiwork at AT&T with regard to H-1B abuse.
Table-ized A.I.
We already have cable television. It's awful. If you think that ESPN360 is really the next stage in innovation on the internet, you seriously misunderstand what makes the internet special.
The framework contains "Reasonable Network Management" language. It's more than I would compromise, and more than these companies deserve, but it's there.
Your talking points basically amount to a threat: If backbones and ISPs are not allowed to alter or degrade traffic based on their business relationship with those hosting content (or even, perhaps, the authors of the OS or the manufacturer of the hardware), they'll quit building infrastructure, allegedly because "Wall Street" wishes it so.
Weak sauce. Was that really "too good not to repost"? Unimpressed.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The free and open part of it is the best thing going. Please do not screw it up with regulations like the net neutrality proposal.
People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse. Hopefully some influential people on our side reads those comments and understands what these people really mean. Otherwise the overwhelming majority of responses are against net neutrality, which is not the kind of backing we want the big corps to have.
My webcomic
In my twenty-something years as an employee I have never seen this sort of corporate "suggestion". I'm in Australia. I mainly worked for Australian companies, but have worked in a subsidiary of a very large US company. I see a few concrete examples in the replies so far, but they all seem to be US residents. Does this crap happen outside of the US?
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
back in 04 we were sent letters telling us that if Bush was not elected, our business would go bankrupt.
I work for an ISP.
The general meme I have seen most places is that "Net Neutrality" is the only way to go. However, I have to ask, if your ISP promises to treat all data streams equally, how are services that need guaranteed low latency going to work?
For most internet activities, such as watching youtube videos, downloading or uploading large files, and viewing web pages, a second or two of latency is no big deal. The ISP can give you bandwidth when it has it to spare.
However, for things like online gaming, Video and audio chat, and ESPECIALLY for cloud gaming services, latency is CRITICAL. The ISP needs to allocate the highest priority to transmitting these packets without any delay. Even if it has to push back or pause requests from other applications. No, a bigger pipe is not the answer : bandwidth will always be a scarce commodity, and your ISP needs to be able to make sure that certain services always have enough.
You'd have to run a client on your machine or something to specify or sign a particular packet stream as needing low latency communications. The ISP would either meter your total "low latency" bandwidth for a month or limit how much bandwidth/second it could use up.
Doing it this way might not be network neutral, but it's THE way to make services like cloud gaming and video chat work smoothly and without problems.
+5 insightful.
Support SETI@home
I really AM a Verizon employee and they did no such thing.
More at&t FUD.
I work for AT&T and this is the first I've heard of this letter. And I'm one of those geeks that actually hangs out on the company's HR intranet site a few times a week. No one I work with has heard of this thing, and none of us really care about net neutrality in general. Personally, I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides of the divide and don't really have an opinion on the matter strong enough to share. But to state that my employer is "urging" me and all of my coworkers to vote a certain way is preposterous.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
As one of the people who actually got this email, I can say with certainty that it was a suggestion. The internal communication pointed out that regulation impacts our jobs and suggested it would be good for the company to agree ... everyone at AT&T is well aware that no one's job is in any way impacted no matter what they do with the suggestion. Obviously if someone is looking to move up in the company they'll support the message, but that isn't a statement on net neutrality, thats business.
Personally, I ignored the email but talked to my coworkers about it (we're a network design group so this is spot on with what we do) and that includes management ... this is a non topic. Companies get successful because they do whats in their best interests ... if you don't like what they do, don't use their products.
No, I'm Spartacus!
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I'm posting anonymously here - if you want me to give you AT&T's official corporate opinion, I can point you to the PR department or the web site, and I'm not wearing a suit and tie and wielding a +3 Impressive Title right now. This is strictly my personal opinions, which only agree with the company's opinions when the company's right.
Our managers aren't tracking whether we've sent in our letters to the FCC. It's not even like the level of pressure we used to get for contributing to The United Way back in the day. And they really really don't want 300,000 people sending in opinions that claim to be AT&T's; they've had enough trouble with Ed Whitacre making that speech a few years ago about Google hogging the tubes that kick-started this mess.
Whether we get to remain employed is another matter entirely - Moore's Law means that equipment becomes more and more powerful, and can do more work with less management than ever, and while the telecom industry may not be diving over the cliff as aggressively as we were back in 2002 (between the Internet bust and the 9/11-caused decline in travel and therefore in 800-number call-center calling, which was a high-value cash cow) we're still pretty much used to annual layoffs.
Sure, sure, everyone thinks AT&T is _evil_. Fine. More anger because it cannot be proven. But do they not have rights to loyal employees? Or do two wrongs make a right?
People who work at AT&T should broadly agree with the company lest they help something they deplore. If they are "just there for the money", then they've sold out and they cannot claim their free opinion is worth much. Of course, those whine the loudest.
So can someone point to a real problem that has actually occurred that "Net Neutrality" would fix?
AT&T officers and directors should be arrested on criminal charges and it should all be broadcast on National TV (like Bernie Madoff) to make a very clear example of such illegal behavior will NOT BE TOLERATED.
Just a week ago: http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-10-13/
Every major company has a Political Action Committee, or PAC and does things like this. A few times a year I receive emails and videos from the President/CEO about their standpoint on political issues. The last one we received had to do with potential changes in the way international earnings were reported for tax reasons. Most people just laugh them off or ignore them.
On-topic I can’t say it is right for any company to tell others what side to take on political issues no matter what side it’s is. I have a theory: If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America, one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be a very difficult task to achieve. Kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware (the software cannot function on the hardware). So, if one cannot change the hardware, one can chose to run an emulator or virtualization layer. In this case I believe it is capitalism, aka business. For example, government cannot infringe on your rights, to smoke a cigarette let’s say. But a company can because your employment is mutual which “volunteers” you for anything the company wants. Therefore, a communist regime need not change this country’s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses, they only need to control the corporations. Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else?? The sad irony here is that communism can use its nemesis “capitalism” against itself like a parasite uses its host.
I know *most* slashdot'ers are a mixture of young IT professional's and students alike, and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there's nothing wrong with that. The danger (and this is historically substantiated) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ideals. Granted, like capitalism communism has it's good and bad parts. The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at the same time (check and balance) while communism starts out with good intent like "Net Neutrality", but then evolves into something nefarious. "Net Neutrality", oh sounds so fair doesn't it? I think communists like to use oxymoron’s for naming things. Like "Free Press" founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist. Sad that many of you have bought into the "business is evil" and "capitalism is evil", there has to be a villain etc... and are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists. The sad part is by the time you all "figure it out" it'll be too late. I used to think the Germans were soooo stupid for falling for the Nazi’s and Hitler. But knowing history, it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement. You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the same stuff you all are fighting for today: social justice, equality, freedom from big business, better jobs, unifying the country (Nationalism), environmental concerns, community service, etc... Any of this sounds familiar? I'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are the overall "good", just be careful what/whom you vote for, and recognize the hidden agendas. Ironically with all the slams I see on here about "big business" being bad for the little guy, you same individuals see nothing wrong with "big government"?? A word to the wise; governments can change and this one does a lot!
I never would have thought in today’s time aka 2009 we'd be dealing with a real Communist threat within our country. I would have never thought some of you right here right now are communists - some out spoken about it - others being stealthy and hiding under the "liberal" and "progressive" labels. I know there are modern-day communists reading this right now (of course - if this post didn't get "moderated"), and I just want to ask “historically speaking... do you honestly think this is the best model of governing for the human race??”
I’m tired about all these “pro” democracy points of view. News flash – the USA is a “Republic”. Do you think our fore-fathers played rock-paper-scissors to come up with that? Or doing think they saw a fundamental flaw in a true Democracy frame of government? Capitalism is predicated on the individual, while communism is predicated on the collective. The most important diffe
He's got lackying in white lab coats. He's got your kids signing up for brown shirts. He's got you walking through black panthers at the voting booth. And he's got your parents getting the crap beat out of them by SEIU members on Obama's payroll while in line to vote.
So if AT&T wants to keep it's business from being confiscated by Obama by telling it's employees to help them, then good for them. I hope it works.
As someone to whom that letter was addressed, I've definitely been treating it as a suggestion. I don't feel like the higher-ups are trying to make some kind of slave out of me... they're just panicking a little. Which is understandable.
What makes you think "net neutrality" as is being discusses, addresses either issue you mentioned?
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, both problems are resolved. That's kind of my whole point, see? Bad things will occur infrequently, but the market corrects. It's way better than a busybody oversight panel interfering ALL THE TIME.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sort of like when Apple tied the iPhone to the ATT network. Oh man the shit storm that erupted from customer sent them packing...
Actually yes, a lot of people will not go to AT&T and have bought other phones.
How does Net Neutrality fix this?
Sort of like when Charter started imposing bandwidth caps on customers who had their advertised "unlimited" internet access. Yup, turned that one right around.
Which they have every right to do and Net Neutrality rules would simply have them implement tiered pricing.
How did Net Neutrality help there?
Sort of like when *any* cellular network charged for both incoming and outgoing SMS packets. Good thing that uproar ended that practice.
Again, not something Net Neutrality will address at all.
Sort of like when ISPs started redirecting failed DNS website queries to their own ad-laden search pages. God I never thought that would stop!
Please direct me to the language in the proposals that would address this.
You, like so many otherwise seemingly technically ept Slashdot readers have come to worship "Net Neutrality" as the personal ShamWow of the internet, that will scrub clean all wrongs.
Well check again, because what they are discussing doesn't hold water and all it will do is make ISP's even more unpleasant to deal with as they pass on costs of regulation to you and create even more convoluted rules that you have to follow in an attempt to comply.
If I were a real prick I'd push for the passing of "Net Neutrality" rules just so I could laugh my ass off when you all realized just why the term "Devil's Bargain" is so timeless. But I have to use the internet too, and I feel some wierd compulsion to save people like yourselves from your own lack of understanding, so I try my best to show at least some of you the way, and get you to wake up to the reality of what you are attempting to bring about.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>>Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing: "Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&T employees thinking... The founder of Free Press is Robert W. McChesney who is, yes, yet another Marxist. He is a former editor of the Monthly Review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney People love to hate corporations. But they also expect good jobs. Not many people here are quitting their jobs for a chance to work at the local DMV. Get a clue and write your member of Congress. Face it. If you want Euro-style socialism, you need to vote Republican. If you want Pol Pot... keep voting Democratic.
its strange how much power corporations have in influencing the government because if you visit the IRS.gov website, you will find that corporate income taxes collected by the federal government are only 1/4 the amount of individual income taxes collected! we individuals should have 4x more power and influence in the govt compared to corporations. however that is not the case and the opposite is more true, corporations are the ones strongly influencing government policies to their own business benefit at the cost of making life worse for the individual. we need to wake up and kick some serious butt.