Slashdot Mirror


The Misleading Fliers Comcast Used To Kill Off a Local Internet Competitor

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes In the months and weeks leading up to a referendum vote that would have established a locally owned fiber network in three small Illinois cities, Comcast and SBC (now AT&T) bombarded residents and city council members with disinformation, exaggerations, and outright lies to ensure the measure failed. The series of two-sided postcards painted municipal broadband as a foolhardy endeavor unfit for adults, responsible people, and perhaps as not something a smart woman would do. Municipal fiber was a gamble, a high-wire act, a game, something as "SCARY" as a ghost. Why build a municipal fiber network, one asked, when "internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?" In the corner, in tiny print, each postcard said "paid for by SBC" or "paid for by Comcast." The postcards are pretty absurd and worth a look.

29 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Get used to this... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These sort of things are legal now. Corporations are people, and people have free speech, and spending money is speech.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Get used to this... by SoCalChris · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he's associating it with Citizen's United v. FEC

    2. Re:Get used to this... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Making wildly exaggerated claims always has been legal. Imagine if it were otherwise: you'd have to arrest whole advertising companies, and political parties, and organized religions, and the people who send me forwarded emails...

      ...

      ...What? Oh, sorry, I guess I kind of drifted off there.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Get used to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As has been made clear, and you should have known, the narrative in this case is Citizens United.

      Thing is, this should have failed miserably for SBC and Comcast. I have no trouble seeing through corporate fear mongering. The fact that it worked says a lot more about the voters than it does about any court ruling. So that's where I put the blame; stupid fucking sheeple.

    4. Re:Get used to this... by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he's associating it with Citizen's United v. FEC

      Yeah. If only Citizens United hadn't happened then Comcast/SBC couldn't have done this — 10 years ago — six years before Citizens United.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:Get used to this... by Perky_Goth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty insulting to the democratic process to accuse the winners of being "[expletive deleted] sheeple" when you don't agree with a result.

      When they vote against their interests, they're not being clever.

    6. Re:Get used to this... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's pretty insulting to the democratic process to accuse the winners of being "[expletive deleted] sheeple" when you don't agree with a result.

      Why wouldn't I insult the democratic process? The only inherent value to it is that it tends to screw up slightly less, slightly slower, and slightly less impactfully other forms of government. It screws up plenty often. This is one such case.

      For instance, democracies suck when voting on a question of fact. If something is better and cheaper when supplied by the government, why shouldn't the government supply it?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Get used to this... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have no trouble seeing through corporate fear mongering.

      I suspect there are a lot of people who feel the same way. Some of them may have participated in the vote and not voted the way you wanted them to.

      Ding! This. 100x this.

      Going WAAY off topic here, I think this exact thing is the cause for a bunch of angst, worry, and anger: The ever-so-simple and plain, obvious "FACT" that I'm right. If you agree, then you're smart. If not, then you're either a dumba** or a corporate tool.

      This can be seen in Religion, Reps vs Dems, Political Correctness, Climate Change, _any_ kind of "truthers", cigarettes, and even Flat Earth.

      And I'm sorry, all we've got to go on is science. If not that, the fallback is Old Wives Tales and Religion. What else is there?

      That's what the "Elders" (AKA elected Mayors or Governors) are for; they've seen it already, or at least are a point of local authority. Either that, or go find the leader of the local gang and quit thinking, because after all: that's HIS job.

      How do I justify this? Well first of all, I'm right. :-) I think I'll finish this out on my website, this seems to be an interesting thought. But here's a parting thought.

      Back in the 3-Network days, newspapers and TVs let us broadcast one-way (simplex) and people actually trusted them (Walter Cronkite). Moving to 24-hour cable and such did that with more information to sift thru. And now the "internet" (Facebook, and your favorite news site that filters and reinforces your beliefs) still lets that happen, but now we can hear other thoughts and have to sift thru them as well. (All thoughts are equal, right?) And you don't want to ignore new "evidence", so keeping up with the times is both interesting and mandatory. But at a certain point you finally give out and freeze your current thought, or proxy it out elsewhere.

      Never mind the special people who are actually trying to manipulate and put their own "special" way to view things.


      "Won't someone think of the children?" some people cry occasionally to emotionally buttress their argument. Well gee, *I* do: I like them fried, with lots of ketchup; so what's your point?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    8. Re:Get used to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Here in Oregon we've just lived through the Cover Oregon fiasco. A government-run website that was supposed to allow people to sign up for health insurance."

      You myopic asshole. The site was contracted out to a private company. The 'gubbmint' didn't do the coding, didn't build the pages, didn't accept $134 million in payment and then deliver a turd pile in return. Individuals employed by a COMMERCIAL ENTITY fucked over the website. AND the taxpayers.

      And let's not forget to mention the crony that ORACLE CORPORATION had in place, the person that they had already paid off to give them the contract.

      Here's a simple Google search to help remind you that 'gubbmint' didn't build the site.

      https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS480US502&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what%20company%20built%20the%20failed%20oregon%20health%20care%20website

    9. Re:Get used to this... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Better" is not a purely subjective term. Something with higher quality and lower cost is objectively better.

  2. Appropriate punishment by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A fine large enough to cover the costs of rolling out fibre in the 3 cities involved.

    The money from the fine can then be used to roll out fibre to the 3 cities.

    Everyone wins, except SBC and Comcast.

    1. Re:Appropriate punishment by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you intend for them to fine a company for buying advertisement space, and using it?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Appropriate punishment by sstamps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fraudulent advertising, perhaps?

      I'm sure some highly-paid lawyer type could find something to stick on them.

      --
      -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    3. Re:Appropriate punishment by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fraudulent advertising, perhaps?

      They were not stating *facts*, but rather their opinion. "Disinformation" is rarely out-and-out fraud.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Appropriate punishment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were not stating *facts*, but rather their opinion.

      Did you look at the fliers?

      There's this quote:

      "internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?"

      I'm pretty sure referring to Comcast as a "respectable business" is about as fraudulent as it gets. I'm surprised these fliers didn't burst into flames before the shills could hand them out.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Appropriate punishment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But slander and libel are notoriously hard to prove, and both Comcast and AT&T have very good lawyers to vet the message so that there was a very fine line they did not cross.

      It's not their lawyers that are protecting them. It's their lobbyists and officers who decide on political donations.

      We're in a brave new Citizens United world now. Makes no difference that a very large majority of people disagree with Citizens United and corporate personhood. Until Antonin Scalia and/or Clarence Thomas go to meet their judgement, we're stuck with it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Re:Comcast should run for office by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why run for office when you can rent it for less?

  4. Re:If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this means is that people have absolutely no idea what the internet is, how it works and how any of it affects them. Computers are still magic to most people. I used to hope that as more and more people grow up with computers, computer literacy would improve. Nothing of the sort happened. These people use computers more, but they accept them as quasi-intelligent/magic devices. They don't even understand the fundamental difference between Facebook/Twitter and the open web, even though that's hardly a technological thing. They perceive big businesses as relatively safe havens. Diversity and choice in a field where they can only make random decisions based on no understanding is plain scary. They don't want choice, they don't want freedom. They are not equipped to handle it.

  5. Works fine by GWBasic · · Score: 3, Informative

    My hometown has municipal broadband, it's had it since 2000. It works much better than Comcast, and they're much easier to work with.

    1. Re:Works fine by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      My hometown has municipal broadband, it's had it since 2000.

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your postcards.

  6. Explains some things by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe these fliers were honest, and Comcast just believes the investing in an ISP is a money-losing venture. It would explain some things.

    I guess the only sensible response is to sell your stock in Comcast. They view their own business as a money-pit and a disaster waiting to happen.

  7. News Flash FUD works! by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FUD works folks, that's why you have spin doctors constantly shaping news headlines with press releases and carefully worded speeches. Couple that with a litany of non-profit organizations to get the word out and you have your own fact machine. Really, facts don't matter because people's perceptions are more important than mere facts. This might have been a great idea, a municipally based service without all the baggage that a big carrier brings to the table but hey, why let facts get in the way of myth?

    Dirty tricks in business have been around for centuries and nobody should be surprised that Comcast and SBC(AT&T) did this.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. Re:And this friends, is why buying a voice is wron by jeIIomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You could make voting conditional on passing a test. Not a straight IQ test, although that should be a part of it.

    Yeah, so the oh-so-trustworthy people in our government can have an easier way to oppress segments of the population. Also, IQ tests are absolute nonsense.

    And I'm sure these tests would be perfectly unbiased, not at all ambiguous, and would vastly improve the situation. If we can't even get standardized tests right, how the hell do you propose we create tests that will determine whether or not someone gets access to a fucking fundamental right?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. Uneducated, lazy consumers by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People didn't look, or think, they just reacted from their gut. Sounds like perfectly trained American voters/consumers.

    Who's the villain here?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  10. Re:On the other hand... by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't remember exactly but I seem to recall that I participated in at least five debates with these two groups. Again, TFA refers back to 2003 and some things are lost in a decade. We did fairly well with the referendums but ultimately, comcast and SBC spent around $2.1 mil in advertising IIRC and we were only able to raise around $40k for our side. It was a good fight but we just couldn't overcome the robo-calling with do you still beat your wife type questions and the full page ads in the local papers etc.

    --
    Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
  11. I WAS THERE. IT'S ALL TRUE. by PeteCollins · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All: Feel free to hit me up with any questions. Either here, via email, or phone. Pete Collins I.T. Manager City of Geneva, Illinois pcollins@geneva.il.us 630.232.1743

    1. Re:I WAS THERE. IT'S ALL TRUE. by PeteCollins · · Score: 3, Informative

      Much of the data is over 10 years old, but here's how we answered the bulk of questions in 2004: http://www.geneva.il.us/index.... 1. No local ISP was created as the referenda did not pass at the polls. 2. See this write up: http://www.dslreports.com/show... 3. Yes. See here for current info - http://www.muninetworks.org/ 4. The first time around in 2003, the build was to be backed using General Obligation bonds (tax-payer backed) and was put on the ballot by the elected officials. When the issue went to the polls the second time in 2004, it was put on the ballot by CITIZENS COLLECTING SIGNATURES and the referenda question specifically blocked any taxpayer exposure (fund it any way you like but there can be no taxpayer risk). It was still spun by the incumbents as being a tax risk.

  12. All government is not the same. by dtmancom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I have no faith in government to be an ISP."

    I have no faith in the federal government to run an ISP. They would be worse than Comcast, and would probably never get it running until they have spent a year's GDP.

    I have slightly more faith in a state government to run one. Not as many people to pay-off around most state capitols as there are around DC.

    I would have a lot of faith in a local or city government to get it done. They live right there amongst their customers, typically have to work within a budget, and have a vested interest in doing it right the first time.

  13. Re:Missing the headline by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you take people who believe that government doesn't work and put them in charge of a government and it doesn't work, you haven't proven that government doesn't work.