from: Associated Content [1]
AT&T U-verse Deploys in Connecticut Stirs Controversy
Can Someone Buy Your Free Speech?
By adelehouston
The free speech of hundreds of consumers was paid for in advertising funds expended by AT&T this year. In a recent campaign to deploy U-verse in Connecticut (a timeline of events can be found here; http://7towntv.org/ct_acm.htm ) a massive marketing campaign rallied consumers to fight for competition and fair prices. It was slick.
Television service providers need fair competition, consumers need truth in advertising and people need government 'for the people', not the profiteers - but as companies bundle phone, television and internet - who represents what and why gets murky. And as Connecticut falls in this national telecom debate, so do many other states with AT&T as a current or prospective provider.
Our technology is changing faster than our laws to harness technology for the common good. As consumers we need to be more aware. What looks easy and hits a chord with us may be just that, an advertisement disguised as free speech, yes free speech.
Recently, every Internet article referencing the new AT&T U-Verse Internet TV product and how it would be, or not be, regulated was accompanied by an interactive Ad. Ironically, AT&T also bought Ad space on cable TV to bash their cable competitors. And the traditional print component to the marketing plan was not less traditional as they claimed to be -you and me.
Throughout the entire time-line of public discourse about U-verse, which includes both regulatory & court proceedings, AT&T funded a marketing campaign that presented itself as a consumer choice organization (MoreConsumerChoice.org and wewantchoice.com). AT&T used the TV4US campaign to automatically generated letter to the local regulatory agency known as the DPUC. These letters did some bashing of government agents like the Attorney General who was actually representing consumer interests. False consumer Ads polluted the integrity of information associated with the issue of fair television provider competition.
The real consumer had at an interactive click, a choice of several letters, an option to tailor the pre-drafted letters and an option to start from scratch. All you needed to do was provide a name and address and you were presumably uniting with other informed citizens to fight for fair competition. Your incentive was a belief that your cable TV bill was too high because of monopolies. And who knows more about monopolies than telephone companies. I digress. Most letters were sent unchanged.
This issue marketed as competitive pricing for television providers is rooted in the tax and regulatory differences between providers of telephone, TV and Internet. In trying to define U-verse as an Internet service rather than a television service AT&T is trying to avoid paying for rights of way used to get television by any name to the home. All corporations (both cable & telephone) would prefer being Internet providers because they avoid paying for rights-of-way and some requirements for universal service under current laws.
So consumer beware, your voice may be well paid. You may be speaking up for those best able to represent themselves. Before clicking thru a process that purchases your rights of free speech consider looking at who you are joining forces with. Check out the About US pages for the organizations, read the fine print or wait to speak up when you are more informed. Yes, someone can buy your free speech? Maybe AT&T already did.
More resources
http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/connecticut-franchise-battle-continues/2007-10-09?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss