Save Access

Note: TV4US mentioned in this article is an astroturf organization funded by AT&T

from: Gazette Extra

Lawmakers introduce bill to increase cable competition in Wis.

(Published Friday, March 9, 2007 10:25:18 AM CST)

By Scott Bauer
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. - To increase competition in the cable TV market, lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday to make it easier for new companies to enter a community.

From: Columbia Tribune

AT&T Plays Hardball with ‘Astroturf’

February 27, 2007
By J. Scott Christianson

Tomorrow the House Special Committee on Utilities will consider SB 284, the Missouri Video Franchise Bill. I wrote Feb. 6 that SB 284 is a bad bill. It would reduce public oversight of the cable companies that use public easements, it would essentially eliminate local PEG (public, education and government) channels, it would allow telecom companies to cherry-pick high-profit customers, and it would reduce the ability of government to audit those companies for compliance with the law.

from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

You had to expect it: Video franchise bill hits TV

Sunday, February 18, 2007, 10:40 AM

The first campaign ad of the ‘08 session of the state Legislature has hit the small screen. Sounds strange, doesn’t it?

From: IL Daily Herald

'Astroturf' groups represent industries, not members

By Anna Marie Kukec
Daily Herald Business Writer
Posted Sunday, February 11, 2007

A group called TV4US Coalition placed advertising inserts in newspapers statewide last week aiming to “educate” consumers on how to get better, more competitive rates for television in Illinois.

My Times

Grassroots group or Astroturf?

Comment on this story
STEPHANIE SIEVERS, sng2@springnet1.com, 217-524-5797

SPRINGFIELD -- They are so-called grassroots groups that appear to champion causes important to the "ordinary Joe" such as lower cable rates, reliable electricity and accessible health care.

Note: Grand Rapids, Michigan is home to one of the most vibrant community media centers in the country, founded by the late Dirk Koning. The video franchise signed into law is a shameful affront to the memory of Dirk and others who have struggled to improve media at the local level.

from: Ron Suarez Blog

from: Ars Technica

Grassroots or astroturf? AT&T and the politics of influence

12/21/2006 12:36:41 PM, by Nate Anderson

In the course of our earlier reporting on AT&T's attempt to deploy IPTV to the Chicago suburbs, we discussed the Advanced Technology Alliance. It's an interest group that pushes the AT&T agenda hard through letters to the editor and a giant chicken, but local critics have charged it with being an "astroturf" (that is, a fake "grassroots" effort) group funded by AT&T. Ars has now learned more details about the relationship between the two companies.

Senate Republicans eliminate legislation intended to provide oversight of the increasing political manipulations of astroturf front organizations. It's telling that all Senate Republicans voted to maintain the status quo - conservative think tanks and pro-business lobbies have been the greatest offenders. Ironically, GrassrootsFreedom.com, mentioned in the CNET article below, actually is an astroturf organization – that worked to defeat the legislation. The domain for GrassrootsFreedom.com is registered to Richard Viguerie of American Target Advertising. According to SourceWatch, Richard A. Viguerie is often dubbed the direct mail titan of the right.

from: MyDD

On Building a Progressive Governing Coalition Around Net Neutrality

by Matt Stoller, Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 12:59:58 PM EST

Last year, we could throw wrenches into the works and call it a victory. This year, we're going to try to govern, and this means that we actually have to accomplish stuff. And based on what I'm seeing on the net neutrality front, the progressive movement has a lot of work to do. Take net neutrality for instance.

from: National Journal

Groups Back Telecom Deal Without FCC Disclosures

October 27, 2006
By David Hatch

Some nonprofits that back the AT&T, BellSouth merger receive considerable funding from the companies but do not disclose the ties in their comments to the FCC. No disclosure is required, but some observers think regulators should be made fully aware of the connections.