Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet AT&T Politics Your Rights Online

The Misleading Fliers Comcast Used To Kill Off a Local Internet Competitor 250

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:13PM (#47553081)
    These sort of things are legal now. Corporations are people, and people have free speech, and spending money is speech.
  • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:15PM (#47553093)

    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.

  • by NettiWelho ( 1147351 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:23PM (#47553163)
    Why run for office when you can rent it for less?
  • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:28PM (#47553201) Homepage
    How do you intend for them to fine a company for buying advertisement space, and using it?
  • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:31PM (#47553229)

    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.

  • Re:If... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:37PM (#47553283)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:38PM (#47553289)

    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.

  • by sstamps ( 39313 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:40PM (#47553297) Homepage

    Fraudulent advertising, perhaps?

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28, 2014 @05:46PM (#47553333)

    It's not about "advertisement space." It is about slander and libel. You can, in fact, sue people for making untrue statements that negatively effect you.

  • by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @06:05PM (#47553461)

    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.

  • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @06:12PM (#47553495)

    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.

  • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @06:18PM (#47553533)
    Or it could have been that the referendum would have gone the same way it did without the advertising. Just because a lot of people didn't vote the way you think they should have isn't proof that they were coerced by people who disagree with you.

    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.

    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.

  • by jeIIomizer ( 3670945 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @06:28PM (#47553579)

    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?

  • by Perky_Goth ( 594327 ) <paulomiguelmarqu ... m minus language> on Monday July 28, 2014 @07:37PM (#47553977)

    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.

  • by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @07:56PM (#47554069)

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

    Who's the villain here?

  • by Atrox Canis ( 1266568 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @08:00PM (#47554091)

    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.

  • by dtmancom ( 925636 ) <gordon2&dtman,com> on Monday July 28, 2014 @09:33PM (#47554545) Homepage
    "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.
  • by radarskiy ( 2874255 ) on Monday July 28, 2014 @10:22PM (#47554717)

    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.

  • Re:Works fine (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2014 @01:51AM (#47555393)

    are you a communist?

    is that what communism is really like?

    No. This is socialism. The community provides services, but we still can own our own businesses.

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Working...