Phony 'grassroots' telecom industry group pushes back against cell …

May 2nd, 2008

brodkorb michael

The telecommunications industry is working hard to kill a cell phone reform bill at the Minnesota legislature that would guarantee customers accurate information about billing and service area coverage. And it’s using an industry front organization masquerading as a grassroots citizens’ group to do the deed.
Cell phone billing practices and service area coverage limits are among the top consumer complaints both in Minnesota and nationwide. The Minnesota Wireless Telephone Consumer Protection Act (S.F. 833) would require wireless phone salespeople to provide a coverage map to customers at the time of sale, to clearly state both price and fees at the time of sale and to indicate whether that price will remain the same throughout the contract. In addition, providers would have to lay out any early termination fees, and separately list government taxes and fees on billing statements.
The telecom industry has responded by using a nonprofit faux-grassroots organization to spread disinformation about the bill and to encourage unsuspecting consumers to send e-mails opposing its passage to legislators. Mywireless.org presents itself as “a non-profit consumer advocacy organization” that gives wireless consumers “a powerful and unified voice to protect the freedom, value, security and mobility they enjoy with wireless services.”
But in fact, Mywireless.org is staffed almost entirely by telecommunications industry executives, drawn mainly from the ranks of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (also known as CTIA-The Wireless Association), a lobbying group for the mobile phone and telecommunications industry headed by Steve Largent, the former football star and Oklahoma Republican congressman (1994-2002). (There’s more information about Mywireless’ officers below the jump.)
In Minnesota, Mywireless has employed a three-pronged strategy to fight the cell phone reform bill:
* placing ads in outlets such as Startribune.com urging consumers to oppose the bill.* encouraging the public to send a canned and misleading e-mail message condemning the bill to their legislators. The e-mail’s text suggests that the bill would mean higher costs: “Minnesotans already pay over 12% in combined federal, state and local wireless taxes, surcharges and government fees on our cell phone bills each month. Placing additional regulation on wireless service will only drive up our monthly bills even more.”* lobbying at the Capitol.

tcdailyplanet.net


Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

16 Responses to “Phony 'grassroots' telecom industry group pushes back against cell …”

  1. Deangelo Says:

    I screeched when I heard that guy say “..the good people of Pennsylvania…”.NOBODY talks like that unless they’re soaking in it.

  2. Gina Says:

    Embarrassing. In addition, talk about an awkward ad. Each person is stammering. None of these people give a shit about what Obama said, and you can tell because they’re all speaking monotone off of some cue boards.

  3. Micheal Says:

    I don’t know if you watched the debates last night, but Edwards gave a little insight on his plans on the Iraq withdrawal. ‘the Iraq war, Edwards said he would pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out of the war zone “very quickly” during his first year as president.’ (CNN) That doesn’t mean out of Iraq in 10 months.

  4. Thane Says:

    Watch it again. After his ‘fast’ statement, he said he would keep withdrawing troops “until they are ALL OUT in about 9-10 months”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os96CjJfuQ0He also said “I will end all combat operations in Iraq within a year, and there will be NO permanent bases.” As far as I know Obama and Hillary haven’t touched the permanent bases.

  5. Janina Says:

    You don’t hear this to often, but you are right. I now agree with you. My only issue, as well as I hope most everyone else, I want to be sure how we pull out of Iraq is safe and fair to us and the Iraqis. Hope you can agree with me there. If the best way is to pull out in 10 months, awesome. If a slow gradual withdrawal is the best way, then so be it. However, I’m pretty sure we stand together that we should get out very soon.

  6. Darien Says:

    Actually Ron Paul fans typically like Edwards more than Obama/Hillary. They like candidates who actually stand for something.

  7. Cher Says:

    He’s from NJ and he said he’s from PA? Doesn’t he mean NY? Worst Tri-State resident ever.

  8. Ibbie Says:

    Why even consider Edwards as your candidate? Obama from the beginning has been 100% against special interests and PAC’s. Edwards began his law career fighting FOR corporations. Whereas Obama began his law career as a civil rights lawyer.And yes, Edwards voted for the war.

  9. Nicola Says:

    He was born in Pennsylvania.

  10. Lotus Says:

    Edwards is riding the coattails of Obama’s win as well. Claiming he is part of the change that Iowa voted for. BS.

  11. Queenie Says:

    You know he voted for Iraq right?I guess I should stop “Drinking Ron Paul’s kool aid” as it were, but I find people who support politicians and not true candidates (like DK and RP) irk me in their views.|

  12. Kolby Says:

    What? Edwards DID NOT fight for corporations. More than half his cases were medical malpractice suits against insurance companies. See this.His first job out of college was at a big law firm, but he quickly became independent and a well-renowned trial lawyer.I could understand Ron Paul fans hating Edwards, given this, but if you’re an Obama supporter, stop spreading lies.

  13. Hailey Says:

    Edwards has changed his rhetoric about corporate power, and now even Nader likes him.If he keeps it up, I just might vote for him over Kucinich.

  14. Florinda Says:

    Yes, he was an idiot, but at least Edwards promised that we would be out of Iraq in 10 months with his presidency.Obama on the other hand, not only wants to increase defense spending, and re-framed withdrawal using the more hawkish phrase “redeployment”, but he also has an American-centric view of the world that’s clearly dangerous.What pushed me farther away, strangely enough, is that Kucinich picked Obama as his second choice. If Kucinich is so different, he should be able to see that Obama is a pure politician at heart, with a lot of empty rhetoric about “hope” and “unity.” I agree with Norman Soloman Edwards is looking better, especially after Kucinich’s endorsement blunder.(None of this matters anyway, because I’m in a late primary state, so the media will have decided the candidate for sure by then… oh well)

  15. Benton Says:

    http://laminatedfuture.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidate-of-what-now.htmlSomeone posted this article a little bit ago. Sort of ridiculous how everyone now is a poseur.