AT&T Shareholders Alarmed by Pearl Jam Controversy
This is not going away:
When the controversy caught the attention of Trillium Asset Management, a socially responsible investment firm with $1 billion under management, including more than 200,000 shares of T, the firm asked AT&T to investigate. Steve Lippman, vice president of social research at Trillium, who brought the issue to my attention, wrote:
As citizens we are alarmed whenever the free marketplace of ideas is impeded by political censorship. As shareholders we are most concerned about the impact such controversy can have on AT&T’s reputation among consumers and its good standing in regulatory and legislative communities.
What’s that they say at AT&T? “Your World. Delivered.”
Well, sort of..
Read the whole thing...AT&T should be ashamed of their actions...I'll keep you posted as more information becomes available.
Great...maybe those of us who wrote the Corp. Headquarters of AT&T about their
"censorship" of some lyrics by Pear Jam did some good...
Wait a minute. Why would Trillium be invested in AT&T in the first place... weren't they the ones who initially allowed the government to wiretap all calls in their center in San Fransisco?
HEard the roll out of a new AT&T ad campaign on NPR this morning (you know, in one of the corporately sponsored spots where the corpoation gets to say something gratuitous and lofty about itself, usually something that is the exact opposite of what they are all about). Their new slogan was something to the affect of "AT&T.. We Bring It!" My immediate thought was, "Yeah, you assholes bring it alright... you bring it straight to the NSA".
Fuck AT&T. They are utterly untrustworthy as business partners, whatever the business relationship.
That's it..."Your World Delivered"...to Big Brother.
If I was Trillium, I'd dump AT&T. They aren't the kind of company a social investment fund should be supporting. And I think just about everybody who cares about rights and liberty is going to be dropping AT&T wherever and whenever they can.
I boycott EVERYTHING with AT&T's name attached to it.
When I heard that AT&T helped Bush set up the secret wire-tapping rooms in secret locations within AT&T, I concluded that AT&T is a traitorous corporation to the USA.
Screw that corporation. It's nothing but a friend to the 'cons.
Just Me @ 5:
My sentiments exactly!!
At the federal level, re-regulation and antitrust action in both telecom and broadcast media is what is really needed. Actual competition, lack of vertical integration, and diversity of ownership will restore good behavior. AT&T is in a duopoly with Verizon right now. They are top-heavy and vulnerable. Chop chop!
Good for Trillium Asset Management! Maybe I can invest some money with them? (heh, take that pro-dumbya firms) Why dosn't Steve Jobs do something about this?
The key is that the AT&T company that most people remember and think of first, no longer exists. It's been swallowed by Southwestern Bell (SBC), a Texas based entity that has been waaaay too close to the Bush Administration, with a recently retired CEO who would make an excellent James Bond villian.
i once had at&t for my cell phone. the service was awful.
Corporations have long since declared war on the people. Lies, deception, marketing, psychoananalysis, data mining, spying and outsourcing are the evidence. I remain convinced that sometime in my life if they are not restrained they will attempt to enslave us, figuratively or literally.
Doug @ 9:
AT&T swallowed Bellsouth.
So are we about back to the original Ma Bell yet? At least the jokes were funny back then.
Lily Tomlin as Ernestine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9e3dTOJi0o
My wife was telling me it was a contractor for AT&T who censored the music at the event. More information is needed to see if it was someone at AT&T who gave the command to tell the contractor to "censure" lyrics if it was about Bush in addition to censuring naughty words or if it was some Bush supporter lowlife that worked for the contrator and took it upon themselves to censure the lyrics.
Nevertheless it was AT&Ts gig and they were responsible. But sometimes these things are the work of one individual who, given some power, can weild it and cause alot of backlash.
It was a young lowly hard-core Bush supporter working at public relations department at Goddard Space Flight Center who took it upon himself to censure Scientific reports from leading NASA scientests concerning Global warming. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similiar situation with an idividual who has their own agenda and had control of the censure switch.
This has been going on for a while -- and has not been limited to the recent Pearl Jam incident. AT&T has made a habit of censoring speech which is critical of the current administration. I, personally, don't believe this political; rather, business related. AT&T has been a primary beneficiary of almost every major FCC ruling in the past five years.
heck they don't even need to be neo-cons for me to drop them. i dropped them after falling for their promises (i know i'm an idiot) to give me better and cheaper long distance service.
twice on my bills i caught monthy charges that were put in place "by mistake". i complained and was assured that they NEVER add those plans unless the customer requests it...they had put a $3.00 recurring fee or some sort of special deal on international calls...I have never, ever even talked to someone by overseas much less called them myself.
i told the lady that and she was like 'hmm well it looks like you did' and i'm like 'well i didn't' and switched companies. course when switching long distance companies it's sort of like looking for a nicer devil to live with.
you know i'm also embarrased to admit that the first time it happened it took me several months to be aware of it...i know i should pay more attn but i didn't and my point is that they rely on that. think how many ppl out there who are more ditzy than me even. also when complaining they try to bully you to keep it or they cancel it but don't mention a refund for the crap that has already been charged--hey, the service was there for you to use! no good. demanded money back.
i still feel like a dumbass tho.
I also think the rock group Oasis should step up to the plate and complain about their fellow rockers being censured. Oasis sings the tune "All around the world" that A&T is using for their "Around the World" ad campaign.
But kudos to Trillium for taking up the effort. That's the way to get back at these Bush Corporate Whores.
joe cantwell @ 10:
This is still a ridiculous non-story. To blame an entire corporation for what was at most some mid-level manager's (or possibly even technician's) decision to edit out part of a webcast and try to make this into a larger story about an entire corporation is absolutely ridiculous. Let's face it. For better or worse, this is about "net neutrality" and an attempt to (further) paint AT&T as a villain. If we are going to debate that topic, we should stick to that policy rather than use supermarket-tabloid-like headlines and non-newsworthy stories.
Oh, and the title of this post is like something from a Fox News headline. "AT&T Shareholders alarmed" ... come on -- this is one entity with less than $8 million invested in AT&T. Most investing is still based on profit. The tobacco companies are not really hurting because some mutual funds do not invest in them.
I work in the IT-Telecom department for an Insurance company. I deal with AT&T daily, and I can attest that the warrantless wiretaps and other shenanigans by AT&T are taking their toll on their employees too. One of my better friends is the president of the local union and he hears the employees grumblings quite often. I actually believe there may be more than a few grumps inside AT&T who would like nothing more than to "accidentally" pull the power down on the Narus machine.
Just wanted to second Paul's comment. When I heard about all the telecoms turning over phone records to the feds, that was my first thought, AT&T should change their motto to "Your World. Delivered. To the NSA"
NotATTTroll @ 18:
You are entirely incorrect. AT&T's argument against Net Neutrality and for further delusion of Cable Francaise Agreements, and against requirements of line sharing, etc, etc, has been simply "Trust Us". If nothing else, this should show that AT&T cannot be trusted as a carrier monopoly to do what is good for the market over what is either good for their company or a particular political agenda. Whether or not this was an unapproved act by some mid-level manager is really inconsequential, as it has occurred prior to the Pearl Jam event and perhaps since. The fact is that AT&T is becoming an unregulated monopoly and to suggest that we should simply ignore both the future of free speech on the Internet and the future of our national telecommunications infrastructure is so irresponsible that at the minimum suggests that you are indeed an AT&T troll.
from http://www.millsworks.net/blog/2007/08/10/more-att-censorship-reported/
Heard this on National Pentagon Radio last night too.
"...this is not a one time mistake.
...They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time - only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.
It was not a mistake, it is full out censorship.”
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
I remember when the CEO of At&t insisted on taking the fifth amendment over and over when questioned about possible criminal doings in front of Congress.
Oh come on you guys, you couldn't live without the iPhone and all the other gadgets that AT&T has that are a necessity of the hip crowd.
AT&T in collaboration with Bush Administration to spy on you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqEfMMUbfQw
Frankly, I got rid of as much AT&T service as possible. They hold a virtual monopoly, so it was impossible to get rid of them altogether, but I switched all of my long distance to Working Assets.
Why would anyone be surprised when they are so happy to hand over all of our telephone and email records to the feds illegally. Like they care about free speech?
I am writing to them today about Pearl Jam.
kerplunk @ 24:
Not only can I live without it, I turn off that damned tinkly piano commercial every time it comes on the tube (which is about 1000 times per day). Shame on Mac for teaming up with AT&T.
Meanwhile DOJ pressed Joe Nacchio’s prosecution.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/27/154111/196
Let's see, Joe was CEO of QWest. The only regional Bell operating company that purportedly did not turn over customer records (or whatever) to the federal government post 9/11. Think old news articles indicated that QWest required court orders or something in writing. Imagine that!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/wny_qwest_said_.html
Now, I have no love loss for CEO’s that mismanage, defraud their shareholders or run a good company into the ground, but I do find it a bit curious. Don’t you?
sjk @ 21:
You clearly miss the entire point of the net neutrality debate. Above you say that AT&T cannot be "trusted to do what is good for the market". Good. I don't want them to do what is good for the market. I want them to do what is good for my Internet access. The simple fact is we have two choices -- a managed network (the so-called non-net neutrality) or an unmanaged network (the net neutrality side). In a managed network you are able to operate more services over a smaller infrastructure. In an unmanaged network it requires exponentially more resources to carry the same amount of traffic. Who is going to pay for this infrastructure? You either have higher prices or lower quality service in a net neutrality scenario. Now, would this be "better"? Maybe or maybe not. In the unmanaged network you might have some great innovation from the excess capacity. But in the managed network you might have some great innovation by being able to provide quality of service guarantees. More reliable VoIP anybody?
But you have no justification for your statement "whether or not this was an unapproved act by some mid-level manager is really inconsequential." Why is that inconsequential? This action was taken in direct violation of AT&T's policy. Does that mean they need better controls? Of course. Should the person that allowed this to happen multiple times get fired? Probably. But what does that have to do with net neutrality or whether AT&T is a good company? I certainly don't think Matel is a bad company just because their Chinese vendor broke policy and shipped toys with lead in the paint? Do they need more safety controls? Sure -- but that doesn't make Matel some unchecked toy-throwing monopoly.
I think a more basic concern is the cozy relationship between telecom and the government. AT&T and others have apparently cooperated with the government in unlawful eavesdropping (which Bush wants to grant immunity to the telecoms). The question I have is whether there was a quid pro quo between cooperation by telecom with the FCC eliminating competition as the payoff. First, the FCC ended the use of the "last mile" of copper by competing carriers, even though that last mile was paid by captive customers during the monopoly era. More recently, the FCC declined to sell wireless spectrum in a manner that would provide a wireless alternative to the cable/telcom duopoly. However, when it comes to net neutrality, the FCC position is to let the market decide, now that competition has been reduced. At this point, many Americans are forced to buy an unwanted product (telephone or television) in order to not get price gouged on internet.
The way that corporate America controls the broadcast industry is, through cooperation with the FCC, competition is reduced, prices for mass communication go up and therefore, only big money can get their message through on television. They know that if they control what you see and hear, they'll control what people think and say.
The bigger question is what is the arrangement to force fit the broadcast model onto the internet.
NotATTTroll @ 29:
Oh, really? What is it about throttling traffic makes it 'managed'? And, how is slowing down the speed at which end users access every site in favor of specific sites making the network faster?
Do you, notATTTroll, even understand how the 'net works?
Lets' start making a list of people who will be bailing from AT&T as soon as they can, starting with me. Unfortunately, I can't drop the $175 it costs to buy out my agreement with what was once Cingular (AT&T bought them out and now I have these jerks for my cell phone provider). But I figure exercising my power as a consumer by jumping ship and never coming back once my 2 year agreement expires (in a few months) will do the long-term damage necessary.
You can bet I will advise anyone I know to go with a different provider as well. You feelin' me, AT&T?
J² @ 31:
It is called tiered services. This allows different users and services to function over the same network, more efficiently. We use tiered services in many other areas of daily life. For instance, grocery stores have express check out lines. Why? So people with fewer items do not have to wait behind somebody who is buying groceries for a family of four for a week. Or we have High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in freeways. Why? Does this slow down some people? Sure, but its better overall for traffic management (i.e. commuter buses) to have these lanes.
So yes, I understand how the Internet works. But I'm not sure you do.
Bonkers @ 32:
I don't know, but it seems to me that Cingular broke the contract and therefore the contract is no longer binding. I'm not an attorney.
If it were me, I'd be furious and would be on the phone to AT&T using that excuse. I would also tell them why I wanted out: "Because you people sold out our Constitution."
AT&T is, after all, people willing to do the bidding of the CEO.
Good. This Orwellian move should bite them in the ass. Then their surveillance should.
Cynthia T @ 26:
There should be a loophole in the AT and T contracts in regards to them being obligated to protect customers right to privacy. Someone should look into the fine print and test it. Be nice if you could start calling them and telling them to stick their service up their asses over it. Might get their attention. Serves them right for jumping into bed with the corrupt cocksuckers currently running the show.
Am I the only one who has developed a deep hate for this company? It should be boycotted and force into bankruptcy!!!
Shame and/or civic pride is not a factor in corporate decision making. Remember that the business of any corporation is not to deliver digital services down a cable, as in this case, or not to make widgets in another. The primary purpose of any corporation is to make a profit. Therefore the most effective, and in most cases only, way to change the behavior of a corporation is to find a way to effect their ability to make that profit. Forget shaming them. Think bottom line.
NotATTTroll @ 33:
No, it is not called "tiered service" -- tiered service is a marketing term used to describe a system to allow for classes of billing. What you are referring to is called Quality of Service. If QoS were implanted across the board -- for say VoIP or IPtv traffic -- no one would complain. However, AT&T insists on classifying services they own to the detriment of others. Their entire business strategy has been to eliminate competition and control content. This represents a major blow to both free speech and innovation. As AT&T, with the help of the FCC, has eliminated competition consumers are left with only one choice - this is a monopoly. Monopolies have always been bad for free speech and the economy. Monopolies have no reason to innovate, they have no reason to respond to the market with lower prices or new services. They are simply blackholes which suck resources and progress from a society.
A managed network is fine, but if you don't like the management and there are no other choices then what? AT&T has built its network with significant federal and local subsidizes, to suggest that they can now simply unburden themselves of responsibilities to consumers speaks to the worst kind of robber-baron mentality.
You may have some rudimentary understanding of the marketing materials and power-point presentations put out by large carriers, but it seems you have little understanding of the current issues surrounding last mile access, rural broadband issues, general telecommunications history or policy -- let alone the complexities of Internet exchange issues. I highly suggest that you educate yourself on this issue and consider the effects of a marketplace with, say, 2-4 large carriers controlling all Internet content.
They should be alarmed.
I'm an "apple" freak, and yet, I won't buy an iPhone because the ONLY service available is through AT&T.
I wrote a letter to apple voicing my concern about their choice of carriers and got no response.
So be it...... another good customer gone.
Steve jobs better wise up to the political ramifications of who he does business with before his stock starts to take a severe tumble.
I expected more from Apple.
I hope they change course soon, and make it a political statement as well..... free speech is IMPORTANT..... perhaps then, I'll consider buying another product from apple.
Until then, although it would pain me, I'll resist.
the new AT&T slogan should be "What we like about your world...Delivered!
sjk @ 39:
Great. I said that in my previous post. Glad you agree with me. Tiered service and QoS guarantees are the same -- depending on how you define them. You can certainly have tiered service that is neutral and without different pricing (i.e. QoS guarantees).
Wow -- you think that just because you know how to cut and paste a list of words from Wikipedia that you are educated about the technical and policy considerations that go into telecom policy. I guess you are qualified to be one of Bush's FCC appointees.
Is there a "quid pro quo " ? Are you fricken crazy , DUH . ATT and other telecommunication corps are giving access and data to the government NOW , They are able to create bigger and bigger monopolies NOW , and intelligent agencies are implanted is many offices around the country , not only S.F. , Seattle .
NOBODY should ANY business what so ever , with a company that violates a customers private information , enables a police state , and shows so much disregard for the Constitution, and the citizens of this doomed country . Mussolini would have loved AT&T .
Just an UPDATE.... I went onto the "apple forums" to lodge my displeasure with the company that the "company" is keeping, and it lasted all of about 5 minutes before the entire thread was scrubbed.
So much for Apple having any balls.
I guess they're cool with censorship.
SSHHhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would you all please be quite or "they" will soon start squeezing those tubs, slowing down access to C&L!
Oh, damn. I've said too much.
I have been boycotting AT&T since 1990 when they proudly announced they would cease their charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood to pander to the right wing. I have had nothing to do with them since.
As much as I love them, we should give some grief to Apple Computer too. This iPhone exclusive deal must be profiting AT&T quite nicely. But what good is a phone, no matter how pimp, with crappy reception? I await Mr. Jobs striking some better deals (and giving me twice the phone at half the price, as he inevitably does with time).
gallery @ 44:
Cut and paste it here for us to read.
motown @ 47:
Well according to the forum, the deal is for five years. I can't believe the responses I got for calling out the obviously illegal complicity that they have going on with AT&T.... AND I'M A MAC USER ! Do you think for one minute that they would be allowed to work with a company who sanctioned torture, or waterboarding, and get away with it? OH....Yeah. I guess they do.
I was told that "politics have no business on a discussion board", and that I should start my own blog to "be an ass".... these are the people I had a blind allegiance to because I bought a Mac. I'm so loyal..... what a putz.
I guess you can't ever be sure who your dealing with UNLESS YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT POLITICS.
Censorship is alive and well at Apple.
Just Me @ 48:
Sorry "just me", it's gone. They even scrubbed my entire entry. I have NO posts according to them. Funny thing was, there were two people who agreed (sort of) and wanted more info about AT&T. By the time I googled the page "AT&T illegal spying" , the entire thread was gone. As I stated earlier, I sent a letter to Steve Jobs at apple but got no reply.
This must be a real embarrassment for them, IF, they're doing the right thing and trying to set things right.
I hope to hell they are. I would hate to see another innovator succumb to pressure from the almighty dollar.
If Trillium is worried about AT&T "Your World Delivered to the NSA" then maybe they ought to be doing more than whining about Pearl Jam getting censored.
AT&T is evil.
Let's see Trillium get serious about violations of the Constitution and pull their money out of the viper pit.
Until I read this post about some major AT&T shareholders expressing concern about AT&T censorship, I would have laid odds on the Bush administration declaring martial law in America sometime in the near future. All the signs (dots) point to the Bush administration gearng up for martial law.
However, I had not taken into account the economic implications.
Martial law, even if only for a short time, would devastate our nation's economy. Stock prices would plunge, the dollar would probably become worthless and riots would break out all over the place, as consumer confidence hit rock bottom.
Only someone completely insane in the White House would declare martial law nationwide, no matter what the national emergency.
Oh.
Don't know about shame; but AT&T's New Cingular Wireless class arbitration waiver was ruled "unconscionable" By 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals -- http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8524371EDD4FDAB8825733A004BEA0C/$file/0655964.pdf?openelement (PDF)
AT&T is as unAmerican as you can get. I can't believe they thought that they could get away with it. Bushco a true fascist in everyway.
These aholes never learn. Look at how the Dixie Chicks were treated by the same type of unAmerican actions.
gene256 @ 7:
gene256,
You nailed it. There is no other solution. Reregulation. Mandatory divestiture. Reclassify them back into telecoms. But it must go further. Regulation must spill over into broadcast communications also. Return the Fairness Doctrine. Limit ownership. Divestiture of assets which exceed ownership limitations.
The regulators must be compelled to serve the People and not the corporations who purchase politicians with their
bribes, er, contributions.Regarding your message Hadenuf - you are incorrect. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Bell South swallowed AT&T, not the other way around. Texas-based SBC now controls AT&T and has decided to keep the name for branding purposes. The old AT&T that most consumers think of first no longer really exits.
If you pull your money, you lose your voice. ATT would LOVE us to dump their shares. That would effectively shut us up. This is an all-too-common reaction. Divesting may give you a sense of moral purity. But it's a "win" for corporations who then no longer have to share the spotlight of their annual meeting with you and the issue you want to raise. A CONSUMER boycott, however, is another matter altogether. There are many ways to vote with your dollars.
Uhh...shouldn't they ALSO be "alarmed" at the FACT that AT&T spies on Americans without warrants at the behest of the Gestapo, I mean, NSA?
Surely THAT deserves as much ire as politically-motivated censorship?
ATT has done it before - censored political speech in their webcasts by the Flaming Lips and Tom Morello. These had NOTHING to do with Davey's entertainment.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1566946/20070813/pearl_jam.jhtml
This is what happens when the American people let the corporations deny civil and constitutional rights in the workplace. If it was a lone employee notwithstanding, he should be sued, but mostly at&t because being their employee, he represents the policies of his workplace. PERIOD.
[...] read more | digg story [...]
I think a few people are missing the point of Trillium investing in an "evil" company. Socially responsible funds invest in such companies so they have a say in the operation of the company. Unfortunately, individual letters like the ones Doggiebobo talks about are not as effective as a large shareholder standing before the board demanding answers. The company is beholden to the owners (shareholders) not the consumer.
Comments are closed on this entry