AT&T INVESTORS NOT HAPPY CAMPERS OVER THE PEARL JAM CENSORSHIP CONTROVERSY
>
Institutional investors aren't usually left-wing radicals, especially not the types who invest in traditional, vanilla companies like AT&T. But AT&T's shareholders are "alarmed" by the Pearl Jam controversy and some of the company's biggest investors are asking for more information on management practices. Trillium Asset Management is a socially responsible investment firm with about one billion dollars under management. That includes over 200,000 shares of AT&T (over $7.5 million worth). Trillium sent a letter to Randall Stepehnson, AT&T's Chairman and CEO which states that "the controversy comes at a 'particularly inopportune moment' for AT&T as the company lobbies against proposed laws and regulations that would limit its prerogatives as a gatekeeper of information flows across the internet--so-called 'net neutrality' policies. Trillium Asset Management’s letter noted that AT&T’s position 'has always turned on assurances that the Company would never interfere with content passing through its pipes.'"
Network neutrality – or “net neutrality” – guarantees equal access to the internet regardless of the source of content. AT&T and other telecom carriers have been lobbying against proposals that would limit their ability to provide preferential treatment to the internet for their own content or content from providers that pay a premium to carriers.
AT&T’s handling of the Pearl Jam webcast demonstrates the risks involved when corporate management becomes involved with “gatekeeping” of content, said Michael Connor, Executive Director of Open MIC – the Open Media and Information Companies Initiative (www.openmic.org), a non-profit organization that addresses issues related to the future of media and the need for open media in the democratic process.
“This is not a political issue – it’s a business issue,” said Connor. “The fact that AT&T did not seem aware that censorship had occurred – apparently until alerted to the fact by Pearl Jam – raises troubling questions about the company’s management. How can a company censor one of the most popular music groups in the world and not be aware of it?”
“On the other hand,” said Connor, “if AT&T was aware that Pearl Jam’s lyrics had been censored – and did not immediately alert the public and the band to the so-called ‘error’ – even more troublesome questions arise.”
Connor noted that since its founding Pearl Jam has reportedly sold more than 60 million records worldwide and is fortunate to be able to demand that AT&T make available an unedited version of the band’s performance on the web.
“Think of all the musical artists and other content providers that don’t have the reputation and resources of Pearl Jam. How will we ever know if the gatekeepers at telecom companies have decided they don’t meet some arbitrary standard of what’s worth broadcasting on the web?” asked Connor.
Open MIC and Trillium Asset Management both called on AT&T to make a full public report on the Pearl Jam incident. “It would be an important step in helping the investing public retain confidence in AT&T’s ability to avoid similar situations in the future,” said Connor.
Below is the AT&T version and the actual unedited Pearl Jam version. Judge for yourself if you think AT&T can be trusted:
Labels: censorship, net neutrality, Pearl Jam
7 Comments:
At&T can not be trusted. Pearl Jam and their fans aren't gonna back down to anyone. And Pearl Jam didn't even play "Bu$hleaguer". I wonder what At&T would have done then? Shut down the whole song?
A while back I read on Freemuse
freemuse that middle eastern regimes banned public rock concerts not so much for the lyrics (which are often pretty tame) but because the joyous community experience of the live audience was so threatening.
Aping oppressive regimes is hardly a savvy marketing move.
Nobody should be surprised that AT&T is playing along in the squashing of dissent. They are eyeball deep in the domestic spying of Americans by the Bush Administration and this is just another example of their disdain for their 'customers'.
And what are the other choices? Comcast - Get real. The Comcast lineup is so shoddy that's it's criminal. Service is always down, it's expensive and it's repaired at Comcast's convenience and your expense. Comcast needs a class action lawsuit against them to shut them down!
I'm happy Trillium is taking AT&T to task about censorship, but aren't they medicating the mote while ignoring the beam that is Room 641A or whatever in San Fransisco where AT&T is monitoring all our internet communications?
AT&T had a chance to prove their integrity. They failed miserably. Then they have the chutzpah to cry that they didn't know. Yeah, right. A business that makes its money on transmitting words shouldn't be afraid of words. Censorship is in their DNA. The people a company hires reflect the the world view those doing the hiring are comfortable with. When you hire only a certain kind of person, you are only going to get one possible result. Censorship of Pearl Jam's lyrics was inevitable in such a scenario. It's a monopoly of thought. This company was broken up once. It's time to get out the giant hammer and do it more thoroughly this time.
I don't quite see how this is an issue of net neutrality - I do some work with HOTI and from what I understand that would be if it was already regulated and not a company like AT&T regulating itself. A company regulating itself is what a net neutrality advocate should be for ideally - isn't that correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home