Comcast Paid Civil Rights Groups To Support Killing Broadband Privacy Rules
from the with-friends-like-these... dept
For years, one of the greasier lobbying and PR tactics by the telecom industry has been the use of minority groups to parrot awful policy positions. Historically, such groups are happy to take financing from a company like Comcast, in exchange for repeating whatever talking point memos are thrust in their general direction, even if the policy being supported may dramatically hurt their constituents. This strategy has played a starring role in supporting anti-consumer mega-mergers, killing attempts to make the cable box market more competitive, and efforts to eliminate net neutrality.
The goal is to provide an artificial wave of “support” for bad policies, used to then justify bad policy votes. And despite this being something the press has highlighted for the better part of several decades, the practice continues to work wonders. Hell, pretending to serve minority communities while effectively undermining them with bad internet policy is part of the reason Comcast now calls top lobbyist David Cohen the company’s Chief Diversity Officer (something the folks at Comcast hate when I point it out, by the way).
Last week, we noted how Congress voted to kill relatively modest but necessary FCC privacy protections. You’d be hard pressed to find a single, financially-objective group or person that supports such a move. Even Donald Trump’s most obnoxious supporters were relatively disgusted by the vote. Yet The Intercept notes that groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens and the OCA (Asian Pacific American Advocates) breathlessly urged the FCC to kill the rules, arguing that snoopvertising and data collection would be a great boon to low income families:
“The League of United Latin American Citizens and OCA ? Asian Pacific American Advocates, two self-described civil rights organizations, told the FCC that ?many consumers, especially households with limited incomes, appreciate receiving relevant advertising that is keyed to their interests and provides them with discounts on the products and services they use.”
Of course, folks like Senator Ted Cruz then used this entirely-farmed support to insist there were “strenuous objections from throughout the internet community” at the creation of the rules, which simply wasn’t true. Most people understood that the rules were a direct response to some reckless and irresponsible privacy practices at major ISPs — ranging from charging consumers more to keep their data private, or using customer credit data to provide even worse customer support than they usually do. Yes, what consumer (minority or otherwise) doesn’t want to pay significantly more money for absolutely no coherent reason?
It took only a little bit of digging for The Intercept to highlight what the real motivation for this support of anti-consumer policies was:
“OCA has long relied on telecom industry cash. Verizon and Comcast are listed as business advisory council members to OCA, and provide funding along with ?corporate guidance to the organization.? Last year, both companies sponsored the OCA annual gala.
AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications and Verizon serve as part of the LULAC ?corporate alliance,? providing ?advice and assistance? to the group. Comcast gave $240,000 to LULAC between 2004 and 2012.
When a reporter asks these groups why they’re supporting internet policies that run in stark contrast to their constituents, you’ll usually be met with either breathless indignance at the idea that these groups are being used as marionettes, or no comment whatsoever (which was the case in the Intercept’s latest report). This kind of co-opting still somehow doesn’t get much attention in the technology press or policy circles, so it continues to work wonders. And it will continue to work wonders as the administration shifts its gaze from gutting privacy protections to killing net neutrality.