While the terrestrial rags are booming headlines like "Consumer group blasts XM-Sirius merger" and "Consumer Group Opposes XM-Sirius Merger," a quick Google search shows that the American Consumer Institute isn't actually a consumer group.
Nope, thanks to Hear 2.0, we learn that...
"...the American Consumer Institute isn't actually a consumer group. It's an amalgamation of think tank reps pushing a free market ideological agenda under the guise of consumer advocacy. A quick WhoIS notes that the ACI website is registered to Stephen Pociask, a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic, who via groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, works to shape data that argues against government regulation of industry." (The 'American Consumer Institute' - Broadband Reports, Aug 22 2006)
Of course, this isn't the first time we've seen merger opponents conjure up "consumer groups" in order to support their opposition. C3SR, the best funded bunch of college kids I've ever seen, is supported by the NAB.
[Broadband Reports via Hear 2.0]
BUSTED BITCHES!
And the league of rural voters is a legitimate organizantion. Please. There are bogus groups on both sides of this.
good one Ryan!
Now, I'm a libertarian... wouldn't the general positions of CEI tend to be a minimal level of antitrust oversight?
Thanks Ryan.
Leviramsey, you may indeed be right. And that's beyond the scope of my point which is fundamentally this: Anything that presents itself as a consumer rights body and is exactly not is a lie. And from there I don't believe a word this group says.
Now if the complaint had come from the CEI, that might be another matter. But of course, it did not.
Thanks Ryan.
Leviramsey, you may indeed be right. And that's beyond the scope of my point which is fundamentally this: Anything that presents itself as a consumer rights body and is exactly not is a lie. And from there I don't believe a word this group says.
Now if the complaint had come from the CEI, that might be another matter. But of course, it did not.
You know, I started a little skeptical of the merger - but the more the RIAA and the NAB yammered (and boy, that NAB punk's face just makes me want to pop a fist into it) the more I became favored by it, for no other reason than if they were against it, it (the merger) had to be a good idea. Crap like this is why (and to the "bogus groups on both sides" argument, I say one side does it far, FAR more than the other ... usually the side with more money).
Nice job, NAB/RIAA. It takes a certain skill to wind up achieving the opposite of your goals.
You'd think groups against the regulation of government would be for the merger! Free enterprise groups and consumer advocacy groups should, in theory, be the same groups. Instead we have advocacy groups that don't understand economics and free enterprise groups unable to communicate why their groups are actually for consumers.
Blogs like this are just an example of ad hominem -- attacking a person instead of the argument. The American Consumer Institute has never taken a corporate dollar and its volunteers have never worked for any of the parties involved in this merger. It is a non-profit educational and research institute. It does no advocacy or lobbying.
The analysis written and posted by the Institute came from Dr. Darby, a former chief at the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau.
The attacks against the Institute were invented and posted in a blog and have now been about dozen times. I think it is shameful that Mark and others could not check their facts and simply assume that a slanted paid-for has some truth to it.
Blogs like this are just an example of ad hominem -- attacking a person instead of the argument. The American Consumer Institute has never taken a corporate dollar and its volunteers have never worked for any of the parties involved in this merger. It is a non-profit educational and research institute. It does no advocacy or lobbying.
The analysis written and posted by the Institute came from Dr. Darby, a former chief at the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau.
The attacks against the Institute were invented and posted in a blog and have now been about dozen times. I think it is shameful that Mark and others could not check their facts and simply assume that a slanted paid-for blog has some truth to it.