C3SR Lacks Candor
What last evening was simply an opinion of this writer has now turned into living proof that C3SR lacks candor. And it was all the doing of C3SR themselves!! Last evening we published an article titled C3SR Demands Hearing With FCC. In that article we challenged the candor and in fact the mission statement of C3SR. We encouraged readers to post their comments on any of the seven posts that the organization has published in the last 16 months. Several readers during the course of the merger had expressed to me that C3SR would censor any comment that was pro-merger.
Well, by mid morning today C3SR has removed any link to their blog from their website. The removal of the link to the blog could have been simple coincidence, but as it turns out, it was a direct attempt to silence those that would express their merger opinions.
With the link to their blog removed, I published a second article titled C3SR Removes Blog Link From Landing Page. In that article I pointed to a link that would still enable readers to get to the C3SR Blog, so that they could submit their merger comments. Within an hour C3SR shut down their blog altogether!!!
Now, here is the position this alleged subscriber advocate group has put themselves in:
1. They have by their actions directly indicated that they do not want to receive opinions from satellite radio subscribers.
2. They have removed their blog from access by any subscriber who may or may not share their anti-merger position.
3. Most importantly, they have acknowledged that they read Sirius Buzz. This is important because now they are about to be put on a hot seat.
C3SR – Subscribers and merger watchers have some questions for you. Do you have the courage and candor to answer them? The comment section of this post is available for your answers, and readers are eager to see what you say:
1. Please tell us what funding C3SR has received from individual subscribers (not tied to any company or organization) through this date.
2. Please tell us what kind of funding C3SR has received from the National Association of Broadcasters or any entity connected to the NAB. If you are not comfortable with an exact number a percentage is fine.
3. Please tell us what percentage of your funding has come from businesses or lobby groups associated with terrestrial radio. Again, a percentage will do.
4. You claim to advocate on behalf of subscribers. Please tell us exactly how many subscribers you have polled to arrive at your anti-merger position.
5. Is it indeed a fact that you had an anti-merger position upon launch of your organization?
6. What is you position regarding the overwhelmingly positive consumer comments with regard to the merger?
7. If you are advocating on behalf of subscribers, what is C3SR’s position should the FCC approve the merger?
8. Why has C3SR not published a position with the FCC regarding proposals from organizations such as Georgetown Partners that would strip bandwidth, and thus channels away from subscribers?
9. What is the C3SR position on open access?
10. How is the work of consultants hired by C3SR paid for? What percentage is paid by individual subscribers? What portion by organizations with ties to terrestrial radio?
11. How is the work of Julian Shepard, your attorney, paid for? Please break this down by percentage.
12. How many individual subscribers have joined the C3SR cause?
13. Why does C3SR lack any data with regard to the membership and the opinions of the membership?
14. Does C3SR agree that as an advocate, there is a responsibility to have the opinion of the subscribers so that C3SR can express the opinion of the group it claims to represent?
15. Is C3SR positioned to defend their actions as claiming to advocate on behalf of subscribers, if in fact other data clearly shows that C3SR’s position is in the extreme minority?
16. Will C3SR indicate clearly that they do not advocate on behalf of subscribers and file a retraction with the FCC? This is important given the actions of C3SR shutting down the opinion of subscribers.
17. Does C3SR want the opinions of subscribers, or do they instead fear it?
18. Did Julian Shepard, the C3SR attorney, guide C3SR in their decision to shut off subscriber opinions?
If C3SR wants to claim to be a champion of subscribers, THEY MUST SEEK OUT AND ACT ON THE OPINION OF THAT GROUP. Is C3SR an advocate for subscribers, or merely an advocate for the National Association of Broadcasters who has acknowledged funding C3SR activities in the past? The ties between C3SR and the NAB have been outlined in the past, but the organization always had plausible deny-ability as to the opinions of subscribers. The groups actions today now focus a light on C3SR.
My challenge to C3SR is to step up to the plate, and accomplish the advocacy that you claim. Find out the majority opinion of subscribers, and fight for what they want. This issue is about subscribers, and simply stated, YOU C3SR, are not acting on behalf of subscribers.
Position – Long Sirius, XM.
The most damning evidence of C3SR’s lack of candor comes in the last sentence of the most recent filing, “Separately, the Commission should initiate a proceeding to determine whether to revoke the licenses of both Sirius and XM for a failure to comply with the interoperable receiver condition.”
How could an organization who purports to be an advocate of satellite radio call for the revocation of both the licenses of satellite radio? Their motivation is clear; destroy satellite radio at all costs.
Who represents the consumer?
In the conlusion to their latest filing with the FCC, C3SR outlines what they believe the FCC should do to address their concerns. All along, C3SR has claimed that their concerns are for the well-being of the satrad consumer. Here is what C3SR wants the FCC to do for us:
“Separately, the Commission should initiate a proceeding to determine whether to revoke the licenses of both Sirius and XM for a failure to comply with the interoperable receiver condition.”
So apparently, for the FCC to protect the satrad consumer’s interests, C3SR would have them not only block the merger, but deny the consumer access to satrad altogether.
You can read the full filing at the C3SR website where they have filed it for public inspection:
http://www.c3sr.org/mergerfili.....ngs.asp
I also emailed them at the address supplied in the “contact” link on that page to ask them how revoking both companies’ licenses would benefit me, the consumer. They have not responded.
Cricket. Cricket. Cricket. Man it sure is quiet in here.
I guess C3SR’s silence speaks for itself.
You nailed em.
Man I can’t WAIT for the approval to go thru with minimum concessions. That would piss them off to no end. GOD I’m hoping that happens. 🙂
So Far no reply from the folks at C3SR. Still waiting
Tyler – C3SR is a total scam outfit. They fit perfectly within this circus, I mean merger. I am baffled why there has not been total public outrage as to what is happening with this merger. Every single oposition to this merger is a sham. Straight down from the NAB, Clear Channel, Politicians, Advocacy groups, straight to the FCC. This whole thing has just been unbelievable, and that is putting it mildly. I am really at a loss for words.
Great job Tyler. Will the FCC realize how many scam outfits there are attempting to stop the merger for money from the NAB and alike?
I’ll add a few questions to your list Tyler:
19) Where is Jimmy Hoffa’s body?
20) Where is Amelia Airheart?
21) What is the meaning of life?
I figure you have as much of a chance of C3SR answering these three questions as the rest…
They are such a sham, and this article was about a year and a half late in proving that. Your other articles did proved it just fine long ago.
Knock….Knock….Knock
C3SR, are you there? Julian Shepard are you there?
These are simple questions that deserve an honest answer.
Maybe the NAB should be investigated for their lobbying tactics?
According to their home page, this is the charter of C3SR:
“Through the participation and support of subscribers and volunteers, C3SR -the only consumer group in existence today solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of satellite radio subscribers- is committed to opposing the creation of a monopoly in satellite radio, and ensure continued consumer choice and competition.”
As part of their effort to advocate for you and me, the consumers, they have petitioned the FCC to do the following, in their latest filing with the FCC:
“Separately, the Commission should initiate a proceeding to determine whether to revoke the licenses of both Sirius
and XM for a failure to comply with the interoperable receiver condition.”
So to advocate for the consumer and to ensure continued consumer choice and competition, they would like the FCC to revoke both of the satrad licences and end satellite radio. Strange behavior for a group that describes themselves this way (again from their home page):
“a group of concerned Sirius and XM subscribers”
Killing satrad licenses couldn’t be further from the interests of any Sirius or XM subscriber.
The following is an old article. C3SR’s shady connections have been reported for some time. What I can’t understand is why there has been no official investigation into their activities. It surely can’t be legal for the NAB to invent an organization of so-called “consumers” and have them pose as an official entity that claims to represent our interests to the FCC. If this is legal, no consumer interest is safe.
http://www.corporatecrimerepor.....ter.com/wi…
Why not talk to your friend Ms. Wallman (as she is an atty and a former FCC commish) and see if the C3SR & NAB actions violate the law. Since she makes her living representing all of these folks on all sides of various issues before the fcc she may not wish to comment. Then ask another atty. If they tell you what section is violated by this hidden funding of a false front org by the NAB then file a complaint with the Justice Dept and the FCC. Stop with the silly questions that they will never answer and do something with real effect.
Len….
I agree. The questipons are indeed silly. The fact that such questions even become part of the discussion was the point. They can not answer them and still be true to their stated mission.