>>I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material, "citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise.
OK, but Google, AMZN, APPL and MSFT (the other side of the equation) can buy AT&T with their pocket change. Obviously outspend them by a huge margin in any campaign. So either AT&T is wayyyy more motivated or they have an edge in this debate. Investments in x area? Jobs?
Lobbying power isn't just a factor of market cap. For example, consider how media groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have pushed for ever more intellectual property laws despite being smaller than the groups that would benefit from copyright reform. Similarly with Article 11 and 13 of the proposed EU digital copyright directive.
There's only so much money you can throw at lobbying: beyond a certain point there's diminishing returns, not to mention the criticism (warranted or not) that lobbying tends to atttract. Industries that employ more people or have a strong local presence can also punch above their weight. And of course, much as we might pretend otherwise politicians are capable of holding their own opinions, too.
It's not just AT&T that's opposed to this bill, either. A wide range of cable companies and ISPs are lobbying against it:
> AT&T and the lobby group that represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies have been making their displeasure known to lawmakers in advance of hearings on a bill that could impose the toughest net neutrality law in the nation. The California bill implements the FCC's basic net neutrality rules from 2015, but it also bans paid zero-rating arrangements in which home or mobile Internet providers charge online services for data cap exemptions.
No, not pocket change. It was an expression. Bezos, alone, might need a loan to buy them :) https://people.com/human-interest/jeff-bezos-net-worth-141-b... . Apple has (or had) more at hand than $200B. But then you have to assume At&t debts and liabilities too.
Read the article. It says very clearly that AT&T has got "good" lawyers performing this schtick for years; some of them "write the laws" i.e. regulatory capture.
Big in what sense? I used one metric, market cap, and AAPL, AMZN, MSFT, GOOG, FB wipe the floor with the 100 year old company. Even in profits At&t is not close to overpowering big tech. So I asked, why then is ATT winning the lobbying battles?
Where are you getting your data? AT&T market cap is over 200B, _before_ Time Warner merger. Plus this data fails to take into account the infrastructure holdings and government contracts they have, which are enormous.
OK, but Google, AMZN, APPL and MSFT (the other side of the equation) can buy AT&T with their pocket change. Obviously outspend them by a huge margin in any campaign. So either AT&T is wayyyy more motivated or they have an edge in this debate. Investments in x area? Jobs?