"It's deceptive when the public hears the name of an organization that
> sounds like a respected organization with some authority behind it,
> when in fact it is being backed by an interested party," said Kenneth
> DeGraff, a policy advocate at Consumers Union, the publisher of
> Consumer Reports. "We look at issues purely from the consumer's
> perspective. Sometimes we agree with the phone companies, and
> sometimes we don't. But we never accept any money from an interested > party."
For many years lobbying and advocacy groups have used neutral sounding names; this is nothing new.
As to Consumer's Union's statement above, it would be more accurate to say that they look at issues purely from what _they think_ the consumer's perspective should be. Often, but by no means always, are they correct.
(They offered a service where, for a fee, they'll tell you the dealer's cost of a car to assist in negotiating. I paid for this and got their printout. It was worthless. The option sets they described were nothing like the options offered on the car. Most significantly, the dealer offered the car for me at a cost lower than CU's claimed dealer cost.)
Their product/service ratings are just a starting point. What is good for one person is bad for another.
In our context here of new technologies the above axiom clearly applies. Technocrats have always lauded brand new technology as the end-all solution to every problem, ignoring that every new thing develops serious problems. Some new users are well equipped to deal with those problems, but many are not. Sometimes the new tech is claimed to be superior than it really is, or that some bugs still remain to be solved.
Likewise with new public policies, there are complex issues. Those favoring the new policies are not of pure heart--they are business people anxious to sell something and technocrats anxious to get recognition and implementation. What is good for them is by no means good for the rest of the public.
At the same time, those against new policies are not necessarily acting out of selfish interest (as implied here). Too many of those in the telephone business have a knee-jerk reaction against anything offered by a traditional carrier --
I've seen this here as well as heard it personally. Knee-jerk is never good.
Historically, new technology was rolled out gradually. The bugs were worked out, prices dropped, and if good, it grew. Sometimes a different mfr than the pioneer is the one to make the product a national success. (It was Mr. Kroc who built McDonald's up, not the orig McDonald brothers; Univac invented the commercial computer but IBM put it on the map.)
But it seems now the technocrats and their business backers are so anxious for instant high profits that they're jumping the traces, pushing out bug-ridden products too early and imposing new procedures on the public.