AT&T CEO Attacks Network Neutrality

Verteiron writes "The former CEO of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, had some interesting remarks to make about Net Neutrality during his parting speech. Choice quotes include his plans for getting anti-neutrality legislation through: "Will Congress let us do it?" Whitacre asks his colleagues. "You bet they will — cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.' " More information on AT&T's attitude problem and a video of the speech are available. There's no sign that his replacement is any better."

Comments

Re:Voting time

[Billosaur]

Well, you can certainly fill up your Senator or Congressman's inbox with emails, but you've got to remember that rarely do they actually read all their own email. Usually it's screened by their staff for content first, so they get a sanitized picture of what constituents want. It's better to hunt these people down on the campaign trail and ask them pointed questions before news cameras. Also, even if they do "read" all their email, unless that's followed up by actual votes there's little chance of any great impact. I don't think either party is courting the "Internet voter".

Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone?

[1ucius]

Of course he knew . . it was a joke given at a charity event where the speakers traditionally give lighthearted speeches.

Re:Product differentiation is BASIC

[mcisely]

You are not understanding the issue here. Put simply:

This issue isn't about how much I must pay my ISP for decent net connectivity.

This issue is about how much Google must pay my ISP for decent net connectivity.

Google already pays for their own connectivity. My ISP is already paid by me. My "pipe" is already paid for. Why should my ISP be paid twice? What right does my ISP have to individually charge every conceivable web site that I might access?

Re:We need an appropriate response

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, since you've admitted your biases, it's only fair that I admit I err on the anti-union side. As to your question:

So what's the real scoop on their pension issue, is it just BS or a consequence of poor management or is there something more to it?

This is a very good question. I wanted to know the answer myself for same reason you listed above: why agree to a pension without being able to monitor its funding status, and relying on future profitability? Why allow other creditors to have seniority to pensioners in collecting debt? (Since a pension is deferred compensation, and workers are senior to bondholders in payment of obligations, pensioners should always be senior, and credit ratings and lenders should always assume they'll be behind in line.) How can you assume no competitors will enter the market?

Unfortunately, it's hard to get reliable information on this, and I try as hard as possible to avoid "well they were just stupid"-type conclusions. I also can't read a financial statement from a corporation. But that's what every source confirms: GM promised an unfunded pension, predicated on future profitability, and the failure of GM was considered impossible. My best guess as to why it happened would be:

-stupidity on the part of unions, who refused to accept the possibility that their employer doesn't dictate its own profits.
-malice on the part of management, who was willing to indulge this fantasy in exchange for valuable union concessions, knowing the union would have no leverage when the obligations came due. Likely arrogance about the possibility of competition.

When I first heard about pension problems affecting profitability, I was confused: aren't they funded in advance from a separate account? Well, they aren't.

Hope that helps.