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

flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone?

[jollyreaper]

"There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality," Whitacre told the heirs to AT&T's telecommunications empire. "Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We're gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission."

"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.' " This sounds like the kind of stuff I'd make up if I wanted to put words in his mouth. What next? "First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the internets."

Reminds me of Bush's candid comments we got to see in Fahrenheit 9-11. "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

Question: did this guy know there was a camera rolling?

Voting time

[packetmon]

For those Americans here who are of voting age, I suggest you start voicing opinions to congress speak to your management if you are in the telco/networking field and make noise. All this "wah wah wah" on a forum is pointless. Sure I can hear you, the trolls can hear you, but I doubt political parties can hear you. Start filling up those blogs of parties who want to "strike a pose" on the technology sector "We're hip... We have a blog" ... Oh so you do Senator Whatever... Start /.'ing them for straightforward answers, comments and plans. Anything else is just linenoise

Re:What's all the fuss?

[MindStalker]

Actually deregulation of the airlines has helped, the big airlines have crumbled because they can't compete with the smaller more nimble airlines. This is the way it should be.

Air travel isn't a natural monopoly though.

Re:Subject

[jollyreaper]

Why does AT&T hate America? Because there's a higher profit margin in exploiting America than loving it.

Let's make Ed Whitacre a deal...

[StandardCell]

AT&T and all the big telcos can have their net neutrality repealed. In return, AT&T and all the telcos will give back all of the government's money, adjusted for inflation and bearing the prime rate of interest, that was given to them as investments, tax breaks, and other "incentives" to build up their network. Shake on it?

Re:Regulation may give more freedom

[jollyreaper]

I hope the fuzzier minded GOP congressmen don't get too confused on this - the "deregulation" banner AT&T are flying under sounds good but consider the financial equity markets: heavily regulated and you won't find an investment banker (paragons of free market capitalism) who'd want it any other way. Certain foundation structures like markets, networks need to be regulated to keep them neutral, transparent & useful. This enables freedom, paradoxical perhaps but pretty obvious. When you are thinking logically, you are exactly right. I totally agree with you. Would a fisherman support the destruction of the fisheries that are his very livelihood? You wouldn't think so but then you see some fishermen go out there and take a huge catch for great profit this season, not seeming to care that his actions this season will leave less for him to harvest next season and the season following. "But of course he has to catch what he can now, his children ain't gonna eat on moonbeams and well-wishes from fish-huggers!" Yes. So the fisherman will destroy his chance of eating tomorrow so he won't starve today. I can see how the mistake is made.

Corporations fall into this same pattern. They have to make the numbers this quarter, THE NUMBERS, YOU DUMB FUCK! COKE IS FOR CLOSERS! etc etc. So that's where you see the fans of deregulation coming in. Have you noticed the dismantling of the rules and regs put in place after the '29 crash to make sure that we wouldn't have another one? With the rules in place, you can have a reasonable profit for years to come. Without the rules you can make a fucking killing...and I guess you'd better hope that goose has a lot of meat on the bones because that's all you'll be eating as the markets struggle to recover.

Re:Frustrating.

[jollyreaper]

The people running these companies always espouse the advantages of the free market, how essential it is for their survival. And yet, these same jerks will be the first ones crying for government protection the second they start feeling threatened. And thus we get to the heart of the matter: they have no motivation but the accumulation of wealth. The religions and philosophies they promote are merely justifications for it, pretenses that will be dropped the moment they threaten the continued accumulation of wealth. They'll sing the praises of the free market up until the point it tries to bite them, then they will club it to death with their diamond-tipped canes.

Re:What's all the fuss?

[ak3ldama]

No CEO is worth the $20 million buyout to get his ass out the door. Every engineer, sales person, assembly line worker is worth at least double what they get. These people make smart decisions every day that help the company improve process or save money. They just don't get proper recognition, whereas the @#$!ing CEO knows how to blow his own horn and annoy everyone. I wish they would charge the CEO $20 million when they fuck up drastically, it seems only fair.

Well

[Mateo_LeFou]

'cause the barriers to entry in this market are so incredibly high that you often have no choice. If two providers (the cable and DSL co for a region) do this, that's sufficient.

Re:What's all the fuss?

[jez9999]

The state I'm living in now "deregulated" by saying that local phone companies had to open their lines to any provider that I choose.

I'd call that very strong regulation. I think it's just a different kind of regulation, but it sure aint deregulation. Deregulation would be saying, "the line's yours. Go ahead and do what you want. Hell, the owners have a right to profit out of their infrastructure!" The company wouldn't open the line up to competition, and you'd be screwed as hell.

That's not what "war for oil" means

[spun]

You seem to think that when people claim that "we" went to war for oil, that means that the US went to war for cheaper oil for its citizens. That is not what we mean. We mean that the rich and powerful took us to war to procure a reliable source of oil to sell to US citizens for outrageous profits. See the difference? There is no we. There is them getting rich, and you getting fucked.

And it's not just oil. We have outsourced much of our armed services to private contractors. The military industrial complex is having a field day, and making record profits. Citizens are scared into accepting all sorts of draconian restrictions. Huge bundles of cash simply disappear. The wealthy and well connected profit. And we lose rather than gain security.

Re:That's not what "war for oil" means

[spun]

Hoo, boy. Turning off the oil taps would definitely fuck with the world's economy, for sure. But, the thing that I have come to realize is that nations, peoples and religions rarely fight each other. The rich and powerful of the world are engaged in a great game. We are their pawns. While it looks like they are fighting each other, when it comes down to it, that is a game. They are fighting to stay on top, and us on the bottom.

My point? They will never make a move in the great game that weakens their position against us, the little people. No matter how much it would hurt their opponents. That's just the way the game is played, and any ruling class person who defects and takes the side of the little people is anathema, outlaw, outside the rules of the game.

So the oil owners will never turn off the taps because it hurts their position vis a vis the rest of us, even if it wins them some points in the game. There would be too much chaos, rioting, and overturning of established orders all over the world. The powerful in the rest of the world would put aside all differences and gang up on the outlaws to restore order.

Re:stay on your own side of the pond

[lupis42]

Hang on, are you saying that Iraqis are the "murderous, rage infected and hyper-religious chimps"? Because I went all the way through that post before it occurred to me that that you weren't talking about Americans (I am an American, and I am proud of my country, but only up to about 1969. After the moon landing, it's been a pretty steady downhill)

Re:stay on your own side of the pond

[sgt_doom]

remember that we also have the most well developed (maybe overly developed) news and information system in the world.

Great God Almighty!!!! Are you hopelessly nuts? We have almost little or no actual news reportage in the US today - especially as opposed to when I was a kid back in the '50s. How many Americans are aware of the (at least) 2 attempted assassination/coups of democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez by the Bush Administration (can you spell o-i-l???)? How many Americans are aware of the second attempt - led by undersecretary of state, Otto Reich and his Cuban-American squads? Erroneously reported in American news as Cuban dissidents being sighted in Caracas at that time!!!! Un-frigging-believable!!!

...I'd guess that our (generally) staunch stand in favor of free press...

Great God Almighty!!! Free press??? WTF have you been smoking, dood??? Any intelligent American is forced to read the foreign press and blogosphere for any and all news as the only breaking news in America today concerns either Paris Hilton or the deposition of Anna Nicole Smith's corpse. Nothing, but nothing gets reported in the news.

Forty and fifty years ago that testimony of Monica Goodling before congress (ya know, the one where she testified that the attorney general [Gonzo or AGAG], and the assistant attorney general both committed perjury, that there was massive election fraud ["caging"] and that the US attorneys were replaced to prevent any prosecution of past - and future - election fraud) would have been front-page news for days, if not months. Today, nothing........