Slashdot Mirror
AT&T To "Pause" Gigabit Internet Rollout Until Net Neutrality Is Settled
An anonymous reader writes AT&T says it will halt its investment on broadband Internet service expansion until the federal rules on open Internet are clarified. "We can't go out and just invest that kind of money, deploying fiber to 100 cities other than these two million [covered by the DirecTV deal], not knowing under what rules that investment will be governed," AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson said during an appearance at a Wells Fargo conference, according to a transcript provided by AT&T. "And so, we have to pause, and we have to just put a stop on those kind of investments that we're doing today."
Why should we upgrade when we don't really have to?
Yeah, right, AT&T. You were totally about to give us awesome internet but the big bad government stopped you? Please.
AT&T. I would hope Comcast or someone would take this news and announce they'll be expanding service to try to edge out AT&T, but we're much more likely to just end up and an announcement from Comcast that they'll do the same thing.
----- obSig
AT&T has found a new excuse to not invest in their infrastructure.
I'm not an AT&T customer, so I can only assume that AT&T does not ask its customers to pay for bandwidth (e.g. it gives its services away for free), and AT&T relies on content providers for all of its profit? That's the only situation I can imagine where such behavior makes sense.
They were never going to widely deploy 1Gbps anywhere, in the first place. They had stated to share holders that their capital expenditures would hardly go up to implement this in 35 cities, meaning they weren't really going to be doing very much anyway, other than uncapping existing fiber from dsl speeds.
http://www.dslreports.com/show...
We pay for infrastructure expansion with our taxes, and ATT is legally obligated to spend that money as mandated. Considering that they are blatantly telling us that they refuse to do that, I think an audit is long overdue.
AT&T UVerse is the main competition for your local cable monopoly. But only where they already operate. I use them. They're only OK. But it's really nice to have a choice other than Time Warner.
nope, that's monopoly. supported by our tax dollars.
"We're going to stop doing that thing that we've been promising for years that we were gonna get around to doing one of these days, but never actually got around to doing, because OBAMA"
It's sad, but adding "Obama" to any argument has become the modern day equivalent of the "Chewbacca Defense", and has been used to rationalize some profoundly stupid decisions. Even sadder, because it seems to work.
I'm a moderate (r)epublican, and it's *lonely* nowdays. The intelligent ones liked David Frum have been muffled or sidelined. Meanwhile, the Wingnut Brigade as personified by Ted Cruz is always on the lookout to shoot the public in the foot for the sake of rich people.
He killed it when he appointed Wheeler to head the FCC. He was unanimously approved, meaning very deep non-partisan pockets were behind him becoming the FCC chairman. That should scare everyone considering how grid-locked and partisan congress has been over the past couple of terms.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
While it is very easy to poke at AT&T for this decision, it is also a very understandable position to take. AT&T doesn't know what the laws or rules are going to be after the fact. We are probably not going to get true Title II net neutrality, and quite frankly, 80 year old law really shouldn't apply to something that is fundamentally more complex than a telco or OTA network, and applying the same kinds of laws to the internet providers is legally and technically stupid. There are a variety of very good reasons why Title II, or Title II-like laws are a very, very bad idea for the internet.
But basically AT&T's logic is sound. They don't want to roll out a huge upgrade when they have no idea of the legal regime they will be operating under. And there decision is understandable and rational.
You can foresee the pig fuck that 'net neutrality' will become in the hands of the clueless federal bureaucrats?
Seriously, we can define QOS so it's not in violation of net neutrality. What do you figure the odds of DC morons getting it right? What damage will the misregulations cause?
Please give me the name of just one ISP/transit provider/Tier 1 provider/etc. that honors QoS tags from networks other than their own. Just one. I'd love to hear about it. But I won't, because it doesn't exist.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
...You know the rest.
Seems to me that if ISPs want to selectively favor content, they should be held responsible for *any* content passing through their systems. Start throwing their execs in prison for distributing whatever illegal material passes through, and watch how fast they scramble to be classified as common carriers.
Loading...
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/...
Are you saying that if we mandate net neutrality, AT&T will close up shop and blow away in the wind? Two birds one stone! Let's make this happen!
Because his opponents were worse and no third party has any chance of winning thanks to the first past the post system used in American elections.
Nonsense. Voting for evil would still be disgusting even if third parties had zero chance of winning. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. How is any candidate ever going to win if no one ever takes a chance? It might be low, but giving up just brings the chances down even further. In addition, they don't even need to win in order to send a message to the two scumbag parties.
See what good it accomplishes.
We have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, unfettered border searches, all sorts of warrantless surveillance, constitution-free zones, a ridiculous number of corrupt government agencies, draconian copyright laws, DUI checkpoints, rampant warmonger, and all sorts of unconstitutional nonsense. What good has voting for republican or democrat scumbags ever done? None. It's idiotic. I'd say you deserve all of this, but unfortunately, I'm suffering the consequences of your foolish choices too.
"False dichotomy" as in "there are more than two choices."
The parties, and their politicians, have strikingly different platforms with strikingly different historical outcomes.
Bullshit. That's only true if you concentrate on a select few issues. When it comes to getting us into war (or bombing other countries and saying it's something other than war), or violating the constitution, both parties are largely the same. You have The One Party to thank for the TSA, the Unpatriotic Act, citizen assassinations, the NSA's mass surveillance, unchecked corruption in government agencies everywhere, and a host of other freedom-violating nonsense. They're the same in pretty much all the ways that actually count. The economy is a truly minuscule issue. Both parties refuse to shrink military and defense spending as it should, and when someone shrinks it *slightly* (nowhere near as much as it should be), whichever party didn't make the decision gets angry. Both parties are in on the "The terrorists, child molesters, and other bogeymen are going to get us!" scam, as well.
But hey, feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you justify not voting in national elections.
I strictly vote third party, because there are next to no good candidates in The One Party.
I really don't see the point in discussing political science with someone that dismisses the economy as a "truly minuscule issue." All I'll say on the subject is that the United States Constitution is is interpreted by human beings, like any other document. In the case of our political system there are nine authoritative voices on the subject and to the best of my knowledge none of them are commenters on Slashdot. If you dispute the current interpretation you're welcome to crack open one of the boxes to be used in the defense of liberty. They go in this order: soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
For the record, I don't regard my liberties as less important than money; I was simply stating the fact that it's hard to care about liberty if one is starving to death. The economy matters even in non-democratic societies, have you ever heard the expression "bread and circuses?"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.
You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.
Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy and sell elections. And you know the saying, if you aren't the customer, then you are the product. You aren't buying an election from them? Then you are the product.