Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Wants $100 Million From California Taxpayers For Aging DSL (dslreports.com)

Posted by msmash on from the crossing-the-line dept.

An anonymous reader quotes an article on DSLReports: AT&T is asking California taxpayers to give them $100 million so that it can provide several parts of the state with unreliable, slow and expensive DSL service. Under Assembly Bill 2130 (written by AT&T lobbyists), AT&T would receive $100 million from state taxpayers. In return, AT&T would only need to provide 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload and would have little to no oversight over whether the $100 million is even being used for the DSL service.

152 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. What the hell are AT&T's customers paying for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Share buybacks?

  2. and unsurprisingly... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they'll get it.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:and unsurprisingly... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T are having a contest

      1. Who can be the biggest dick to their customer.
      2. Who can screw over local governments the most.
      3. Who can screw over State governments the most.
      4. Grand Prize, screw over the Federal Government and ALL taxpayers.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re: and unsurprisingly... by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 2

      This might be the only time ever that the government could do better than industry. Internet is a utility, folks. It's like rural electrification. Could we let the rich have solid fancy electricity while leaving the rural with flaky and slow power? Nope. Same argument for Internet.

    3. Re: and unsurprisingly... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The US power grid is a commercial enterprise. It's built with the minimum of redundancy needed to keep operating when a line goes down for maintenance, because unused capacity is seen as money wasted. This was demonstrated in 2003, when a single power line failed - and caused a series of cascade failures and desyncronisations that knocked out power to half the north-east US and a chunk of Ontario. The US has flaky power - and if electricity had a speed, it'd be slow too.

    4. Re:and unsurprisingly... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You may be interested in knowing that, as written, your sig does not make sense. Mostly because the last "word" isn't a word in Hebrew.

    5. Re:and unsurprisingly... by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Well, it's aramaic. Sort of.

  3. DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Unreliable DSL is a plant problem, not a technology problem.

    1. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Regardless, what AT&T is capable of delivering is unreliable DSL service.

    2. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I agree, the downside with DSL is that you also need copper, and to get that you "need" a landline.

      Buried optical fiber is the way to go. It costs a bit to put it down but when it's there it will stand up to a lot of what nature can put out except earthquakes, but the fault lines are often known today and can therefore be circumvented. You may not know when the quake will happen, but when it happens you may at least know where it probably will occur. So don't cross a known fault line without appropriate remedies for that like loops on both sides to take up the movement.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by evolutionary · · Score: 2

      Ummm..what about fibre optic cable. Toronto we've had fibre optic cable networks going up the last 2 years. In Tokyo, they've had a fibre optic cable network there for at least 4 years. the real issue for me is why use a dated technology when a superior one proven in the field exists? Gut feeling: it's a way of maximizing profits at the cost of speed/reliability.

      --
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    4. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't "need" a land line, it's called a "dry loop". I've had one for almost five years now. It still sucks compared to fiber though lol.

    5. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It depends on your telecom operator. Some won't give you DSL without a land line.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Not all Telco's offer dry loops to non-business customers without jumping through hoops, and this is when you specifically know to ask about it.

      --
      Bye!
    7. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everywhere AT&T offers vDSL broadband they do it on dry loops. They also do dry loop ADSL in areas with older equipment called IR-Direct in their ordering system. Verizon and Frontier both offer dry loops. Thats a majority of the population in the US have access to dry loops. No hoops to jump through.

    8. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      Ummm..what about fibre optic cable. Toronto we've had fibre optic cable [...] In Tokyo, they've had [...]

      Yes, in large cities where the population density is measured in thousands per square kilometer, it makes a lot of sense.

      The locations being mentioned are rural areas. Some have a population of approximately 0 per square kilometer, it can be 5+km between homes. Others are smaller towns where the population may be single-digit or double-digit per square kilometer.

      Currently fiber doesn't make sense financially until you begin to approach 1000 per km2. Then you can have enough customers to justify the costs involved at a reasonable rate.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    9. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      You know nothing about California. It'searthquake country, and fiber is fragile for earthquakes compared to copper. Copper has it's own independent DC power supply, and it will work even when other utilities are not available. Remember, POTS runs on the same wires, and it will keep going in an emergency.

      I'm not sure about the backbone structure of cellular communications, but I have see that cell phones are also more effected by earthquakes then copper. Keeping copper as a backup is a good idea if you want to stay connected after the ground stops shaking.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    10. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by hguorbray · · Score: 2

      After being screwed over by AT&T for several years via U-verse (over that time they were never able to synch up the billing cycles so that we received on single, unified bill) when we moved we determined to get 3rd party DSL over AT&T copper.

      AT&T seemed to do everything in their power to screw over the ISP (Sonic). I called AT&T multiple times and it eventually turned out that they had told us the wrong wiring closet for our circuit, so Sonic came back and rewired, but I think AT&T later came back and put a filter on the circuit or something as if it was a voice circuit only. We had it working but it kept dropping and when AT&T came over the guy refused to talk on the phone to the Sonic support guys....Sonic seemed like really nice guys and I wanted it to work. They apparently do a pretty good job up in the Santa Rosa area.

      I know that AT&T pulled this kind of shit on Covad, et al back during the .com boom when legislation mandated unbundling of local exchange loops, but I was appalled at this level of dickishness. I really should have filed an FCC complaint, but I at least vowed never to use AT&T again and switched cell to Virgin.

      Finally ended up going to Clear wireless internet for a while and it was fair, but they eventually got bought by Sprint or Verizon someone (they used cell towers for their service) and access got a lot more spotty.

      Then tried Hughes or some satellite link, but found out that bouncing off a a satellite 20k miles away made VPN unusable due to lag (Duh!)

      So now we (reluctantly) use comcast -albeit internet only.

      -I'm just sayin'

    11. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      My apartment complex has been an "AT&T only Community" for at least 10 years. New management finally comes in, who is willing to let in competition. So I pop open the access box on the side of the apartment...and the coax is has all been cut off, about 1/2 inch from the customer side and about 1/2 inch out of the pipe. Checked other buildings here; same deal everywhere. The coax itself is covered in dirt and crap...it's obvious that this was done some time ago. My bet is that the AT&T techs sliced all these up when they snagged the complex in their exclusivity contract.

    12. Re: DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by adolf · · Score: 1

      Copper is good for voice service, especially with a simple corded phone, but nobody you might want to call has POTS anymore.

      Meanwhile, the problem with cell phones is that the networks go over capacity the instant that a disaster happens.

      Except 911 calls, which are prioritized and handled very differently by the system, cell phones don't work after any emergency.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    13. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      If the copper isn't already there it doesn't make sense financially until the same 1000 per km2. The bulk of the cost isn't the material, it's the installation and the costs for installing copper and fiber are about the same these days if not on the side of fiber given coppers price and long term maintenance costs. The problem is we have millions of miles of copper laying out there and rather than upgrade it to significantly better technology we simply try to use the existing asset poorly.

      The rest of the world was smart and upgraded all the copper to fiber when the prices came down. In most of Europe and the rest of the world copper is only still used at the very last point in the network. This means the DSL in Europe and elsewhere is only on the last segment of the network, the local neighborhood box to residence and they've even begun replacing that last mile copper because Fiber is substantially cheaper to maintain.

      What the telco's are doing now is trying to maximize the revenue on a capital asset that's worthless by getting the taxpayers to pay for it. It shows their shortsightedness. I look at Centurylink (formerly Qwest, formerly USWest), they allowed their copper assets to stagnate with these same tactics and at least in my local area Comcast ate their lunch. Now 5 years too late they are trying to upgrade the network because the numbers of subscribers has finally reached the level that they can't sustain the network anymore (me and almost all of my neighbors dumped them completely years ago) and at least in my case I told them to take a hike when they came around offering 40mbs up and 3mb down. Centurylink in my area is in danger of imploding because they have lost their one previous critical advantage they had, marketshare. In my area Comcast now leads Centurylink in all communication categories.

      The same thing will happen to ATT eventually and the state should tell them to go fuck themselves.

    14. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Correct, but even in the absence of plant problems, 1MB upstream is often not enough. Especially at times when cloud sync or backup programs are running. In addition, when the upstream becomes 80-90% saturated downstream speeds and latency collapse into a mess of uselessness.

      In my market with CenturyLink many rural areas get slightly better service, unless you are at the very extent of line distance. This is because, at least in the city center, the lines to the CO are buried, old, and have definite plant problems. It is getting harder and harder to find a decent pair anywhere near downtown or the north side of town. However, CenturyLink and the city are unwilling to undergo the expense of digging up and replacing that infrastructure. At least in that area we have Ting trying to provide fiber, but as much as I like them, I hear they are not doing well, and have not extended out to my neighborhood. To add insult to injury, as soon as they started signing up real customers, Comcast moved in with a fiber plan to compete. Most likely Comcast will compete enough to drive Ting out (unless google buys them), then slow or stop new deployment.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    15. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Japan has a lot of fibre.

    16. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I think that I ordered mine through the "business" side, and have a "commercial" account, helped out quite a bit. Also, there is no data caps on it...which is a good thing, since I'm sitting at 140GB for the last seven days...

    17. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Right now I get 12Mbps VDSL, which presumably needed to have fiber to my neighborhood before they would even consider it (yes, I can increase this to 48Mbps if I wanted to spend the caps). My mother only gets 1Mbps as that is the best AT&T could offer. So how are they getting 10Mbps with normal DSL to rural areas which presumably are not close to the telephone switches?

      I agree though, if they are digging new lines then they should be putting in fiber.

    18. Re: DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Rural California is even more sparse in places than rural Finland (maybe not as much as Lapland though). On the other hand a lot of "rural" California is not sparse at all, there are many unincorporated tiny towns that find it difficult to even get reliable water and electricity.

    19. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You don't need fiber to the home. Even major California cities don't have that. But for example consider the mountain regions in California. They get good electricity, they even have decent mobile phone coverage from AT&T. So they really only need copper from the mobile phone backhaul to the houses. It won't be as good as a fat cable but 10Mbps down is a helluva lot better than dialup, assuming AT&T will give decent non-gouging rates.

      My mother didn't have good phone service growing up in the Sierra foothills, it was all shared party line to the nearest operator. Direct dial didn't come until the sometime in the forties or fifties, and it most likely came grudgingly.

    20. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I think it's so they can come back in another 20 years and "offer" to upgrade DSL to 100 mbit fiber (which by then will be outdated too) for another $300 million.

    21. Re: DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And California has a lot higher population density (96 inhabitants per square kilometer) than Finland (17 inhabitants per square kilometer).

      The problem as I see it are all the lawsuits appearing in the US just to delay things to make the existing services not lose to competition from better services. Putting down underground fiber isn't hard with the right equipment, like this way in rural areas here in Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    22. Re:DSL isn't necessarily unreliable by evilviper · · Score: 1

      the real issue for me is why use a dated technology when a superior one proven in the field exists?

      If you'd really like to know (as opposed to just ranting like most others here), it's a question of replacement expenses.

      Whether you get converted to fiber depends on the cost of labor, the local housing density, and property prices.

      In a dense city, copper pairs don't have to run very far to each customer, so maintenance on the lines isn't expensive enough to make replacement a priority. Additionally, labor costs are high, and it takes a lot of man-hours to run new fiber alongside all the old copper, and even more if you have to do that last mile across the neighborhood to the home (this is why AT&T often does fiber to the neighborhood, but leaves copper/DSL from the fiber junction box to the home). And the high property prices means each time you find you need to rip up a road, or install a box, it can get very costly.

      So, in dense cities, you can expect the old copper pairs to stay in-use for a long time, or at best getting fiber to the neighborhood in some areas, which will give you the option of higher DSL speeds (ala. U-Verse). Much of Europe is in this category, and won't see universal deployment of fiber for a long time.

      In the suburbs or less-dense cities, lines run further per subscriber, which means copper line maintenance costs are higher, labor isn't as expensive as in dense cities, and property costs are lower as well. Plus it's easier to convince (read: bribe) the city council. These are the areas where you can expect extensive fiber deployments, and commonly fiber-to-the-home with no copper lines left at all.

      Note that this (fiber deployment) is actually BAD in several ways... Slower DSL is much cheaper than FIOS for entry-level internet access (your grandmother doesn't need a 50Mbps connection to check her e-mail), on the order of $15 vs $50 per month, but YMMV. And once those copper lines are cut, you no longer have a century of telcom regulations protecting you from the misbehavior of your phone company. Those regulations are the only reason why DSL dropped to $15/mo in the first place.

      Then in rural areas with low population density, only wireless is really viable (and maybe not even that, depending on terrain). The profits just aren't there. If copper lines were previously installed (thanks to subsidies like the USF) expect them to be the only wired option, and your provider will just let them rot and never fix them, no matter how much you complain. That's where that century of telcom regulations comes in handy, and you'll be able to complain to public utility commissions and the like, to force their hand. But for anything faster, you'll want to look for LTE deployments, even if you have to installed a fixed cellular antenna on a pole well above your roof, just to get ANY signal from the cell tower.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  4. Umm... no. by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, AT&T? You want yet more money from us, with no oversight or guarantee that you're going to use it for the purpose for which we would give it to you?

    You think we don't see how poorly that arrangement has worked for us in the past? Kindly fuck off.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    1. Re:Umm... no. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      If they open the infrastructure up to competitors in all areas they service, it might not be a bad move by the State.

    2. Re:Umm... no. by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      You missed the "no oversight" part, eh? We already gave them a shit-ton of money for this. We didn't get what we paid for.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:Umm... no. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The worst part, if you have phone service as well, is that they don't do POTS+U-Verse, they do U-Verse with Digital Voice. You lose the benefit of a regulated POTS line and probably pay more in the process.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:Umm... no. by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      You think that's awesome...they've been offering to upgrade me from 20mbps to 12mbps. You'd think they'd check my existing service when considering what sort of spam to send me.

    5. Re:Umm... no. by meerling · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They've already been given plenty of exclusions, exceptions, grants, tax breaks, and may other things to provide that which they still haven't provided, and now they want even more money with no requirement to actually deliver.
      They may have bought enough politicians to get what they want, but I doubt the public will fall for it.

  5. To: California State Govt.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please Piss up a live wire. Take your 20 year old DSL tech and cram it where the Sun cannot shine....
    ATT = The Shittiest Company next to Comcast that Exists.
    (Hi Comcast! YES, you are STILL the worst!) :-D

  6. Welcome to the Matrix, copper-top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is what we get when we give corporations more power over our lives than we have.
    Yay, corporate lobbying?

  7. That's chump change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only one months rent for the average San Francisco citizen.

    1. Re:That's chump change by The-Ixian · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      And yet they cannot even afford to upgrade their aging transit system...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:That's chump change by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      well maybe if we can add a $2.00 min tax to jail and prison phone calls + $3.00 min added fee that we will kick back 75% of then we can get it done.

    3. Re:That's chump change by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      That's another story about using non-standard technology and having to pay much much more for maintenance. Oh yeah, AT&T sucks.

  8. Well, Yes, by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But AT&T probably has given at least ONE or two of those millions to the people they're asking for the hundred million. It's really just an investment. The DSL has nothing to do with it.

  9. I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just downgraded to a 2 meg connection for $80 a month so I won't go over the cap with Comcast which was 30 megs. I have no choice in the matter and feel that is a good deal if AT&T won't do caps. 10 megs if fine. DSL is fine for streaming and more appropriate for geeks who do 100 gig caps easily each month. Cable operators are jerks in the matter where they sell LOOK 100 megs ... only 2 gig cap and $10 for each other gig in very small print.

    I know the European readers are shocked and or laughing in disbelief at my comment but welcome to America.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      Up to 10 megs is not a guaranteed 10 megs. I would bet that 10 megs will rarely be the actual speed since DSL relies on proximity to the hub, the closer the faster the speed, and powered amplifiers for other outside of a mile, or so. They probably still use CAT 3 cable to boot..

    2. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I just downgraded to a 2 meg connection for $80 a month so I won't go over the cap with Comcast which was 30 megs. I have no choice in the matter and feel that is a good deal if AT&T won't do caps. 10 megs if fine. DSL is fine for streaming and more appropriate for geeks who do 100 gig caps easily each month. Cable operators are jerks in the matter where they sell LOOK 100 megs ... only 2 gig cap and $10 for each other gig in very small print.

      I know the European readers are shocked and or laughing in disbelief at my comment but welcome to America.

      Compared to Europe, or even some 3rd world countries, North America (Canada and USA) seem awfully backward and old fashioned. So much stuff seems extremely retro or even antiquated; the banks, the electrical systems, the plumbing, the cars, the music you hear on the street (constant flashbacks to the '80s).

      I'd thought North America was a centre of innovation and modern technology, so much for 'the New World'!! More like going back in time 30 years.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Please kindly refrain from using the term America when refering to the United States (in this case, California?). I hated the internet services while in San Francisco myself.. I had a capped (WTF???) 24mbps (maximum speed available in the middle of SF ???) / 2 mbps (that`s last millennium!!!) from AT&T (they had signed something to be the only one providing service through the building, with fiber to the premise), for a ridiculous price, a bit more than twice what I pay for uncapped 60/30 in a remote region in Quebec, Canada, before accounting for the USD / CAD exchange rate!

      So yeah, US / California sucks for internet speed, but that`s not like this everywhere in America.

      And its probably better than the Internet access in downtown Seattle.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      The Comcast caps I've seen from people have been at 300 GB where they charge you $10 for 50GB more if you go over, but you've switched to crappy internet with an absolute cap of 650 GB (assuming 24/7 usage) which makes you far less likely to reach it. Using it only 8 hours a day at that speed you won't even reach the Comcast cap!

    5. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I had a capped (WTF???) 24mbps (maximum speed available in the middle of SF ???) / 2 mbps (that`s last millennium!!!) from AT&T (they had signed something to be the only one providing service through the building, with fiber to the premise), for a ridiculous price,

      Yep, welcome to AT&T's U-verse service. Your upload speed can easily be exceeded by a turtle with a flashlight. It was "fast" when introduced, but has been going downhill ever since.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, well, you guys are just getting started on mass shootings and we've been doing them for fucking decades. When Charles Whitman was blasting people from the University of Texas tower, you guys couldn't even organize a proper sports riot.

      Now we've got so many mass shootings they barely make it above the fold of the paper. You guys have one and you make it seem like it's a big fucking deal. Get over yourselves.

    7. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Funny

      Compared to Europe, or even some 3rd world countries, North America (Canada and USA) seem awfully backward and old fashioned. So much stuff seems extremely retro or even antiquated; ... the cars....

      I hate to break it to you, but we drive the same Japanese cars you Europeans do.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1] However, this default use has been the source of complaint by some residents of Latin America who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3] They argue instead that "American" should be broadened to include people from anywhere in North or South America, not just the United States; these critics admit their proposed usage is uncommon in English.

      More to the point, words often have multiple usages.

      It's permissable to refer to americans on the american continents and it is also permissible to call citizens of the united states of american americans.

      Indeed, NOTHING is stopping mexicans from calling themselves americans or brazilians from calling themselves americans. They choose to self label themselves as something besides americans but it's perfectly legitimate for them to say "I'm an american from brazil" just as a u.s. citizen might say I'm an american from california in the united states or I'm an american from california (two distinct meanings of american).

      Using the term american is certainly no worse than using "loose" instead of lose on the internet. It's short and convenient.

      And you don't own the word. You have no special rights to it.

      As an American, I support free speech. You are welcome to ask others to refrain from using it. But you have no right to expect it.

      If I were your friend, I *might* refrain from saying I'm an american around you. And in some forums I use the term united states citizen. But as your friend I might mercilessly tease you by using american every chance I got. Just because I knew it irritated you. Because friends do that kinda shit some time. At least in America.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'm well aware of those fights, and I definitely would deserve getting bad score for this detail. As I also explained in another post on this thread, the wording of the phrase referring to Europeans and then to America as the USA was the one which tickled me. Finally, his experience is not even necessarily representative of everywhere in the USA :)

    10. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we lead the world in corporatocracy.

    11. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by will_die · · Score: 1

      Part of the issue is that you are just seeing comparisons of European cities to the worst of rural america.
      I recently moved from rural Europe to USA. In europe I got 1 MB for around $60 and people within 10km of me were still on ADSL. I am now getting 100MB(speed wise I average 120MB) and lots of TV and music channels for around $105.

    12. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by klui · · Score: 1

      AT&T imposes transfer caps on their ADSL subscribers while although the ToS for their U-verse and GigaPower states a transfer cap, they're not enforced.

    13. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you are referring to lumping the banking systems of Canada and the US together but they are fairly different. The banks in Canada have much tougher regulations. Our credit cards have had chip and pin for quite a while (about a decade?) and they have had NFC chips for tap and pay for years now.

    14. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Part of the issue is that you are just seeing comparisons of European cities to the worst of rural america.

      I recently moved from rural Europe to USA. In europe I got 1 MB for around $60 and people within 10km of me were still on ADSL. I am now getting 100MB(speed wise I average 120MB) and lots of TV and music channels for around $105.

      Try downtown Seattle.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    15. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by meerling · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of the IRA ?
      Just because you didn't know about people killing lots of unarmed civilians doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
      Also, and more importantly for this thread, why are we talking about mass murder when the thread is about corporate corruption scamming more money for a service they have no requirement to deliver on?

    16. Re:I'll take it over Comcast and a cap! by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Except ours all have automatic transmissions.

  10. 10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by snowsmann · · Score: 2

    I've been arguing with AT&T for nearly a year now about getting a faster connection to our house. We live in the "woods", but no more than 10 miles from places with enough people to provide them with pretty fast U-Verse speeds. All they can provide me is 768kbps, no amount of begging and pleading has ever even gotten a tech out to even *check* if they can give me more (our direct neighbor gets 6Mbps, still slow but nearly an order of magnitude higher than mine). They have though promised to send someone out a few times... just a technique to get you to shut up for a few weeks. We can't get cable, sat has way too high latency for what I need and cell service is shoddy at best. So, here I am paying AT&T 40 bucks a month for 768kps just to make sure I have a "reliable" connection; still goes out sometimes but way less than the cell connection.
    Sigh.

    --
    timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
    1. Re:10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      If they are in the "woods" (i.e. somewhere rural) they are probably not close enough to that neighbor for WiFi to be an option.

    2. Re: 10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by snowsmann · · Score: 1

      Correct, too far for WiFi to be reasonable between properties.

      --
      timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
    3. Re:10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wi-Fi is not the only wireless method, thankfully because it's one of the worst. But it's the most common if you don't want to deal with something that's not off the Best-Buy shelf. People sometimes have good medium range results using the pringle's can as a directional antenna. Won't be great but you'll have a signal. Or get 900mhz range equipment.

    4. Re:10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      But are the longer range radio technologies (e.g. 900MHz) legally usable without special licensing?

    5. Re:10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There is a public range available. You just need the radio maker to have FCC seal of approval.

    6. Re:10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by snowsmann · · Score: 1

      All these are great ideas, lol, technically would work; I'm an electrical engineer working in the wireless world so I am certain I could get it up and running. None of that helps when you aren't good friends with the neighbors.(-; I'd really rather just be able to purchase the bandwidth they obviously are able to provide.

      --
      timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
    7. Re:10Mbps is still faster than what I can get... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      WiFi is available on the 900 MHz ISM band as well. Ubiquiti makes radios intended for WiFi point to point links including 900 MHz ones.

  11. Good deal by xonen · · Score: 1

    In all fairness. speaking from overseas.. this sounds like a good deal. If all rural area gets 10/1Mbit net, or better, for only 100M.. then it's a pretty good deal.

    And getting anyone connected should be priority for any state. Just only once you have and use net you realize it's about as essential as electricity. So even if tax payers help connecting more remote area's, i'd still see it as a good thing.

    Relativating again.. If AT&T were to promise that kind of speeds on landlines nationwide at that price where i live (Netherlands; about same size and pop as california), it'd be laughed at as implausible.

    Meanwhile, G3/4 speeds exceed DSL over here. Up to the point that you might consider dropping cable/dsl/landline alltogether. Which is likely anywhere 'soon' (<10 years) as wireless data scaled up much better as cupper based. My DSL now about same speed as my cable connection in 2000, while mobile connection dwarfs the dsl speeds.

    just 2 cents..

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    1. Re:Good deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm Dutch myself, but size-wise there is no comparison between California (where I happen to be right now) and the Netherlands.

      - 41,543 km2 (NL) vs 423,970 km2 (CA)
      - 17 million (NL) vs 39 million (CA)

      The greater LA area is 87,490 km2 according to wikipedia, with 18million people. That would be a better comparison.

    2. Re:Good deal by twotacocombo · · Score: 2

      In all fairness. speaking from overseas.. this sounds like a good deal. If all rural area gets 10/1Mbit net, or better, for only 100M.. then it's a pretty good deal.

      That would be a great deal. Unfortunately this is AT&T we're talking about. They'll take the money and run, like they have in the past. We'll be $100 million poorer, they'll be $100 million richer, and absolutely nothing else will change. We've been here before, and the taste hasn't quite left our mouths yet.

    3. Re:Good deal by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      However AT&T is giving no guarantees, there will be no oversight, and the cost to the consumer will be very high. Later on they will lobby that because of all this money spent that 10/1 should count as "broadband".

      Though I agree that 10/1 is good enough even for streaming, assuming you only stream one program at a time (and in rural areas it is indeed possible to teach children to limit the amount of tv they get, get their chores done, and even eat lima beans).

    4. Re:Good deal by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Even parts of Silicon Valley don't get broadband.

    5. Re:Good deal by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 1

      No, this is a BAD deal. ATT has resisted - using legal threats - MANY municipal and rural efforts to put in their own broadband. I had regular DSL,then they called me and said that I had to take Uverse. I did some research and found that they were LEGALLY required to put in dry loop DSL. I had that for a year and then they told me they were going to phase it out and I had to take Uverse, for a LOT more. ATT is a thieving corporation - to the point where the company colludes to cheat and steal. They are just as bad as the banking sector. If I had a real alternative I would take it in a heartbeat!

  12. Doesn't AT&T have shareholders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't AT&T have shareholders? If so, shouldn't the shareholders bear the cost of upgrading infrastructure? After all, if profits hadn't been pulled out to pay dividends, then there would be funds available to rebuild aging infrastructure. Now, on the other hand, if AT&T shareholders are claiming that they need government assistance to rebuild the infrastructure, well, then maybe there shouldn't be any dividends paid out to shareholders until the assistance is repaid.

    1. Re:Doesn't AT&T have shareholders? by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      This is an extension of old infrastructure. An upgrade would be if they ran fiber alongside the copper lines.

  13. Let it begin by NetNed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sounds like the start of negotiations. Counter offer with a dollar.

    1. Re:Let it begin by jhecht · · Score: 1

      Counteroffer should be AT&T pays the state $100 million to take the old plant off their hands.

    2. Re:Let it begin by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Counteroffer should be that AT&T pays back the BILLIONS in subsidies they have already received and actually builds out the fiber that they've already promised to build!

      And then the state should confiscate it and then use competitive bidding to decide who gets to manage it. Why? Because FUCK YOU, AT&T, that's why!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Let it begin by NetNed · · Score: 1

      So two dollars then?

  14. Not a dime up front by twotacocombo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only way this will ever work is if all payment is withheld until the work is completed, and satisfactorily at that. Unless there's a risk of AT&T having to foot the bill, they'll just continue to rob us blind and shit directly into our mouths, as usual. They just paid almost $50 billion acquiring DirecTV, so I'm sure they still have a few hundred million in petty cash laying around to float this until they're finished.

    1. Re:Not a dime up front by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I have no idea why these things aren't phased. Want the money for Part 2? Show us that Part 1 is completely finished. Otherwise, get lost and we're opening you up to competition with someone who CAN get it done.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Not a dime up front by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The only way this will ever work is if all payment is withheld until the work is completed, and satisfactorily at that. Unless there's a risk of AT&T having to foot the bill, they'll just continue to rob us blind and shit directly into our mouths, as usual. They just paid almost $50 billion acquiring DirecTV, so I'm sure they still have a few hundred million in petty cash laying around to float this until they're finished.

      You underestimate AT&Ts legal department.

      If they've made this 'offer' then they're no doubt certain to be able to get out of it / increase charges at whim.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:Not a dime up front by zentigger · · Score: 1

      The better solution to this is to take the $100M and put it out for competition to competitive bidders. Stipulate minimum service levels, required coverage areas AND require a matching investment from the bidder.

      An even better solution to this might be an armed uprising. Take all though fucking guns that you Americans are so proud of, and show us you know what they are for.

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

  15. Re:Try 3 Mbps DSL by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Huh? Verizon isn't even in half of New England. Fairpoint is the provider for VT, NH, and ME, and they suck. I had 30mbs over DSL briefly but had to cut it in half because it kept losing sync. We're never getting fiber. Ever.

  16. Universal Service by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the old POTS system, there was a standard where calls in cities and business telephone services overcharged heavily in order to subsidize the much more expensive rural phone lines, so that everybody in the country had a MUCH better chance of being able to afford a phone line if they wanted to.

    In theory that is probably the argument behind this--but in practice it is probably just that AT&T paid them a few million in donations and want a hundred million steered toward AT&T.

    1. Re:Universal Service by mikael · · Score: 1

      It was called "long distance" and "international" calls as well as the taxes for phone-line rental. But at what cost did those high levies on telephone traffic prevent advancement of technology? ISDN was a 64K/bits system charged a few cents or pence by the kilobyte.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Universal Service by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Does that mean the $100 million DSL lines will be property of the taxpayers, and AT&T will merely provide the labor without getting any ownership?

      Or does AT&T want us to buy their cake, eat most of it and rent the remaining crumbs back to us at a profit?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Universal Service by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had points left. This so needs to be modded up!

    4. Re:Universal Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ISDN Offered 128Kb/s by combining 2 64Kb/s channels

      Yes, it was extremely weak sauce, but it was considerably faster than a 56Kb/s modem over a standard phone line that the re

      AT&T was intent on preserving the income from their incredibly expensive T1 line, which gave 1.544 Mb/s for slightly less than $1,000/mo (plus ridiculous setup charges and lee-time)

      Accepting such a low delivery speed in 2016 sets us back decades and tell AT&T that we are fine with using outdated technology

    5. Re:Universal Service by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      It means the taxpayer pays for the lines and AT&T owns them. If the taxpayers owned the wire then they could allow a competing service to use them, and that would reduce profits at AT&T. The public highway and roadway system has worked very well, I think we need a publicly owned data network (the wires), with phones/tv/internet provided over those wires by anyone who wants to do so. This would make the barrier to entry for such service very low, and ensure maximum competition (high service and low price).

    6. Re:Universal Service by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

      It means the taxpayer pays for the lines and AT&T owns them.

      And dictated by pretty much a one party system in California. Isn't this the Mussolini definition of corporate fascism?

    7. Re:Universal Service by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Do you believe there is nothing in between fascism and capitalism?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  17. BEND OVER CALIFORNIA by wizkid · · Score: 2

    We want to give it to you in true AT&T Style! Don't worry, you'll only feel like your getting screwed....

    hehehe well, you are getting screwed. Deal with it. Don't worry, your legislators are coming out ok. We've paid them well.

          Signed, AT&T

    --
    I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  18. Of course they did... by bfmorgan · · Score: 1

    Of course they did. Profit, not the quality and in this case the quantity of service, is the motive here. But, that was obvious.

    --
    I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
  19. no.... by IMightB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Didn't we give these companies billions in tax credits and incentives in the late 90's and early 2000's to upgrade and expand their infrastructure? Now they want more? Dont they make any money from the fees they charge customers to pay for this sort of stuff? Why do they need the taxpayer to cough up cash for them?

    Also, I live three houses down from where Century Link in installing fiber in denver. Though I can see the equipment from my window and am less than a football field away, I'm not optimistic regarding my chances for getting FTTH, or even something better than cable service.

    1. Re:no.... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      They had $50 billion to buy DirecTV, but now they can't afford $100 million?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:no.... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      A big reason the USA is going bankrupt is because the corporate share of taxes has been going steadily down for decades. 2-There should be a maximum size on corporations. Too big to fail should mean too big to live.

    3. Re:no.... by vandamme · · Score: 1

      300 feet of cable and a small monthly bribe to your neighbor ought to take care of that.

  20. April 1st by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Isn't till this Friday.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  21. Corporate Welfare - Bannana Republic by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Without taxpayers money, ATT&T might not pull through : P

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  22. Ok, let's be pedantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The singular term "America", without a "North" or "South" annotation, unambiguously refers to the only country that has that word in its actual, official name. No one says "America" to refer either exclusively to North America, or the Americas as an aggregate. The proper notation for both is provided in the previous sentence.

  23. AT&T had $5 BILLION free cash flow in 3rd quar by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

    I checked AT&T's corporate site to see how dire their cash situation is. If this company is asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for upgrading their network then they must be in serious trouble.

    According to AT&T's press release dated October 22, 2015, AT&T had $39.1 billion in consolidated revenue, up 19% from the previous period (primarily due to the DirecTV purchase).

    They also had $10.8 billion in cash from operations and $5 billion in free cash flow.

    Apparently making a few billion dollars in a single quarter equates to not being able to spend $100 million to upgrade their own equipment. Who would have thought?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  24. Business as usual by demigod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is Business as usual in the Corporate States of America.

    The companies write the laws that say we have to pay them.

    profit.
     

    --
    "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
    Major Major
    1. Re:Business as usual by psmoot · · Score: 1

      This is Business as usual in the Corporate States of America.

      Yes, it is. You'd be irresponsible not to at least ask. The ROI seems fabulous.

      Doesn't mean we need to say yes. I'm at "yeah, no."

  25. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bah, we'll just raise taxes on the rich. What's another $100 million transferred from productive people to lobbyists and the coffers of a megacorp? /California

  26. Re:Wake up Amerika by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    And realize who is really running your governments.

    The people with money and connections.

    Just like every other government in the world. Or did you think there was another option?

  27. Re:AT&T had $5 BILLION free cash flow in 3rd q by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

    You miss the point entirely. The issue isn't what they can and can't afford. Why invest your own money when you can make someone else pay and you still reap the rewards (subscribers)? If there is money on the table, why would they leave it there? I don't blame ATT for this. Unless you are a holder of significant quantities of ATT stock, their job isn't to look out for your best interest. I blame the politicians for being corrupt and/or stupid enough to fall for it.

  28. Re:AT&T had $5 BILLION free cash flow in 3rd q by synaptic · · Score: 2

    Isn't the issue here the extremely long ROI for rural improvements? Is AT&T obligated to build out these areas that won't be profit centers for them? I'm guessing the state throwing money at them changes that equation.

    Is AT&T the only provider who can do it? Did they even bid this out? I might have to RTFA here soon. :)

  29. Re:10Mbps would be an upgrade by synaptic · · Score: 2

    http://www.ubnt.com/ + RadioMobile + Renogy solar panels and charge controller + 155Ah VMaxTanks SLA/AGM battery (or two)

    I was in your situation and did a 5 mile PTP backhaul with PowerBridge M5 400mm dishes and 900MHz for PTMP. I was actually worse off with only satellite internet availability that had terrible latency (700-1500ms+) and strict bandwidth caps (38GB/month, throttled at 85%) and no bandwidth accounting reporting. I actually had to gang together two WildBlue connections to get that and was paying just over $200/month.

    Fixed terrestrial wireless is amazing and it will work for you if you put in the effort. Expect to spend $1500-2000 to get the radios, solar panels, batteries, STP cables, battery boxes, masts, etc.. I enjoy 50Mbps now.

  30. they're running fiber to that stuff. by swschrad · · Score: 2

    so why not run fiber OUT, too? GPON is going to be cheaper to work with in the long run, and customers could get gigabit speeds for that $100 million.

    oh, that's right... almost no oversight on that deal.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  31. The business they're in... by matbury · · Score: 1

    ...so that it can provide several parts of the state with unreliable, slow and expensive DSL service.

    Well, I guess that's the business they're in and what they're famous for.

  32. Re: What the hell are AT&T's customers paying by itsphilip · · Score: 1

    It's not just the Republicans

  33. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The rich are people who pay only capital gains taxes at roughly 35% percent, which is far lower then normal humans pay. They are also those like Mitt Romney who have hundred of million of dollars in an IRA, which is impossible for normal humans as well.

    And if you talk about taxes, a vast amount of our horribly complex tax code exists solely for the purpose of keeping "the rich" from paying taxes. Tax breaks are free money, and they invariably go to the rich.

    Were you born that stupid, or did you practice to lower your mental abilities?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  34. The real Taker Class by Macdude · · Score: 1

    AT&T is a prime example of the real Taker Class (tm).

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  35. Really time for government to take over cable by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    It's the interstate highway of the modern age.

    It should be built nationally to the degree the highway system was built, with fiber and then allow competition to use its services.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  36. Re:What the hell are AT&T's customers paying f by youngone · · Score: 2
    Unfortunately it really is not a Republican problem, if it was the fix would be easy.

    This is just another example of Government for sale.

    Having private industry write legislation would be a huge scandal in any other democracy I can think of, but it is almost unremarkable in the US.

    This is interesting

    I would argue that with the gerrymandering of electorates and the way money dictates outcomes in US politics, you really don't have a democracy anymore.

  37. Better than Chicago... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Our ATT DSL is 7MBPS...

  38. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by psmoot · · Score: 1

    The rich are people who pay only capital gains taxes at roughly 35% percent

    Interesting definition, not one I've ever heard before. Typically "rich" is defined as an income percentile, i.e. someone who's earnings are greater than 90%, 95%, 99% of the population. Virtually all of them have earnings in addition to capital gains.

    ...which is far lower then normal humans pay. They are also those like Mitt Romney who have hundred of million of dollars in an IRA, which is impossible for normal humans as well.

    For perspective, from Wikipedia, the top federal effective tax rate (income plus payroll) is around 30%. Paying 35% on capital gains is pretty steep in comparison. You might want to research your facts. Just sayin'.

    (Yes, yes, this is Slashdot. Why would I expect accurate facts?)

    Tax breaks are free money, and they invariably go to the rich.

    *caugh*EITC*caugh*standard deduction*caugh*dependent exemption*caugh*mortgage interest deduction*caugh*

  39. Re:10Mbps would be an upgrade by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    So you've listed the equipment supplier, the software to orient, the solar charge controller and panels and the battery. But who is the service provider? Because buying all that equipment buys you nothing if you can't get access at low latency.

  40. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by anegg · · Score: 3, Informative

    The devil is in the details. Saying the capital gains tax in the United States is 0% to 15% is disingenuous. The details are more nuanced. Some useful definitions are at https://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Fa....

    Short-term capital gains (investments held less than 1 year) are taxed at ordinary income tax rates, which are typically higher than the special treatment given to long-term capital gains but could be lower if the individual earning the gains is in a lower tax bracket because of their overall income being low.

    For the folks with high incomes, long-term capital gains are 20%. For folks with somewhat smaller incomes, the long-term capital gains rate might be 15%, and for those with incomes that cause them to have a tax rate already below 15%, the capital gains rate could be as low as 0%. The fat cats with big incomes are not paying anything like the 0% tax on THEIR capital gains, but COULD be paying less than ordinary income tax rates if most of their income is from capital gains rather than ordinary income.

    In the end, the Alternative Minimum Tax can and does swoop in and raise the overall tax rate paid to 26% to 28%, again depending on overall income and how well someone has done reducing their overall tax rate with deductions and other treatments. Anyone triggering AMT also has a number of deductions taken away from them, making the 26% to 28% tax due on a greater portion of their gross income as well. More on the AMT https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/.... Oh, and, in addition to AMT, the Affordable Care Act also added an additional 3.8% net investment income tax onto both short-term and long-term capital gains for individuals making over $200,000/year, so they are likely to be paying a total of 23.8% on their long-term capital gains, not someplace between 0% and 15%.

    The reason given for the lower tax rate on long-term capital gains is typically to encourage people and corporations to invest their money (put it to work) instead of just sitting on it, and to keep it invested (for at least a year) instead of being speculative and trading it in and out, disruptively.

  41. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by anegg · · Score: 1

    If someone has $100s of millions of dollars in an IRA, they are going to be paying a lot of income tax down the road a bit. IRA distributions are taxed as ordinary income, no matter where the income in the IRA comes from. And you HAVE to take the IRA distributions sometime, starting at age 70 1/2 if you haven't started earlier, with the yearly "Required Minimum Distribution" (RMD) being based on the balance in your IRA divided by your life expectancy in years. Having over $10 million in an IRA starts looking pretty bad from an income tax standpoint. I suspect that people like Mitt Romney can afford tax advisors that get them a better deal than that.

  42. I guess they have too much money in California by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Otherwise they would, you know, maybe try to make sure what they have is well spent...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  43. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

    I won't argue that the US government is corruption free, but I need to point out a few facts.

    The current maximum capital gains tax in the US is 20%. The vast majority of US citizens pay less than that for income tax after deductions.

    According to the IRS, IRA contribution limits are $5,500 per year and $6,500 per year for those older than 50. Mitt Romney isn't more than 15,000 years old.

    "Tax breaks are free money, and they invariably go to the rich." No it isn't and no they don't. Tax break are money that is not taken away, not free money. They do not invariably go to the rich. Look into the AMT, Child Care Tax Credit and Tax Credits for education just to start. I'm not saying that international corporations and fat cats get way more than their fair share of tax relief, but tax relief does not invariable go to the rich.

    Did I just hear a whoosh and miss your sarcasm or did you really mean to say those things?

    If you meant to say that the concentration of wealth is historically high and will lead to unrest and instability - I could not agree more. Smart guys like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates cant give it away fast enough. The root causes of violence in many parts of the world are lack of water and poverty - things that money can solve directly.

    If you meant to say that unions and corporate special interest influence politicians I'd agree completely.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  44. Poor AT&T by dkroft1 · · Score: 1

    Let's give those funds to Google to roll out Fiber instead

  45. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    35% is actually almost exactly the mean tax per income.

    (That is to say, about 35% our collective incomes goes to paying our collective taxes, so a theoretical average person pays about 35% in income taxes).

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  46. The only appropriate answer to AT&T by Chas · · Score: 1

    Fuck you!

    It's their damn network, they need to maintain it or get the fuck out of the state.

    If they want money from the state (ESPECIALLY a sum like 100 million, they better have a fiber replacement strategy in hand when they come begging for the money.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  47. Careful California by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    Verizon promised this to us, moons ago, and now we have a noncompetitive arrangement where handshakes or coin flips decide WHICH ISP gets the monopoly. http://www.speedmatters.org/bl... Now the rates in NJ lead the planet. Careful Ca,Careful!

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  48. Re:Try 3 Mbps DSL by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    Verizon doesnt offer FIOS in my area, but they -do- provide "High Speed Internet Access" with "up to 1.5Mbps!!!! Welcome to the 1980's!!! Seems like the govt is going to have to break the stranglehold on these perps.GIVE US SOME COMPETITION!!!

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  49. Re:Try 3 Mbps DSL by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Government is preventing competition. In many parts of this area there's one cable provider and one telephone provider, they get exclusive rights for some number of years by the city or town. The two providers know they don't have to offer higher speeds if they both stay slow, so that's what they do. Municipal fiber might help, but it's probably only the cities that can do it, which leaves out rural. It's doubly annoying for me, I know there's a major fiber bundle just down the road, but will either provider tap into it? Hell no. I see fiber utility trucks every other day, just to rub it in.

    Comcrap had a contract renewal recently with my city, the public input was horrible, and then the city granted them the contract. Un-f'ing-believable.

  50. Um, the Democrats run CA with supermajorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Democrats have total control of CA politics. So much so that in the last election cycle many Democrat candidates simply refused to even debate any opponents and the Democrats who run the news outlets in the state did not even press them on this.,/p>

    The Governor is a Democrat, the Lt Governor is a Democrat, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State are Democrats, the Senate is majority Democrat, the Assembly (the lower house) is majority Democrat. Both houses of the legislature have such large margins of Democrat majorities that Republicans have no say and no power - there's really no reason for them to show up except to monitor what the Democrats are doing, to the extent that the Democrats even let them see.

    Anybody with any anger about anything political in California has only the Democrat party to blame - this is just the objective FACT.

  51. Deductions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Since taxes are on my mind right now... If we give AT&T this $100 million, do we get a deduction for this act of charity?

  52. Are these not for underserved, rural communities? by kriston · · Score: 1

    Are these requests not for underserved, rural communities? They need help, and the NRTC, try as they may, might not be able to serve the telecommunications needs of these communities.

    --

    Kriston

  53. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Capital gains are taxed at regular income rates IF they are from short-term investments - meaning less than a calendar year.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  54. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Cyberax · · Score: 2

    Yet 23.8% is still lower than the effective 30% tax rate paid by average US citizens: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-po... - and this doesn't include the sales tax.

  55. Re:When it comes to Internet ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

    It's what the market will bear. In Romania, that $11 is more than many people can even begin to pay. In Romania, they're still driving wagons to town - pulled by tired old horses. The only people that can afford that, in Romania, are the people who go steal from neighboring countries and the handful of people who work in tech and government.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  56. Re:Try 3 Mbps DSL by KGIII · · Score: 1

    My home is in NW, Maine. I get fine service from Fairpoint. It's only 12 but I get 14 down. It's something stupid like $35/mo and always working. Supposedly, they're putting fiber in. That doesn't make me as happy as it should. They'll neglect the copper. I've seen copper on the ground, plowed into a snowbank, and with a tree on top of it - it still worked. Lemme see fiber do that.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  57. Re:10Mbps would be an upgrade by mishehu · · Score: 1

    And it sucks even harder if you need to run up a 200 foot tower on your property in order to get line-of-sight to the other end..

  58. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I assume by "IRA" we hopefully mean "Roth IRA" so you don't have to pay income tax on the distributions (you instead pay income tax before depositing money into it). Of course, because of the deposit limits, having >$10 million in an IRA means something very strange is going on.

  59. AT&T should ask Australia by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

    We'll pay for it. No worries mate. We just paid for Telstra's so we're clearly willing to piss away billions of dollars on hopelessly broken, unmaintainable and un-upgradable copper networks!

  60. Strange by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "AT&T Wants $100 Million From California Taxpayers For Aging DSL "

    Why would AT&T want to age the DSL, doesn't it age automatically with time?

  61. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by stdarg · · Score: 1

    There's more than one way to get money into an IRA. You can do a 401k rollover for instance. Contribution limits for 401ks are about 18000 for the employee, but 53000 for the employer. The limit is also per employer, not total... so if you own 10 companies and draw a salary from all 10 companies, I guess you can put away half a million per year in 401ks, then roll them over to IRAs.

    Another trick is to use a self-directed IRA that lets you hold more investments than just publicly traded stocks and bonds. A self-directed IRA can buy and sell all kinds of stuff like real estate and art. How hard is it for a self-directed IRA to buy some art, then magically sell it the next day for 50x profit to the owner, the owner's company, a friend, etc? I don't know.

    According to http://www.bankrate.com/financ... there are 314 taxpayers with IRA balances over $25 million, so definitely some tricks are happening.

  62. Pay them the $100M... by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    ...to go away. It would be worth a lot more than that to get them out of the picture.

  63. How About, No. by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    They have been wrapping themselves up in the title Utility whenever money comes up, being a sponge for taxpayer's cash whenever infrastructure comes up. And then they post their quarterly reports, screaming nothing but profit.

    It's time for the telecoms to assume fiscal responsibility for their dealings just like how banks are being forced into.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  64. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    This is interesting. Thanks for the info. I'm at the stage of my life where I'm trying to save as much as I can for retirement and limits can be a concern and or me probably a fact of life. I'm not sure why I would want to move money from a 401k to an IRA (they are both taxed upon withdrawal), but there must be a reason (that would likely not benefit me). I'd think that people who do this sort of thing would really draw the IRS's attention which at best is a nuisance.

    It does explain why some super rich people want control of the government and taxation. Deferred tax savings strategies are a bet that your taxes will be lower when you retire. If you could control the tax rate, it would no longer be a gamble. Current socio-economic trends seem to imply higher taxes in the future so betting on lower taxes in the future seems risky, especially for those in higher income brackets.

    The article you mention illustrates limitations in the Roth IRA and Roth 401k systems. I wonder if Mitt Romney is on that list...

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  65. Re:What the hell are AT&T's customers paying f by evilviper · · Score: 1

    the way money dictates outcomes in US politics, you really don't have a democracy anymore.

    There are innumerable cases of the candidate with the most money LOSING the election. Most recently, Jeb Bush's presidential candidacy crashed and burned in dramatic fashion, as he spent more campaign money than all the others in the race.

    Money doesn't dictate outcomes, it just helps a little, and in a very close race, that little bit can be just enough.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  66. Re:What the hell are AT&T's customers paying f by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Sure, but when you need lots of money to get a decent chance in the race, it doesn't matter as much that spending more than that isn't a guarantee. I rather doubt that Trump, Kasich, or Cruz got where they are without needing some sizable contributions.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  67. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    However the 20% long term capital gains rate is the same for most people, it doesn't go down as you get richer. The relatively low tax rate of 20% is to encourage a buy-and-hold investment which helps the economy. Most really rich people get their money primarily from capital gains and dividends rather than from a salary, whereas the average person gets most income from salary, and this is the major reason that richer people pay less of an overall tax rate. With good accounting you can effectively reduce it further.

    The regressive tax rates don't apply to capital gains so a scheme to tax the rich by raising the tax rates for those making more money doesn't affect the really wealthy very much, but it does hit a lot of people in the center such as those in the $100k-$200k range.

    The AMT tax was originally meant for the very wealthy and was taxing some items that normally aren't taxed or that were taxed at lower rates. Such as exercising ISO stock options which used to be something only a company's executives might see but which have become more common in tech industries for average employees (and in the dot com bust/boom era it bankrupted some people). And some of the AMT tax rates kick in and apply at salary levels that are easily reachable in high cost of living areas by rather average people. Ie, married couple with both working and earning $100K salaries each plus some extra investment income earmarked for retirement (401K is never enough), they'll hit that $200K range threshold where lots of "tax the wealthy" items start kicking in.

  68. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    When I put money into a standard IRA there was also a limit on how much you could put in, and the limit was a lot less than the 401K limit. If it was unlimited there wouldn't even be a need for a 401K.

    The problem with schemes to tax the wealthy is that no one can really define what that means. At my 2015 income (fresh in my mind after having done taxes) I would be considered wealthy if I lived in the middle of Kansas. But I live in Silicon Valley in a small condo and not the best part of town. So when there's some tax item that only applies to those making over $200K a year, or $300K a year, those limits are very easy to reach here with a two income family that would be difficult to describe as "wealthy" (filing separately or jointly neither is as good for your taxes as being single). But if they move somewhere else then the jobs dry up or they have a nightmare commute, only see the family on weekends, etc.

  69. Re:The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    FYI, in the US, the 95% is making $95k/year, hardly "rich" and very likely to be paying no capital gains, as that is generally a salaried employee.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  70. Re:What the hell are AT&T's customers paying f by youngone · · Score: 1

    Money doesn't dictate outcomes, it just helps a little...

    Like 91% of the time

  71. Re:What the hell are AT&T's customers paying f by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Correlation is not causation. The article ended with numerous explanations for the effect at the bottom, which don't equate to voters being swayed by money. It's quite likely that the effect is reversed, and donors enthusiastically give lots of money to heavy favorites. And a 9% of big-spending incumbents being ejected is actually impressive.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant