Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Calls For Net Neutrality Laws After Fighting To End FCC Rules (engadget.com)
Few people would call AT&T a champion of net neutrality, but that isn't stopping it from trying to claim the title. From a report: CEO Randall Stephenson has posted an open letter calling on Congress to write an "Internet Bill of Rights" that enforces "neutrality, transparency, openness, non-discrimination and privacy protection" for American internet users. They would not only defend consumer rights, Stephenson argues, but establish "consistent rules of the road" that give internet companies and telecoms an idea of what they can expect. The company chief also insisted that AT&T honored an open internet and doesn't block, throttle or otherwise hinder access to content.
The problem, as you might suspect, is what the company isn't saying. The US already had protections for net neutrality that do what it's asking for, but AT&T and other telecoms have spent years fighting net neutrality regulation whenever it comes up. The carrier spent over $16 million in lobbying just in 2017, and it maintained its anti-regulatory stance throughout the FCC's repeal process.
The problem, as you might suspect, is what the company isn't saying. The US already had protections for net neutrality that do what it's asking for, but AT&T and other telecoms have spent years fighting net neutrality regulation whenever it comes up. The carrier spent over $16 million in lobbying just in 2017, and it maintained its anti-regulatory stance throughout the FCC's repeal process.
They want to block individual states passing their own laws because federal law has priority over state law. When they removed the federal net neutrality rules and reclassified internet again the FCC removed their authority to block state level actions.
What ATT wants is a watered down NN that doesn't block "fast lanes" (masquerading as slow lanes for everyone that doesn't pay) and prevents state laws. In other words they want the federal NN gone because they were too strong but they still want federal rules, just really silly easy ones that they can ignore so the states can't pass their own rules.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No, it's because we see through AT&T's schemes. They don't want net neutrality at all. They campaigned hard to get it revoked. Then they realized they created a hydra - with it revoked federally, all of a sudden states and cities were enacting their own regulations. Granted, the FCC might have prevented states and cities from creating their own laws, but the FCC didn't restrict states and cities requiring net neutrality for their own procurement decisions (i.e., the FCC prevents states from legislating it for their citizens, but the FCC doesn't prevent how the states and other governing agencies procure their access).
This means hundreds of individual laws and possibly the loss of very lucrative state and city government contracts when they come up for renewal. And it's not like they can opt-out since state and government contracts are lucrative enough that a company can be formed just to provide them access.
So AT&T realized they may have won the battle, but now they're facing a far more ruinous war of attrition - being bogged down in tons of paperwork because every law is slightly different
They're basically wanting the FCC to legislate something so they have one set of rules to follow instead of the half dozen and rising laws.
It's the law of unintended consequences. AT&T is no saint, they don't want net neutrality because they can't profit by selling special access. They want it simply to stem the losses of the excess paperwork they've created.