Comments on: AT&T Tries to Strong-arm the Feds

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:14:16 +0000

Stacey, it's you who comes across as trying to slam AT&T. Every company has the right to react to government policy by adjusting its plans to maximize returns for its shareholders. In fact, it'd be breaking the law if it didn't.

Your comments about "network neutrality" regulation -- which really would harm all ISPs, large and small -- come across as one long whine.

By: Michael C

Michael C — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:07:44 +0000

As one of the "sheep", if I have to choose between trusting the FCC to be reasonable in it's application of Title II regulation or the ISPs promise to voluntarily adhere to Net Neutrality principles (which they're already breaking), then I choose Title II reclassification. While I'm a little skeptical about either party's concern for consumers rights, ultimately the FCC answers to my elected official and operates within the laws defined by our Congress. The ISP's fiduciary responsibility means they ultimately answer to their shareholders, and with little to no competition in the market, consumer pressure can only come from threat of regulation rather than "voting with our wallets".

By: T Heller

T Heller — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:46:25 +0000

Looking at AT&T's cash flows, the $17-18 billion is what they've been spending annually on "Property Plant and Equipment" (Can't readily determine its composition between broadband, etc though.)

And they've been spinning off over $9 billion annually in dividends, which constitute a 6.5% yield on its current share price.

Will they also threaten to reduce its dividend, too? Why not?

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:00:15 +0000

If the government wanted carte blanche access to AT&T's network, I would understand AT&T's efforts and even agree (even though open networks may be the only solution to the duopoly we have), but the current FCC nor Congress doesn't want that. Our best hope is that Google's open network somehow makes enough money to inspire others or that municipalities take control and build their owns (and I hope they can hire someone smart to manage it). I think the provisions in the NN rules for reasonable network managment allow for T et al to continue to run their businesses. Above all, my passion on the topic likely comes from living in an area where the lack of competition has me stuck on an archaic connection, so this isn't an academic debate.

By: Claude

Claude — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:54:26 +0000

The telco network 'product' as "property rights" argument, while a clever attempt at linkage with private property owners, is a vapid argument as most of the network sits on public land in the form of telephone poles, wires and cable and uses the "public airwaves".

Historically, the argument is disgusting as its the same "this is my property and I can do what I want with it" argument slave holders used that led to civil war. Then upon losing that argument on the battlefield... the perps demanded payment for the "loss of their property".

Today, in the age of corporate globalism, this (old) argument fails to consider the biggest players in the global war for markets are the BIG (Biz) Governments of China, India, Russia and the EU.

In short, the argument is wrong, disgusting and selfishly shortsighted.

By: jake

jake — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:29:29 +0000

Duh!! Would you invest if the government is going to take your money? I doubt it. Of course as a company at&t should be concerned. They would be fools if they didn’t.

Property rights in the U.S. in 2010 are…. Non-existant.

P.S.- Apple made the iPhone crappy, just like they did with the iPad. Anyone using an iPhone and the app store can’t be too happy with Apple in general. I have talked to several that gave up their iPhones because of Apple. Plus with the iAds addition did apple really need to turn the iPhone and iPad into an advertizement device? Yeeeaaah, I can only imagine how that meeting in the board room at apple went.

By: Harry Hawk

Harry Hawk — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:48:38 +0000

Calling this AT&T "Ma Bell" seems strange. They have the AT&T name but it's not the same company.

By: John Gauntt

John Gauntt — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:07:10 +0000

I know we're closing on 4:20pm on April 20, but it seems like a lot of people started smoking early today. AT&T as paragon to private property virtue? This company hasn't drawn a government unassisted breath since day one.

The fixed line telephone business is losing lines monthly. Without iPhone, they'd have nothing innovative to offer the consumer. Every major advance in digital society has happened over their objections or bleats for help from Washington.

If AT&T wants to play chicken with the FCC, I say go right ahead. There's enough value at stake now with broadband to where those precious market forces will organize a work around.

By: Bob (the first Bob to post)

Bob (the first Bob to post) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:06:25 +0000

If it wasn't for judge Green, we'd still be using Dial-up (or worse ISDN or ATM).

Companies like UUnet built the modern Internet, not the luddite telcos and cable companies.

FiOS is kicking ass now in-part because Verizon bought MCI/UUnet. They have a world class IP infrastructure to provide transit capacity to their FiOS subscribers.

Sidenberg is at least giving it a shot with his investment in Fiber. ATT, Comcast and the rest are just milking their deployed legacy infrastructure to maximize profit.

How will things get better when Comcast owns NBC? Or when VZ or AT&T buy's up Sprint, T-mobile and ClearWire?

About the only good thing I can say is that we no longer pay inter-state roaming, like those poor bastards in the EU still do.

By: Tattoo…? | tattoo removal london

Tattoo…? | tattoo removal london — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:42:17 +0000

[...] AT&T Tries to Strong-arm the Feds [...]