AT&T Loves Tax-Supported Muni Broadband... When Provided By AT&T
from the funny-how-that-works... dept
We recently pointed out AT&T's amazing ability to take two totally opposite positions concerning "competition" and government involvement, depending on which side it was on. However, here's an even more striking case. Back when AT&T was known as SBC (not so long ago...), you may recall CEO Ed Whitacre trashing any talk of muni-broadband. Specifically, he talked about how important it was to lobby against muni-broadband, because he didn't want his tax dollars going to fund broadband and he didn't think it was fair for competition. Apparently, that doesn't apply when he and his company are the beneficiaries. The Chicago Tribune is reporting that residents in Bedford Park are all about to be offered free, tax-payer supported DSL, provided by none other than AT&T. Suddenly, it appears, AT&T has no problem whatsoever with muni-broadband -- even if it's entirely supported by tax dollars and allows them to unfairly compete with the local cable company, who offers a paid cable modem service. So, does this mean the company will stop trying to have its own former employee, now-Congressperson pass legislation banning any kind of muni-broadband? Or will they stop lobbying against other types of muni-broadband, even when they're not at all tax payer supported? Somehow, it seems unlikely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is all too familiar
Maybe before they start to shun a new idea, they should look and see if there is money to be made in it first. Almost any municipality is going to need to sub-contract something like this out, as most municipalities don't have the knowledgeable people or equipment to handle it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When will they be satisfied?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds me of...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
free, tax-payer supported
Nothing gets a corporations attention better than government forcibly taking money from citizens (taxation) and then giving to the corporation. This is the whole reason taxpayer supported broadband is a bad idea. Let the free market provide it without getting bureaucrats in the middle. Competition is good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: free, tax-payer supported
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's great, but..
Beyond the tinfoil hat concerns, introducing local government's already Byzantine bureaucracy into the already completely lousy support offered by most broadband providers means terrible service. There will also be no incentive for the provider to add value at any point in the future, since they won't be making any more money (assuming the contract has been negotiated for fixed rates with fixed features.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The bargin forthe telcos was "We the Government will grab the land and you the telco's will provide service to the citizens for their benefit".
Given the government gave them the monopoly, the mega-corm should eithe shut up of turn over the infrasstructure and not have access to the goverment grabbed land.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
disappointing
couldnt they at least 1 day of the week look out for PUBLIC INTEREST? rather than corporate interest?
the only reason politicians ever disagree is cause many of them are bought and owned by competting companies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reminds me of...
In fact, this is all sort of symptomatic of the Bush administration.
Remember when monopolies (like AT&T) would have been taken to court for unfair practices against competitors (such as Verizon and SBC)?
Remember when the main way people made money from the Internet was from actual businesses and adevertisements and not from monopolistic ownership of the connection?
Rememember when it was illegal for the NSA to tap your internet connection?
Reminds me of when Bush lied about... just about everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of...
Also note: AT&T and SBC are no longer "competitors" since the purchase and renaming.
You may now return to your cocoon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Reminds me of...
AT&t bought SBC after they beat that anti-trust lawsuit that allowed them to charge other DSL providers (such as SBC and Verizon) for use of their phone lines (that, in most cases, were paid by nat'l, state, and, local gov'ts) to provide DSL service, thus guaranteeing unfair competition.
I also noticed you poked your head back in your turtle shell and ignored the fact that Bush is a lying dumbass.
Republicans have no sense of irony. That's why there are no good Republican comedians, artists, writers, or economists. Supply-side is for 'tards and thieves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]