AT&T Pretends It Was Just About To Offer A Bunch Of Awesome Services, But Then Net Neutrality Happened

from the credibility-gap dept

Tue, Dec 8th 2015 6:27am — Karl Bode

AT&T was just about to offer all manner of amazing, innovative services, but then net neutrality happened. At least that's the gist of a speech recently given by AT&T Senior VP Bob Quinn at the Phoenix Center's Annual US Telecoms Symposium. According to Quinn, net neutrality has created enough "legal uncertainty" that it caused the telco to shelve a "bunch of stuff." Quinn also proclaimed that the FCC's rules has the telco stuck in a sort of regulatory quagmire, where fifteen AT&T lawyers have to sit around debating what is and what isn't allowed by the nation's net neutrality protections:

"Since the Open Internet order came out we've had weekly calls with the business units and literally 15 lawyers who are all trying to figure out whether that stuff we've invested in ... would be a violation of the order," he said. "We've had to shelve a bunch of stuff because we've got to wait and see."

Right. Except that's absolute bullshit. We've noted time and time again that while the new net neutrality rules thankfully prohibit the most heavy-handed of behaviors (outright site blocking or throttling), the rules are actually generous to a fault when it comes to allowing all manner of "creative" pricing. That's especially been true when it comes to usage caps and "zero rating," which together let companies trample all over the idea of an open Internet -- provided they're just clever about it.

AT&T, for example, has had no problem offering its "Sponsored Data" service, which lets companies pay a premium to have their content not count against user wireless data usage allotments. Despite the fact this dramatically tilts the playing field in the favor of larger, wealthier companies (by letting them buy their way to a preferred status), the FCC has yet to bat an eyelash at the practice. The rules even go so far as to insist that such models may "benefit edge providers (content companies) by helping them distinguish themselves in the marketplace and tailor their services to consumer demands."

And while it's possible the FCC is waiting on the industry's lawsuit against the rules to be settled before taking action, the fact it has publicly applauded such models suggests that's not likely. T-Mobile, for example, has been lauded by the FCC for its "Binge On" and Music Freedom" services, which exempt the nation's biggest music and video services from the company's usage caps. In fact, the FCC boss went so far as to call these services "innovative" and "pro competition" despite the dangerous precedent at play (again, small independents not being whitelisted alongside by default).

Hell, the FCC has even sat on its hands as Comcast offers a streaming video service that doesn't count against the company's ever-expanding usage caps, which is generally seen as the worst net neutrality tap dance we've seen so far.

So yeah, as it stands now there's nothing the FCC hasn't allowed. Sounds horribly oppressive, doesn't it? And Quinn can't be bothered to cite a single example of a service that the company had to scrap because of the rules. That's because, much like its BS claim it was going to freeze non-existent fiber deployments in reaction to the rules, AT&T's not really creatively developing innovative new services. Instead, it's stuck doing what the government-pampered legacy behemoth historically does best: pouting about what's actually pretty lax regulation.

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

Filed Under: innovation, net neutrality, title ii
Companies: at&t

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 6:39am

But then they got high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 6:43am

Huh...
And then there was this article in this morning's local rag: http://www.jsonline.com/business/att-to-launch-ultra-fast-internet-service-in-milwaukee-in-2016-b996 29771z1-360815221.html

Though I suppose it depends on whether AT&T are talking only about their telephone wireless and data... Would be nice if Quinn would be a little more specific about what developments they are supposedly not implementing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 7:34am
  
  Re: Huh...
  Meanwhile I am almost in the middle of one of the metro areas where Gigapower has supposedly been 'available' since last year. They have a funny definition of 'available'. Maybe if they fired a few lawyers and disbanded a few business units, they could get around to laying some cable during a coffee-break.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re: Huh...
    You just need to twist the language enough to fit the definition they use, where 'available' just means that hypothetically the service might be available in the area, at some point in the future.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 6:56am

Since the Open Internet order came out we've had weekly calls with the business units and literally 15 lawyers who are all trying to figure out whether that stuff we've invested in

That's really bad planning on your part. So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  Not to mention that if you really need fifteen lawyers either fourteen are not that competent or you are on the wrong side of the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 7:31am

"Better service"
"I just raised the prices through some scheme or another and now I am offering this particular service at about the same overall price and quality you were used to before.
This I call "tailoring my services to consumer demands""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 7:32am

Wah wah wah helping the public hurts our bottom line! We're a money making company, not a provider of public service!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDescartes (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:08am

Too Bad
I had an awesome comment all typed up (+1 LOL and +1 insightful), but I can't post it because of net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Morgan Wick (profile), 9 Dec 2015 @ 3:21am
  
  Re: Too Bad
  There's something really ironic about this comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
beech, 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:09am

whining
Well it's preset easy to tell that pouting over lax regulation is a safeguard to prevent more regulation. Now, the next time the fcc is considering new rules they'll probably think back to what a huge fit the telecoms threw last time and self-censor to avoid similar "backlash".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:32am

"AT&T Pretends...."
As opposed to the Comcast motto, "Let's Just Pretend This Never Happened."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:52am

I feel for them
Here's a list of innovations they had to shelve:
- Charge users per minute per connect time
- Charge CDNs per user per minute connect time
- Charge Netflix per user per minute of connect time
- Charge Hulu per user per minute of connect time
- Charge Youtube per user per minute of connect time
- Charge Google per user per search

That there is a lot of innovation they had to throw out because of these nasty government regulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 9:22am

Translation: "15 lawyers couldn't figure ways around not getting fined because of the new net neutrality rules, so we had to shelved these money making ideas that provide very little benefit to an end user.".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 9:23am

We've noted time and time again that while the new net neutrality rules thankfully prohibit the most heavy-handed of behaviors (outright site blocking or throttling), the rules are actually generous to a fault when it comes to allowing all manner of "creative" pricing.

I've found out what the lawyers are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2015 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re:
  "...AT&T's not really creatively developing innovative new services." 15 lawyers. They provide a service. It is also new and innovative since they did not have to worry about getting around those pesky rules before.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]