AT&T Promises Your Broadband Will Suck Less...But Only If It Gets Another Massive Tax Cut
from the Charlie-Brown-and-the-football dept
One of the reasons for the U.S.' pricey and mediocre broadband is our historical habit of throwing oodles of tax breaks and subsidies for fiber optic networks at giant ISPs, then letting them tap dance over and around those obligations when it comes time to deliver. Verizon, for example, has gobbled up millions in subsidies and tax breaks from cities and states up and down the Eastern seaboard for fiber optic networks it fails to fully deploy. Given the stranglehold large ISPs have on federal and state regulators and lawmakers, efforts to hold these companies accountable for any of this have been decidedly mixed.
AT&T has similarly spent decades demanding all manner of regulatory concessions, tax breaks or subsidies in exchange for broadband upgrades that seem perpetually just around the next corner. Whether it's gunning for tax cuts and subsidies, or looking for approval of its latest megamerger, AT&T's an absolute master of the regulatory carrot and a stick game. Even if the carrot is entirely hallucinated, as we saw when AT&T threatened to curtail its already modest fiber optic deployment unless net neutrality was killed.
Ignoring the fact that AT&T has been making the same empty broadband deployment promises for the better part of the last decade, the company popped up this week to throw its support behind Trump's latest attempt at "tax reform." According to an AT&T statement, the company insisted that reducing the company's tax burden will result in all manner of new broadband investment:
"By immediately lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, this bill will stimulate investment, job creation and economic growth in the United States,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T Chairman and CEO.
"With a rate of 20% combined with provisions for full expensing of capital expenditures for the next five years, we’re prepared to increase our investment in the United States. If the House bill is signed into law, we’d commit to increase our domestic investment by $1 billion in the first year in which the new rates are in place. And research tells us that every $1 billion in capital invested in telecom creates about 7,000 good jobs for the middle class."
The problem, again, is that AT&T simply has no credibility when it comes to broadband deployment promises. The company has a long-standing history of promising greater broadband investment if it gets "X" (the death of net neutrality rules, the death of privacy rules, more subsidies), then either ignoring those promises outright, or fiddling with its deployment numbers to make it appear that it adhered to its own promises. Meanwhile, in the real world, AT&T remains under fire for failing to upgrade broadband in numerous urban areas that should have been upgraded to fiber decades ago.
AT&T has whined fairly incessantly about the U.S. tax rate being among the highest in the developed world. And while technically true, telecom providers in particular use all manner of loopholes to ensure they often pay a pittance in taxes. That includes using Reverse Morris Trusts to dodge all tax obligations as they sell off chunks of their networks they refuse to upgrade, efforts that have resulted in a few bankruptcies for smaller ISPs on the receiving end of this creative bookkeeping. The end result is often an effective tax rate of 0% for companies like Verizon.
History generally indicates that any additional tax cuts will be pocketed by telecom sector executives, not put back into the network. That's because we've built a system where we not only refuse to do anything about a lack of competition in the broadband sector, but actively reward companies that falsely promise the broadband we truly want is just around the next corner, but only if we're willing to give these companies everything under the sun.
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: broadband, investment, taxes
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"If the House bill is signed into law..."
"Paging Rep. Marsha Blackburn... Marsha Blackburn, please come to the House visitors' gallery. A large fruit basket has been delivered with your name on it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"That's what you said the last 5 times, and you still haven't cleaned your room."
"But I really *mean* it this time! I promise!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google, for example, keeps TENS OF BILLIONS UNTAXED offshore!
Pretty soon, with Google spending untaxed millions to lobby, and if they can sneak it into "law", Congress will simply "legalize" the practice of offshore tax havens and let it be brought in with low or no taxes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
yep, and the thick fucking idiots in the electorate will be falling over themselves to vote the 'OK' on this when they re-elect them next election!
If YOU won't change... why should they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So out of curiosity, who did you vote for last time, and how much time and effort did you put forth to make absolutely certain that they would vote according to your wishes on all counts, and weren't compromised by any number of companies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Look, a distraction!'
And when Google asks for subsidies/tax breaks in exchange for service they never provide then they will be relevant to the topic currently under discussion, such that bringing them up won't come across as a blatant 'Yes, but what about...' distraction tactic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gotta step up their game
"By immediately lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, this bill will stimulate investment, job creation and economic growth in the United States,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T Chairman and CEO.
Please, if I was in their shoes it would not only do all of the above it would cure cancer, give everyone either a puppy, kitten or pony and the means to take care of them, utterly eliminate homelessness and starvation, cause toxic waste to transform into completely harmless glowy slime, every morning would start out with a rainbow(without the need for rain) and no-one would ever stub their toes again.
If you're going to lie about how if you just give companies even less taxes to worry about it will make everyone else better off as a result you might as well go all out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"...make absolutely certain that they would vote according to your wishes..."
Cool! Can we do that? Sounds so easy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Translation
If you give us a billion dollars, maybe 20% of that won't wind up as executive bonuses this Christmas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you folks take everything like it is a personally directed at YOU blame?
It's is all of our faults "collectively" this means that while some individuals are not directly at fault we all share the blame at one level or another for letting obviously corrupt politicians into office and keeping them there.
If you voted for someone in a party, you just supported someone that is OWNED! They work for their party NOT YOU!
And as George Washington said... sticking to political parties will result in tearing the nation apart. It is working well so far, the left/right, lib/con, and dems/reps are at each others throats. Any attempt to make a rep or a dem see that their party is dirt corrupt is automatically assumed to mean that I am a member of the other party.
You all spend your time piddling in the wind instead of trying to get rid of the problem people you hate brings up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem is NOT in getting them to vote our way, it never was.
The "problem" is us not removing them when they show they are are easily purchased and obviously corrupt AND sticking to the parties like we should live and die by them.
The government is supposed to be formed to "handle" the things necessary to keep a nation well heeled, instead it is running like it should be royalty over us peasants, deciding our futures for us instead of allowing us to decide for ourselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google, for example, keeps TENS OF BILLIONS UNTAXED offshore!
What about the current topic at hand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The "problem" is us not removing them when they show they are are easily purchased and obviously corrupt AND sticking to the parties like we should live and die by them.
Hate to break it to you but the choices available make that just a wee bit difficult/effectively impossible a lot of the time.
Whether that be 'donations' being paid to all the candidates(companies don't really care what the affiliation of the one they're buying is, just that they're bought) such that if someone's running without that money odds are you've never even heard of them, the available choices between 'bad' and 'worse' such that it's often safer to vote defensively rather than by priority(because while you may not like A you really don't like B, and A's got the better chance of beating them, despite the fact that you actually want C).
'Vote the bad ones out and replace them with better ones' sounds good, but it requires that there be better options available, ignores that the process of getting elected practically ensures that any candidate that stands a chance might as well have 'Sold' stickers by the dozen on them by the time it's time to vote, and lastly assumes that this time you'll get one that will make it through their term without falling to the dark side, whether through 'good' intentions or because they were already there and just ran a good con.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google, for example, keeps TENS OF BILLIONS UNTAXED offshore!
Why? Because... LOOK AT GOOGLE!
If only the police worked like that, then I could get away with all sorts of crime by going "LOOK AT BIN LADEN! LOOK AT ENRON!" and running away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google, for example, keeps TENS OF BILLIONS UNTAXED offshore!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google, for example, keeps TENS OF BILLIONS UNTAXED offshore!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta step up their game
Trickle down is such a joke but they still think it is funny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Hmm, there is the problem. Why is that even allowed in the first place? There should be zero 'donations' allowed. All advertising for a political positions should be paid for by taxpayers and each candidate can have equal access to advertising. Just need some initial vetting process to eliminate the hordes from running.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's okay if you wish to accept defeat, just stop getting in the way of others still trying. It is people acting the way "you" are that makes this difficult.
So go away and leave it alone because you are NOT helping, just making it worse!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I intentionally ignored the question because it is a bankrupt question designed to derail the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is effective, have to give that to them.
"Just need some initial vetting process to eliminate the hordes from running."
Yep, but you must get the people using the current system to be voted in to make the necessary changes. And that is not likely to happen until the citizens change how they vote and by that time the system will have fixed itself by the same virtue.
The axiom, "Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty" seems to sum up the problem right now. I don't see a lot of vigilance... just apathy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because there IS an element of YOU and personally involved. do you understand what indirect responsibility means?
I may not be responsible for getting a specific candidate elected, but I can certainly be indirectly responsible. The cumulative effect of your actions & decisions in life impact you and everyone else.
You just cannot go through life ignoring or walking past all the problems going on and then exclaim that you bear NO fault when others have suffered due to your bias or apathy.
For now, all I can do is try to try to wake you paint chip eaters up. We cannot move forward until the original problem is cleaned up. The ignorance and apathy of the electorate is the root of the problem. No other problems are resolved until that one is resolved. But you are still free to go and break your teeth against the political wall of bullshit you helped build.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta step up their game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time for the stick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They "date" someone, take pictures, demand payment & promise to not come back for more... and then they come back for more.
Works for the corporations...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not everybody gets to be a privileged, paint-drinking snowflake like you do. You'll blame everyone regardless of whether they voted or not, or whether they're in the country or continent of relevance or not. You're just here to piss on everyone else then get angry when nobody likes it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's telling that you consider 'what did you do to solve the thing you're blaming everyone for?' as 'bait' and 'derailing the issue'.
It's almost as though despite going around and telling people to 'Do better!' you either haven't taken your own advice and followed through, or don't actually know what you are demanding people do in anything more than vague, useless terms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Just rebuild the house!" "It's currently on fire." "Right, just go in and replace the walls." "It's. On. Fire." "That sounds defeatist to me."
It's okay if you wish to accept defeat, just stop getting in the way of others still trying. It is people acting the way "you" are that makes this difficult.
Oh by all means, tell me what you have been doing about the issue beyond blaming and insulting people on a random tech blog. Show us poor, defeated people what the enlightened few among us have been doing to combat the problem, so that we may bask in your wisdom and go forth, spreading it for all to follow. I mean if you're going to be blaming people for apathy and not doing it right, surely you are both active in addressing the problem and can clearly point out what people should be doing, right?
It's not 'accepting defeat' to point out that simplistic 'Vote harder!' assertions ignore that it's not actually that simple, and that there are a number of factors throughout the system that can make even something as simple as 'Vote the bad ones out' a difficult process.
Hypothetical voting time at the poles, and it's time to stick it to those 'Bad' politicians. Your options are:
1) The Bad One.
2) Another one who you're pretty sure is just as bad, if not worse.
3) Someone who you mostly agree with, but who happens to hold some positions that you don't agree with.
4) Someone you've never even heard of, who might have run a commercial or two in the middle of the night.
1-3 are members of the dreaded Major Political Parties, #4 is an independent. From the above four, which do you choose, and who should the public vote for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a hint, guys
[ link to this | view in thread ]