Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the who-said-that? dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Bloof (who also took first place on the funny side), responding to the notion that all government services should be voluntarily chosen and paid for:

It's been tried, Colorado springs experimented with being a voluntary libertarian paradise, but soon found out it cost them far more than it saved. They turned off all the streetlights for example, and found people were happy to pay $300 to turn on the streetlights in their own neighborhood but not $200 to turn all the streetlights on in all neighbourhoods, and while it saved them $1.25 million in electricity, it cost them $5 million due to copper theft. No electricity made it easy and safe to loot, oh and no police and fire services as they were slashed too.

People would gut the things the US needs to run because they're incredibly shortsighted, rather than the big wastes of money like defense because fear motivates better than helping the less fortunate.

In second place on the insightful side, we've got Stephen T. Stone on our post about the unfolding whistleblower situation in the Trump administration, responding to the silly question of "why should I care?":

The President of the United States is accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting through official whistleblower channels. That someone would feel the need to do so should make you care about what the president did to warrant that report. Whether it is “nothing” shouldn’t matter until after the substance of the complaint is revealed.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with That One Guy correcting the notion that there's no reason to oppose collecting data on FOSTA's impact:

Oh I can think of a few... In addition to the reason in the article of politicians not wanting to appear 'pro-sex work' by foolish voters, there's also the very real possibility that such a study would make official that FOSTA not only didn't help sex workers it actually made things worse for them, which would be rather 'awkward' to those that were so gung-ho about how great the bill was and how they were helping so much by passing it, and raise the question of 'If it's been so damaging then why keep it around rather than repealing it?'

Given the study has high odds of exposing some rather nasty truths I expect that the bill to create and fund it will face some stiff opposition, or if it does squeak through the resulting study to be quickly buried and forgotten because after all 'there are much more important things to worry about, and politicians only have so much time to do their jobs.'

Next, we've got an anonymous response to another sad and strained attempt to equate people who support laws against Nazi imagery with Nazis themselves:

One of them committed genocide. The other commented in a way you found unfavourable, about an existing law.

Over on the funny side, it's Bloof again in first place, this time sarcastically responding to a strange question about what the ACLU will do with the legal fees it was awarded in a lawsuit:

They're going to tip bags of cash onto an altar to baphomet and make love atop it... Pay their legal fees, what else would they use money awarded to pay their legal fees for?

In second place, it's an anonymous response to the hotel owner who filed a libel lawsuit because someone described a lobby photo of Nazi party members in Nazi uniforms as... a photo of Nazis:

Man, they'll call anyone Nazis these days.

Don't they know the term can only be used to refer to Hitler himself, and maybe a few of his best-known lieutenants?

For editor's choice on the funny side, we'll start out with this comment from nasch about the fact that the city that lost the ACLU lawsuit over displaying the Ten Commandments at city hall could have opted to just allow a huge variety of religious monuments:

The really difficult one is the Invisible Pink Unicorn statue.

And finally, we've got an anonymous commenter finally bringing some clarity to Josh Hawley's rant about parents controlling their children's online activities:

You forgot the glossary!

Parent: A government official
Child/Kid: everyone else

That's all for this week, folks!

This Week In Techdirt History: September 15th - 21st

from the then-and-then-and-then dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2014, new revelations about New Zealand's mass surveillance garnered an angry response from the Prime Minister, who then tried to disprove the claims with declassified documents that did not in fact address them. Soon, a former New Zealand official came forward with his own story of being told to "bury" unflattering documents. Meanwhile, the CIA's John Brennan was refusing to tell the Senate who okayed spying on senators, we learned more about Yahoo's legal battle with the NSA, and the UK's GCHQ was facing another lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2009, we looked at a variety of questions about IP law, like why we let juries set patent award damages when they keep getting overturned by appeals courts, is copyright compatible with privacy, and why do content creators get control over derivative works? Charlie Brooker delivered a scathing rant against Damien Hirst for his legal action against one such derivative-work creator, and tied it into the issue of file sharing — since UK recording artists were speaking out against the idea of kicking file sharers off the internet, which was really irritating industry insiders and leading them to simply pretend it wasn't happening. Amidst all this emerged the beginning of what would turn out to be a bit of an ongoing spat between Techdirt and Lily Allen.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2004, the war against all sorts of abuses of the growing internet was still raging in weird ways: Symantic was trying a new system to fight phishing, the anti-spam industry was a still-growing patent thicket, China was claiming it would help fight spam, and nobody liked California's anti-spyware bill — perhaps because it didn't make sense to attempt a legal definition of spyware. Meanwhile, Nokia and other mobile companies were working on mobile file-sharing systems which, as one might imagine, had entertainment industry folks and wireless carriers kind of freaking out.

Filed Under: history, look back

Content Moderation At Scale Especially Doesn't Work When You Hide All The Rules

from the getting-twitchy dept

For quite a while now, we've pointed out that doing any serious content moderation on major internet sites is laughably difficult, if not impossible. Whether done in a purely automated format, or with real human oversight, everything ends up boiling down to just how much collateral damage are we all willing to accept when sites attempt to enforce moderation rules. Even when sites attempt to communicate the rules to the public in a somewhat transparent fashion, such as Facebook, it all inevitably goes to the kind of hell that includes nixing accounts for sharing what is purely art.

But when sites don't bother to tell their users what the rules are, even after exacting punishment for violation of those rules? Well, that's when you have a bunch of Twitch streamers wondering what the hell is going on.

Earlier this week, Twitch suspended a streamer named Quqco for wearing a cosplay of Street Fighter heroine Chun-Li on stream, deeming her outfit “sexually suggestive.” This took Quqco—and many others—by surprise, given that the outfit was not overtly risqué. But this was not an isolated incident. In the past few days, Twitch has been cracking down on so-called “sexually suggestive” content more aggressively than usual, and picking some questionable targets for its crusade.

The whole post is long and very detailed and should absolutely be read in full. The article lists numerous examples of Twitch streamers being handed out warnings and suspensions under any number of circumstances that range from cosplaying as Street Fighter characters, to wearing a sports bra and baggy shorts on a stream, to drawing clothed cartoon characters. All those interviewed for the post that were on the receiving end of these warnings or suspensions were completely flummoxed.

Especially when their own inquiries into their punishment were being responded to like this.

For example, Fareeha’s warning specifically accused her of wearing “underwear or lingerie,” when she was, in reality, wearing baggy gym clothes in a setting where you’d expect to see them. Twitch’s guidelines around what streamers can and cannot wear are vague and contextual; the sort of attire Fareeha was wearing might not have cut it if a streamer was broadcasting from their bedroom, but streamers regularly wear gym clothes in the gym. Some men even go shirtless. It’s not clear why Twitch singled out Fareeha.

Fareeha specifically believes she may be the victim of another aspect of the internet that makes content moderation at scale impossible: trolls. It turns out that there are dedicated Discord channels out there where people get off on doing mass-reports of Twitch streamers they don't like for any number of reasons. Obviously, those many numbers of reasons often fall into categories that include "they're women doing things we don't like" and "they're people that don't look like us doing things we don't like." The theory goes that whatever automation Twitch has built into its moderation system -- and there surely must be something of that sort of thing -- it's likely to be sensitive to mass reporting of ToS violations. This is being gamed by trolls to get the system to punish Twitch streamers who otherwise would never have been punished.

Is that what's happening? Nobody knows, mostly because Twitch is being frustratingly opaque on the matter.

Saruei, who was suspended for drawing “nude” characters, declined to speak to Kotaku out of concern that she could face further repercussions from Twitch. However, prior to her recent suspension, she spoke out against what she feels is “hypocrisy” on Twitch’s part. Suggestive poses apparently aren’t allowed in her drawings, she said, but it’s fine when some people do them IRL.

“These are suggestive poses, right?” she said of her own art while discussing her Twitch warning during a recent (now-unavailable) stream. “We agree with that, right? Why I can’t draw waifus like this when there is fucking Twitch girls that can do it?” She went on to express frustration about the lack of clarity that she, like others, has had to deal with. “I hope it won’t happen again, because I asked them ‘What is the problem with these drawings?’” she said. “Is it the clothing or the pose? What is against Twitch guidelines? I need to know.”

Those last two sentences are all you need to hear to recognize the massive problem that is Twitch attempting to do content moderation at a scale that is largely impossible while not being transparent as to how to stay on the right side of that moderation. There is entirely too much gray area, too much room for gaming the moderation, and too much stupid collateral damage to make any of this worth it.

Meanwhile, the Twitch streamers who make Twitch's product attractive are stuck trying to figure out what the rules are. Until they decide to go somewhere else, that is.

Filed Under: content moderation, content moderation at scale, quqco, rules, transparency
Companies: twitch

Another Nail In the Coffin Of Corporate Sovereignty, As Massive Asian Trade Deal RCEP Nears Completion Without It

from the ISDS,-what-is-it-good-for? dept

Remember RCEP? The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is a massive trade deal being negotiated by most of South-East Asia -- including China and India. Although still little-known, it has been grinding away in the background, and is drawing closer to a final agreement. Almost exactly a year ago Techdirt noted that there were some interesting rumors that corporate sovereignty -- officially known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) -- might be dropped from the deal. A story in The Malaysian Reserve confirms that is the case:

After missing several deadlines, member countries of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have agreed to exclude the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, a move that might expedite conclusion of the talks by the end of the year.

[Malaysia's] Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) Minister Datuk Darell Leiking … said all RCEP member states -- 10 Asean countries plus six free trade agreement (FTA) partners namely Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea -- have decided to drop the ISDS, but the item could be brought up again within two years of the agreement's ratification.

So corporate sovereignty is definitely out of the initial agreement, but could, theoretically, be brought back after two years if every participating nation agrees. Despite that slight loophole, this is a significant blow against the entire concept of ISDS. It's part of a larger trend to drop corporate sovereignty that has been evident for some time now. That still leaves plenty of toxic ISDS clauses in older investment treaties and trade deals, but the tide is definitely turning.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: china, corporate sovereignty, dispute settlement, india, isds, rcep, trade agreements

The FBI Tried To Get A Secure Phone Company To Create A Backdoor In Its Encrypted Network

from the more-holes-equals-less-jail dept

Not a great week for the FBI, encryption-wise. The same week it was revealed the FBI's encrypted communications system was cracked by the Russians, a report by Joseph Cox of Motherboard details the agency's failure to punch a hole in a phone company's encrypted network.

The phone company targeted by the feds was Phantom Secure, a device maker with a business model that revolved almost exclusively around making secure phones for criminals. Apparently the supplier of choice for the Sinola drug cartel, Phantom Secure had been under investigation for years when its owner was arrested in 2018.

These efforts were apparently made after the arrest of the head of the company, with the FBI pitching a major sentence reduction if Phantom Secure CEO Vincent Ramos built the agency a backdoor.

"He was given the opportunity to do significantly less time if he identified users or built in/gave backdoor access," one source who knows Ramos personally and has spoken with him about the issue after his arrest told Motherboard.

Other law enforcement officers who worked on the investigation said similar things. The FBI wanted a backdoor so it could go after Phantom's numerous criminal customers. Despite the pressure, it appears Ramos never gave the FBI what it wanted.

A third source told Motherboard "He never gave law enforcement a backdoor into Phantom Secure. He did not do that." When pressed on whether the FBI still asked for access, the source, who worked directly on the case, said, "Basically that's all I want to say. He did not give law enforcement a backdoor into Phantom Secure."

The DOJ's tradition of begging for backdoors was apparently part of this criminal investigation as well. Cox's report says the CEO didn't actually have the tech talent to create a backdoor so the FBI pushed him to talk one of his employees into crafting a hole in the Phantom's PGP-protected system. When your customers are drug cartels known for their viciousness, it's probably safer to take the extra years in an American prison, which appears to be what Ramos chose to do.

The arrest of Ramos gave the FBI some leverage but it still couldn't get the backdoor it wanted. And just because Phantom Secure ended up in the business of selling exclusively to criminal organizations doesn't mean that's the reason the company was created. As Cox notes, Phantom Secure started as a legit option for security-conscious customers. Unfortunately, it chose to pursue the criminal market when that appeared to be the more profitable sector.

While it may suck that the FBI it didn't get its backdoor, it probably works out better for cellphone users anywhere. Phantom Secure modified Blackberry devices with its own software to create an encrypted network. The creation of a backdoor into this network may have made it easier to exploit off-the-shelf Blackberry devices or other secure messaging services that use PGP to encrypt data. Assuming this backdoor would have been harmless just because it targeted known criminal users is the kind of assumption the FBI would love everyone to make. Let's not do it any favors.

Filed Under: backdoor, doj, encryption, fbi, phones, vincent ramos
Companies: phantom secure

Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier

from the yeager-bomb dept

When it comes to intellectual property, the culture of ownership has grown so large that it threatens to consume itself. Still, while we have an overly permissive USPTO and European trademark offices that facilitate this insane notion that all language is meant to be owned, there are still, blessedly, some rules. One of those rules is that, on the topic of trademark and publicity rights, people and companies are allowed to state facts. It is not infringing on anyone's rights to state such facts. That is all the more the case when the facts in question are historical facts.

Someone might want to fill in famed Air Force pilot Chuck Yeager on all of the above, as he's decided to sue Airbus over marketing material that mentions his signature historical achievement.

In a complaint filed on Wednesday, the 96-year-old Yeager objected to a June 2017 promotional piece on Airbus' website, touting its plan to make the Airbus Racer a fast and cost-effective way to fly.

The piece quoted Guillaume Faury, chief executive of Airbus Helicopters, as saying: "Seventy years ago, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier," and Airbus was now "trying to break the cost barrier. It cannot be 'speed at any cost.'"

Yeager accused Airbus of trademark infringement and taking away his right of publicity through "fraudulent" conduct, where it deceived the public into believing he endorsed it.

This is almost certainly nonsense. Having a marketing/PR piece on the Airbus website that simply quotes an Airbus executive stating the fact that Yeager broke the sound barrier is definitely not trademark infringement, is almost certainly not a violation of publicity rights, and doesn't strike me as indicating any kind of endorsement by Yeager himself. It's just stating a fact.

The complaint itself is astounding for how incredibly weak it appears to be. The lawyer is Lincoln Bandlow, who you may recall as a somewhat notorious copyright troll who recently left his big prestigious law firm after a judge sanctioned him for some of his actions in the various copyright trolling cases was involved in. Bandlow's career seems to have taken a dip, as the former lawyer for John McCain is now apparently in a position of filing obviously questionable lawsuits because someone mentioned a fact. This is a far cry from when he positioned himself as a supporter of free speech in fighting back against a lawsuit filed against John McCain. In that case Bandlow argued that it was ridiculous to argue John McCain's use of a Jackson Browne song was considered an endorsement under publicity rights law. Yet here, he's laughably insisting that merely mentioning a historical fact "Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier," is a publicity rights violation? How low has Bandlow sunk?

The case is also odd in other ways. It presents the fact that Airbus once refused Yeager's ridiculous demand for $1 million to use his name in press releases as some sort of evidence against Airbus. But all that really suggests is that after Airbus laughed off Yeager's ridiculous cash grab, it later found a way to mention him in a manner that was completely within its 1st Amendment rights -- quoting a factual statement. The old Lincoln Bandlow, the one who claimed to support the 1st Amendment, would have applauded that.

Stating a historical fact, even if it's in marketing material, is still stating a historical fact. Chuck Yeager may be an American hero, but that doesn't mean anyone has to pay him for mentioning his name and his accomplishments. Indeed, it wouldn't be surprising to see Airbus file an anti-SLAPP complaint against Yeager, meaning that in the end Yeager may end up having to pay Airbus' legal fees.

Filed Under: chuck yeager, facts, free speech, lincoln bandlow, publicity rights, sound barrier, trademark
Companies: airbus

Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?

from the difficult-questions dept

It should be no secret that I'm not at all a fan of the right to be forgotten, which is a European concept, as currently employed, that allows people to get old news stories about them removed from search engines (there's more to it than that, but that's the basic explanation). To me, it seems like an attempt to bury history and facts, and that's dangerous. We've also seen too many cases of people trying to abuse it to hide spotty historical records that deserve to remain public. However, the excellent Radiolab podcast a few weeks back had a fascinating episode exploring the idea of the news media voluntarily agreeing to "forget" certain stories. More specifically, last year, Cleveland.com adopted a policy that would let people apply to be "forgotten" by the online news publication. They invited Radiolab folks to be present for one of the meetings where the staff debates applications.

And it was a lot more interesting and challenging than I initially thought. Indeed, it brought back the conundrum I faced a few years ago, in which we weren't sure how to deal with someone who made a very compelling case why we should delete a story about them. We refused, and were also troubled by the fact that that story involved a federal court case that was then disappeared by the court itself. Courts shouldn't be disappearing public dockets like that. But, in reporting on that, given the compelling argument that had been made to us, we didn't highlight what the original story was or who the person was -- because of an inherent recognition that this person didn't deserve any more trouble.

I'm still quite uncomfortable with the idea that a media organization would agree to go back and change stories to remove names (or, in some cases, to delete entire stories), as that is (again) a rewriting of history. Because that can certainly cause lots of other problems down the road as well. But the Radiolab episode is still worth listening to, as it does a really good job of laying out the difficult choices and tradeoffs, and the challenges that Cleveland.com takes on in making those decisions -- weighing a bunch of different factors.

In many ways, it's another side of the whole "content moderation" debate, and how various platforms should make decisions on moderation. There are many, many difficult choices and no easy answers. I still find the overall concept of the Right to Be Forgotten quite troubling -- especially when it's enforced by the government. However, it's interesting and informative to learn about Cleveland.com's thoughtful approach to the matter, even if I'd probably come down in a different end position.

Filed Under: history, journalism, memory, permanent record, right to be forgotten
Companies: cleveland.com

Daily Deal: The Complete QuickBooks Guru Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete QuickBooks Guru Bundle has 7 courses to help you learn all about Intuit's leading accounting platform. The first course provides a comprehensive understanding of QuickBooks and covers theoretical concepts and how to apply them to the processes of accounting software. You'll learn how to process payrolls and bookkeeping on both the desktop and online versions of QuickBooks Pro. You'll also learn personal tax tracking tips and more. It's on sale for $29.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Tech Companies Are Leading The Fight Against Child Porn While The FBI And DOJ Complain About Encryption Helping Child Abusers

from the get-a-clue-[cough]-gentlemen dept

We hear so much from law enforcement agencies about how much tech companies -- and their encryption offerings -- are turning America into a lawless frontier where the criminals always win and the cops are eternally hamstrung. We mainly hear this from two law enforcement agencies in particular: the FBI and the DOJ.

Local cops seem to be doing just fine, but outside of Manhattan blowhard/DA Cy Vance, everyone seems to feel a rising tech tide lifts all cop boats. But these agencies insist we're "going dark." And they insist tech companies are screwing both cops and the public by allowing users to protect their communications and devices from criminals and snoopers alike, even if it means things are ever-so-slightly more difficult for criminal investigators.

But these arguments are being made using facts not in evidence. Tech companies do care about crime, public safety, law enforcement's concerns, and the general insecurity of having devices filled with personal info being carried around by the vast majority of the American public. And tech companies are doing far more to address all of these concerns (rather than just the law enforcement concerns touted by the FBI, et al) than the federales are willing to admit.

First off, tech companies are engaging in the "adult conversation" about lawful access. They're just doing it in a way the government doesn't like. They're approaching this with caution and concern, while the FBI and DOJ dishonestly claim the only "real" solution is unfettered, on-demand access to devices and communications.

White papers have been written. Honest discussions have been had. But these are ignored because they don't offer the "absolutist" options federal agencies desire. It's the DOJ and FBI who are engaging in the equivalent of kicking and screaming while ignoring the real adults in the room.

More evidence that tech companies are doing more to help than to hurt is rolling in. Casey Newton reports for The Verge that the fight against child sexual abuse is being lead by tech companies, and that law enforcement agencies are the beneficiaries of their contributions.

An example from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children drove the point home. The organization has long operated a tipline in which people can report coming across child pornography and other incidents of abuse. In the late 1990s, the tipline received 200 to 300 reports per week, said Michelle DeLaune, NCMEC’s chief operating officer. But as the internet gained adoption, and platforms began collaborating with the organization, reports to the tipline exploded. In 2018, NCMEC received more than 18 million reports of exploitative imagery.

Strikingly, 99 percent of those reports come directly from the tech platforms. Through the use of artificial intelligence, hashed images, and partnerships between companies, we’re now arguably much better informed about the scope and spread of these images — and are better equipped to catch abusers.

Notably, these reports originate from communications platforms the DOJ and FBI have complained about.

A Facebook executive says that the company bans a whopping 250,000 WhatsApp accounts a month for sharing child exploitation imagery.

The implication that tech companies are doing nothing to respond to and to prevent criminal activities are, to put it politely, horseshit. These federal agencies have a vested interest in portraying tech companies as villains presiding over an internet Wild West. They want favorable court precedent and legislation.

As tech companies appear villainous -- something not helped by their numerous appearances in front of Congressional committees -- all branches of the government are more likely to screw tech companies into behaving as extensions of the federal government. This screws users and customers as well as the companies they use, but no price is too high to pay… as long as it's paid by others.

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, going dark, law enforcement

AT&T Ponders Dumping DirecTV After Investor Backlash, But It's Not Likely To Help

from the yeah-that's-not-gonna-work dept

As we just got done noting, investors have finally started to grumble about AT&T's obsession with merger mania (aka "growth for growth's sake"). AT&T, you'll recall, spent more than $150 billion to acquire Time Warner and DirecTV in a bid to dominate the streaming video and online advertising space. But the deals saddled AT&T with so much debt, it forced the company to raise rates despite rising competition, driving many of these customers to the exits. Oh, and AT&T's being sued by other investors for allegedly lying about it. It has also largely bungled its TV branding in general.

In what appears to be an intentional leak designed to suggest that AT&T is taking these concerns seriously, a report emerged this week in the Wall Street Journal (non paywalled alternative read here), suggesting that AT&T may now try to offload DirecTV after paying $67 billion for the company back in 2015:

"The telecom giant has considered various options, including a spinoff of DirecTV into a separate public company and a combination of DirecTV's assets with Dish Network, its satellite-TV rival," the Journal report said, citing "people familiar with the matter." It's still early in the process, so AT&T could end up sticking with DirecTV. "AT&T may ultimately decide to keep DirecTV in the fold. Despite the satellite service's struggles, as consumers drop their TV connections, it still contributes a sizable volume of cash flow and customer accounts to its parent," the Journal reported."

AT&T's decision to spend billions of dollars on a satellite TV company on the eve of the cord cutting revolution was always seen as a shaky bet. Especially given AT&T's decision to freeze most serious investment in the company's fixed-line broadband business. That said, the money DirecTV is currently making is helping to pay off the company's enormous debt load (AT&T's currently in the running for the most heavily-indebted company public letter wasn't kind to AT&T. Notably, the investors took issue with AT&T's belief that you dominate a space by throwing billions of dollars at mergers, something Wall Street usually is keen on thanks to short term gains:

"We firmly believe that AT&T’s M&A strategy has not only contributed directly to its profound share price underperformance, but has also caused distractions that have contributed to the Company’s recent operational underperformance."

That's a polite way of saying AT&T can't just buy its way to domination. But Elliot's suggestion to offload DirecTV won't help much.

The debt from a decade of merger mania would remain, and while the announcement of a sale might boost the markets slightly (allowing Elliot to exit semi-gracefully), it wouldn't fix what's broken at AT&T. Telcos like AT&T and Verizon still suck at wandering outside of their core competencies (building and running networks, lobbying to crush competitors), the result of being government-pampered monopolies for the better part of a generation. As we've seen with Verizon's Go90, AOL, and Yahoo face plants, these companies simply aren't good at adaptation and competition because it's an alien construct.

AT&T executives desperately want AT&T to be Google and Facebook, and have eyed both companies' ad revenues jealously for the better part of the last two decades, thinking that money is somehow owed to them because they own the underlying network (that's really what the net neutrality fight was about). They seem to believe growth for growth's sake and lobbying are the path to domination, but while that worked well in the broadband space, it's not going to work quite as well in helping them gain stature in other markets.

Especially given that as lumbering monopolies fused to the nation's intelligence agencies, neither AT&T nor Verizon has the ability to actually innovate in the space, which is why AT&T's current TV branding efforts look a lot like road kill. AT&T will remain saddled with millions of aging copper and phone lines it is (like most US telcos) too cheap to upgrade despite billions in tax cuts and regulatory favors. Mindless merger mania won't fix the DNA-level problems that plague Ma Bell, and neither will selling off a core component of the company's bumbling, but ongoing, attempt to dominate the video advertising space.

Filed Under: competition, consolidation, cord cutting, divestitutre, mergers, satellite tv, streaming, tv
Companies: at&t, directv