AT&T, Whose Ex-CEO Promised To Wreck Net Neutrality, Insists It Won't Do Anything To Net Neutrality

from the yeah,-nice-try dept

AT&T is the latest big broadband player to try to suggest that everyone just calm down a little about this whole thing where the FCC destroys net neutrality. And, sure, some of the reports out there and some of the predictions being made about the impending death of net neutrality are fairly exaggerated. But, there are serious concerns, and AT&T’s decision to set up some strawmen to knock over ignores the importance of the issue.

Also, while AT&T ignores this, let’s bring up a bit of history. Because it was former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre who kicked off much of this debate back in 2005 when he declared that he was going to start charging successful internet sites to reach “his” customers over “his” pipes:

“Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!”

As we pointed out at the time, this statement is incredibly misleading. Everyone — especially those companies — pay for their own bandwidth. And when AT&T’s customers connect to the internet, the reasons it’s worth it to them to pay AT&T for internet access is because they can access the entire internet, and not just the parts that AT&T gets to charge companies double for.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at the nonsense AT&T’s top lobbyist, Bob Quinn, posted to AT&T’s blog.

AT&T intends to operate its network the same way AT&T operates its network today: in an open and transparent manner. We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic (all consistent with the rules that were adopted ? and that we supported ? in 2010, and the rules in place today).  These commitments are laid out in the broadband details section of AT&T?s main website.  They represent a guarantee to our customers that we will provide service in an open and transparent way.  They have been, and will continue to be, enforceable commitments.  We will not remove that language and we will continue to update any changes we make to our network management practices. Those commitments are not new.  They have been formally in place in one form or another at AT&T since 2005, and we have also publicly disclosed how we manage internet traffic with a version of our current broadband details description on our website since 2010.

If AT&T is making no changes and intends to operate the same way, why has AT&T been pushing so hard against the 2015 rules and for this repeal? And, again, it was the company’s former CEO who made those statements above about how it’s “nuts” that all these internet companies get to ride “his pipes… for free.” Does that really sound like a company that has no intention of doing paid prioritization or fast lanes and slow lanes? Yes, Whitacre is no longer CEO, but the current CEO, Randall Stephenson, worked for Whitacre for many, many years and was his handpicked successor. So it’s not as if AT&T has some new, more enlightened management.

What is different is that AT&T has learned that being so blatant and so upfront about their plan to screw over internet users and websites goes over poorly in the press. So they figured out a while back how to make the behavior sneakier. They can play around with interconnection. They can dabble in zero rating. And, as some will no doubt point out, the 2015 open internet order did not explicitly deal with either of these loopholes (which was one of our biggest complaints with the order). But it did signal an FCC that wouldn’t allow such bad actions (which is why interconnection fights all disappeared almost within seconds of the order being approved).

In short: AT&T will seek to use whatever power it can to extract rents from the internet. Remember, this is a company that has been fined over and over and over again by the FCC for a variety of bad, anti-consumer behavior. And, remember, some of those fines (for SMS cramming) were under Title II. Do we magically think that AT&T is going to suddenly stop fucking over its users once the FCC has publicly stated “do whatever the fuck you want, we no longer care.”

We not only have enforceable commitments on blocking, throttling and discrimination on our own network, we also have incentives to ensure that other ISPs adhere to these same open internet principles. Take, for example, DIRECTV NOW, our over-the-top video service that travels over broadband connections whether owned by AT&T or someone else. We depend on an open internet for this service, and we accordingly conduct ourselves ? and will continue to conduct ourselves ? in the same manner we expect to be treated when we rely on the infrastructure of others to provide services to our customers.

This sounds nice, doesn’t it? Except, should we forget that the previous FCC actually found that AT&T abused its relationship with DirecTV in a way that violated its net neutrality rules? I mean, does Quinn just hope that people reading his blog post don’t remember what happened less than a year ago?

Besides, AT&T knows damn well that, as large as it is, it can easily negotiate good terms for competitors to carry DirecTV Now, while at the same time it has the leverage to fuck over smaller competitors.

The day after the FCC?s decision, consumers are going to see no changes to how their internet works. Everyone will be able to access their favorite websites; no one?s traffic will be throttled based on content; and the consumer internet is going to work the same way it did the day before the FCC order is adopted.

Well, sure. The day after the FCC’s decision nothing is going to change because AT&T knows that a bunch of lawsuits will be filed, and it’s not stupid enough to do something so blatant that it will be used as fodder in that lawsuit. It’ll wait. And if the rules are upheld, you’ll then suddenly start to notice little changes here and there. And, frequently, they’ll be couched and framed in ways to look supportive of the consumer, rather than anti-consumer. They’ll be things like zero rating, where AT&T will pretend that it’s giving you “free data” even though it’s really only “free” from the arbitrarily low and onerous caps that it sets itself.

Consumers will, however, see enormous benefits from the FCC?s actions. Utility regulation over broadband can only inhibit incentives for network investment.

They keep saying this, but this is hogwash. Again, the net neutrality rules was not “utility regulation.” It was a basic framework that said you can’t fuck over users. It was only a burden if your intent was to fuck over users. So if AT&T claims it was a burden… it was because it intended to fuck over users.

By lifting that cloud here, the FCC will restore the bi-partisan, light-touch regulatory structure that made the United States the world leader in mobile broadband infrastructure.

Hogwash. This is the same AT&T that bid billions last year under Title II in the big FCC spectrum auction. If it really felt hamstrung over the rules, why would it have invested so much in that spectrum?

The doomsayers, of course, have a different view, conspicuously colored by a litany of hypotheticals and hyperbole, and generally devoid of facts. Some are calling this the death of the internet as we know it. The doomsayers, however, have been making these and similar dire predictions for years. In 2010, in response to the first FCC Open Internet rules, Free Press warned:

?These rules don?t do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop. The rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications.?

Of course, none of those predictions ever came true then and they won?t come true after the FCC acts here either. There will be a lot of talk over the next two weeks on what the FCC?s net neutrality order means. The truth is that, at first, no one will notice a difference in how their internet works. But when the removal of utility regulation translates into greater broadband investment and increased innovation on the internet?well, everyone will eventually notice that.

Actually… the one who is “devoid of facts” here is Bob Quinn at AT&T. Because under those rules, what Free Press predicted did happen. Remember when AT&T blocked Google Hangouts on mobile? Or when it blocked Facetime? Both of those happened under the weak 2010 rules, just like Free Press predicted.

And, I should note, this seems like another reason not to trust AT&T here. It’s directly denying it had done the very thing… it did. I know in this age of alternative facts some powerful folks believe that if you just say you didn’t do the thing you absolutely did, many people will believe that you never actually did it. But the facts are here.

Furthermore, AT&T’s statement is even more disingenuous, because the 2010 rules were fought over in court for many years, which again was a reason why AT&T and others didn’t go all out in implementing really bad behavior, so as not to give an assist to the courts.

Either way, AT&T’s statement is extremely misleading, ignores significant history from AT&T in both what its execs have said it intends to do and the company’s actual actions. AT&T’s Bob Quinn is spewing alternative facts here, and the public shouldn’t accept his lies.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: at&t

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T, Whose Ex-CEO Promised To Wreck Net Neutrality, Insists It Won't Do Anything To Net Neutrality”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

"what they would like to do is use my pipes free"

The quoted statement is about wishes, NOT actuality.

This is one of Masnick’s characteristic circular truisms.

Masnick confirms that other corporations are NOT using pipes for free, then uses his pointless point to cast ATT as insane for wanting to charge for the use, AS ATT IS DOING.

Similarly Masnick writes “let’s take a look at the nonsense AT&T’s top lobbyist” then quotes “the same way AT&T operates its network today”. — WOW! THAT IS INSANE! — Of Masnick.

Just hang on to your head, “doomsayer” Masnick, because that’s the only thing in imminent danger of coming apart.

Ryunosuke (profile) says:

Re: "what they would like to do is use my pipes free"

if you had been bothered to pay attention, there is a long and well documented list of cases and history of ISP’s being very anti-consumer/anti-competitive. Now YOU, are offering NO evidence to the contrary, all you are saying is what Mike has pointed out, "Trust us, we won’t destroy NN even though we are fighting tooth and nail to have it repealed."

Anonymous Coward says:

I have my popcorn popped

*chomps on popcorn*

this is such a joy to watch everything play out just as I predicted.

*chomps on popcorn*

Hate me all you like, but I was right. You folks should remember that whatever power you give your friends in government you also give to your enemies and that regulations are meaningless if they are never enforced… just ink on a page.

*chomps on popcorn*

Sucks when it gets turned back on ya don’t it.

*chomps on popcorn*

Ajit is the like the messiah you all dreaded coming but worked so tirelessly to bring into being.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I have my popcorn popped

Unsure what you mean. Regulations are in place, Ajit has refused to enforce them and is repealing them.

Under the FCC authority they can reclassify as a title 2, and declassify, but its duty is to protect consumers. Therefore regulations were put in place so the FCC could legally exert its authority in methods to protect consumers, and by repealing it can no longer prevent those things it should currently be regulating.

People will fight it after the fact through lawsuits saying the FCC is taking actions that harm the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Not sure what’s being turned back on us, this is literally just going back to the status quo for now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I have my popcorn popped

“but its duty is to protect consumers.”

Got any way of enforcing that duty? if not, then they have no duty at all but to do what they want or what those who appointed or bribed them want.

“Not sure what’s being turned back on us, this is literally just going back to the status quo for now.”

It’s simple. If you turn to corruption to defend you from corruption… what are you achieving?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I have my popcorn popped

So you support anarchy then. Cool. Was tired of our president anyway. Let’s get rid of all our laws because the government is corrupt regardless of who is in power so obviously they aren’t doing anything to help us. No laws would be the best way to go.

(/s if it wasn’t clear enough)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I have my popcorn popped

how did you arrive at that conclusion?

You are a complete fucking moron.

In no way or fashion does that post call for anarchy. i am waiting for the community to flag your post as insightful because that is just the level of intelligence you nitwits have around here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I have my popcorn popped

Here is how I arrived at that conclusion:

You stated “It’s simple. If you turn to corruption to defend you from corruption… what are you achieving?”
By this I assume you mean that asking the FCC to protect the internet is dumb and stupid because you believe the FCC is corrupt so even if they pass good regulation, nothing will come of it.

Since the FCC is an arm of the government, and many people (likely including yourself) consider our government to be corrupt in one form or another then by that logic asking the government to protect us from anything is dumb and stupid because they are corrupt and even if they pass good laws nothing will come of it because they can’t be bothered to enforce them.

That is how I arrived at that conclusion.

Just because the government has some power over us (and by this I mean any power at all, such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc…, not just the FCC) doesn’t mean that is a bad thing. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to humans as much as it does to physics, unless acted upon by an outside force (laws laid down by a ruling body, i.e. government) a system (people) will tend towards the greatest amount of entropy (lawlessness).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

well… you don’t own it… responsible for the costs of maintaining it depending upon your local laws.

You require a permit to access those lines under the street so you don’t own them and would likely be denied and arrested if you tried anyways. If you have to ask first, or pay taxes/fees on it.

You just don’t own it, you lease it! Like property… the government owns it all… you just lease it!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If there is anything wrong between the street and house, where I live anyway, it is the responsibility of the home owner to have it fixed. Where I come from, that means I own it.

I’m sure there is some legal pretzel logic they use to extract the maximum possible dollars from their customers but afaik, I do not have to, yet, subscribe to their shitty service.

The post was a joke – a poor one I admit – but it uses the same type of logic they employ with their equally silly statement about others using their pipes for free.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“If there is anything wrong between the street and house, where I live anyway, it is the responsibility of the home owner to have it fixed. Where I come from, that means I own it. “

You are confusing ownership with responsibility.
You do not own your children, but you are responsible for them. Same goes for certain things around your property depending on your laws.

“I’m sure there is some legal pretzel logic they use to extract the maximum possible dollars from their customers but afaik, I do not have to, yet, subscribe to their shitty service.”

Whatever they can get away with, be it pretzel or just straight up greedy give me more because I want it logic.
the world is getting smaller, you will eventually be left with no choice but to subscribe if you want to participate.

“The post was a joke – a poor one I admit – but it uses the same type of logic they employ with their equally silly statement about others using their pipes for free.”

No worries, but you were still not wrong. I believe the last miles should genuinely be owned or at least controlled by the property owner it terminates to where the ISP’s must secure permissions before they start chopping up lines or changing them. That last miles helps to cement their monopolies and I am all about destroying those.

ECA (profile) says:


Lets ask the cost of ALL of this..
Installation and materials..
Its not That expensive when you consider that this ia a PAST job.
Each state Supplies and generally helps and pays for interconnection across the nation(main trunks and relays, THE backbone)..GENERALLY following the Freeways..
Each State and the Fed, have already paid MOST, for the last mile, inside cities and towns..

AND if installed correctly, its a LONG duration installation and setup to Fix/repair/UPDATE, very easily..
Underground, in many location is already PIPED, and ready to be done.
Above ground telephone poles, give Ease of access, and the last time someone killed a telephone pole??(most are over 40 years old, p[iad for its own use)

NOW..these companies are ONLY there to allow access TO THE INTERNET..not BE THE INTERNET..
So these companies Installed or PAID for server farms, and the companies and Corps PAY for access to the PEOPLE…THIS is what we are debating..
ACCESS to customers, and how many TIMES a Corp can be PAID..
Like cellphones BOTH ENDS PAY..So they are being PAID 2 times.
AND the internet, is that way NOW, but EACH CORP wants the OTHER group/companies/corps SERVER FARM access to PAY ALSO..
THEN they are being paid 3 times. AND MORE for 3rd party server groups..AND access from OUT OF COUNTRY..

In a fair market this would allow PENNIES to pay for each of these services. BUT ITS NOT that way.
All that is needed is Maintenance(hardly much if installed properly)..Electrical power for the SERVER FARMS…And considering the AUTOMATED Sysops and admins…only a FEW of those..and a few people to answer questions and keep up the hardware..

THEN we come to PROFIT.
Who knows about Hostess Fruit pies??
Who knows of a company called American, fruit pies..
HOSTESS, cut back on the Fruit and pudding YEARS AGO..
American, LEFT IT ALL IN..and charges the SAME/LOWER price per pie..
HOSTESS almost went broke..(they should have and LOST all their recipes)

Anonymous Coward says:

Honestly, ever since Trump got elected, I feel that we’re in a post factual world and any evidence of previous wrongdoing is not only ignored, but actually claimed never to have been done. Every @r$ehole just looks at this lying braggart and goes, everything’s fair game now. This fills me not only with profound sadness, but a deep-seated level of dread.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »