AT&T Once Again Wants ‘Big Tech’ To Pay For Broadband Upgrades
from the sorry-you-have-no-credibility-here dept
For decades AT&T has sought to shovel its broadband network upgrade costs on to the shoulders of other companies. It was the primary catalyst for the net neutrality wars, after AT&T made it clear it wanted to (ab)use its monopoly over broadband access to force companies like Google to pay an extra troll toll if they wanted their traffic to reach AT&T customers.
In recent years AT&T’s tactics have shifted.
The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) program historically involves a small surcharge on voice and broadband lines that helps pay for broadband to rural schools and unserved regions. The program has been facing a shortfall thanks to the death of the landline, forcing many to suggest expanding the contribution base to include tech giants like Netflix, Google, and Facebook.
The FCC is having conversations about how to shore up the contribution base so funding for the program remains stable. AT&T, unsurprisingly, has been quick to enter those conversations with enthusiastic support for making tech giants pay for broadband upgrades. From the company’s policy blog:
“the biggest winners in today’s internet ecosystem should lead the way in funding its realization.
Contributions from large technology companies, edge service providers, and others that directly benefit from the nation’s universal service goals will ensure the fund is big enough to continue to support American connectivity needs and the USF’s objectives.”
As an aside, I’m impressed that AT&T policy folks wrote a blog post on this subject without accusing companies like Netflix and Google of “getting a free ride” on the internet, which suggests a more subtle approach by AT&T. Some variant of that claim almost always gets included in these arguments.
Here’s the problem.
A major reason U.S. broadband access is so spotty is that regional monopolies like AT&T spent decades attacking competitors, suing governments, undermining consumer protection regulators, effectively defrauding the government, refusing to upgrade old DSL lines in marginalized neighborhoods, and generally dismantling absolutely any effort that might encroach on the company’s monopoly power.
All while getting untold billions of dollars in regulatory favors (like the death of net neutrality and broadband privacy protections), subsidies, and massive tax breaks — often in exchange for network upgrades that are somehow always half-completed.
The reason U.S. broadband remains spotty, sluggish, and expensive in 2023 is concentrated monopoly power and the corrupt politicians who protect it (see: the entirety of the GOP, and a sizeable chunk of the DNC). Yet somehow when it comes time for the FCC to shore up the USF and expand access to affordable broadband, cracking down on monopoly power never even enters the conversation.
It’s literally not mentioned by careerist U.S. policymakers. As in, never.
The GOP has loyally protected America’s broadband monopoly problem for forty years. But even Democratic FCC officials like Jessica Rosenworcel, often heralded for her quest to “bridge the digital divide,” seem afraid to even acknowledge America’s obvious broadband monopoly problem (as of just a few years ago, something like 83 percent of U.S. households lived under a broadband monopoly).
Because AT&T is so tethered to both our first responder and domestic intelligence gathering apparatus, regulators are genuinely afraid to hold the politically powerful company accountable for much of anything. Needless to say, you can’t fix a problem you refuse to acknowledge.
Yeah, the USF needs updating. Yeah, having tech companies throw some of their untold billions at rural broadband deployment isn’t the worst idea (they routinely set piles of money on fire for far dumber ventures). That said, none of those efforts will fix U.S. broadband if policymakers don’t first take direct aim at concentrated monopoly power, and reform existing subsidy programs that have spent decades throwing billions at companies for AT&T, often in exchange for bupkis.
Filed Under: big tech, broadband, digital divide, high speed internet, telecom tax, usf
Companies: at&t, google, meta
Comments on “AT&T Once Again Wants ‘Big Tech’ To Pay For Broadband Upgrades”
Have them own it?
Google and Meta already showed that they were willing to invest in broadband, let them do it and own their competing networks. That’s far better than giving funds to some middlemen with a known history of not delivering.
Re:
I could see Meta actually succeeding at that. Google, on the other hand, likes to kill things off before they get a chance to get any profit from it because they expect instant profit, so I don’t think they’d get very far with that. But that’s Google’s problem.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Have them own it?
By investing in broadband, letting others do so, and owning their rival networks, Google and Meta have already demonstrated their willingness to do so. Giving money to middlemen who have a history of not delivering is considerably preferable than that. www aka ms yourpc
Is… Is AT&T not a winner? Come on man, have some pride!
Hey AT&T if you do not have the money to invest in replacing old equipment with new and upgraded equipment, along with expanding your business, what have you been doing with the money paid for the use, upkeep and expansion of equipment known as line and broadband rental? A well run business budgets for the replacement and upgrade of equipment, along with money to invest into expansion.
Re:
It is simple: the money that they get from the government goes to paying for the upgrades that the upkeep money was supposed to pay for. The upkeep fees are used to pay for the lobbying to maintain their monopoly, and that money goes into the pockets of the politicians. Reagan called it trickle down economics.
Re:
Me and a majority of shareholders vote for what is done with that money, so mind your own business.
Joe, Have you heard back on our request for additional taxpayer funds concerning that new project we petitioned for?
I don’t know. I think letting someone else pay for it, and thus divesting AT&T of owner ship is probably a reasonable idea.
Where it goes...
AT&T has to get those dividends to pay out from somewhere. If you doubt that, look at their consistent dividend history. I suspect there is more then one historical year that the dividend didn’t quite match up with P&L performance.
AT&T needs all their profits from ridiculous rates, plus USF funds, plus “internet cost recovery”, plus subsidies, plus other subsidies, plus all the covid/national broadband whatever funds, plus anything they want to force out of Netflix et al, plus any spare change they can shake out of random people’s pockets on the streets. It’s only fair! What are you, some kind of communist?
The money is already there, it's just going to the wrong pockets
If AT&T is so very concerned about the public’s access to the internet the government should give them what they’re asking for rather than what they want.
Implement strict reimbursement-on-completion rules when it comes to subsidies and start rolling out regular and thorough audits to track where the money is going and how it’s being spent with heavy penalties starting with ‘no more money until you do the job we’ve already paid you for’ and you could likely solve the problem overnight by making it much more likely all the money went to where it was supposed to rather than padding exec bonuses.
No.
Expand the USF? The AT&T Slush Fund? The money that went into corporate pockets and never got spent on maintenance and upgrades like it was supposed to?
A tax on Big Tech to fund expansion? Like the USF was supposed to? A new meal ticket for bloated corporate execs? A new way to sit on your fat asses and not innovate, design or compete as profits continue to slip because you can’t be bothered to do your jobs and expand your physical plant to under-served communities cause that would cut into those fat juicy investor returns and corporate bonuses?
Just nationalize the infrastructure already at this point. It’d still suck but at least it’d wind up costing taxpayers slightly less and the level of customer support and satisfaction would slightly improve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh Karl, you were so close to acknowledging the truth, that all political elites are scum regardless of party affiliation, but you just couldn’t do it, could you…
TD begrudgingly restates its loyalty to the DNC!
Re:
So criticizing a political party means affirming one’s loyalty to it.
Got it.
The spirit of Ed “we won’t be a dumb pipe” Whitacre lives on…