AT&T May Put High-Speed Fiber Network On Hold
Decatur Metro | November 13, 2014 | 1:01 pmSo remember that news a while back that Decatur was going to get some fiber-goodness for AT&T, as we waited on word on Google Fiber? Yeah so, apparently that may not happen. From electronista…
During an analyst conference on Wednesday, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said that the company is considering putting a hold on its build-out of gigabit fiber networks for select cities in the US until a decision is made on net neutrality rules. The company announced in April that it would be bringing high-speed fiber to 100 cities and municipalities.
In the meantime, we wait for word from Google Fiber, who has said that we’ll receive a final decision by year’s end.
It was always an empty promise anyway: http://www.androidauthority.com/att-threatens-stop-investment-wasnt-going-happen-anyway-566525/
I agree. They have been walking door to door trying to repair their reputation…
This is more political posturing from AT&T intended to degrade the argument for net neutrality. AT&T can say, “We can’t afford to build the infrastructure if you don’t let us soak our customers”. Like Blockbuster video, I don’t think many will shed a tear as AT&T continues to lose market share to other more forward-looking businesses.
Ahh nothing like a BS excuse from AT&T to try to scare and influence politicians or the public on the issue of net neutrality. If you’re not concerned about net neutrality you should be.
In summary, net neutrality means all traffic on the Internet should be treated the same. AT&T provides the Internet pipe just like the water or electric company it shouldnt matter what flows over the network whether it’s an email or Netflix streaming movie. AT&T can’t prioritze the speed of movies streamed from AT&T or partners who pay a fee to AT&T over those who don’t. The big telecom companies want to create a fast lane pay to play model for high speed internet. It’s bad enough we have such slow high speed internet and pay so much for it in America in comparison to what they get in Asia or Europe.
Thanks AT&T you’ve confirmed my gut instinct that Google is a better fiber provider for Decatur. Here’s hoping they pick Atlanta.
The water and electric companies are poor analogies. Much of the water infrastructure was installed by public funds via county issued/backed bonds (or by developers as conditions for permit/zoning approval) . Yes, I realize the costs are ultimately paid by taxpayers or passed to consumers via utility bills. But, they were always public utilities. Net neutrality is akin to nationalization common in South America. A private company installs its infrastructure at its expense (again, I realize the consumers ultimately pay), but now the government is threatening to take over control of the privately funded infrastructure.
(And I am intentionally not getting into the anti-capitalist agenda. We are each free to choose to pay for premium service if we don’t want to be throttled. Just like we are all free to pay or not pay for premium channels, HD svc, etc. Why is everyone entitled to the internet and to the same level of service?)
If you are worried about unfair business practices (i.e. the companies intentionally not providing the fast service they promised either to discourage use or to encourage consumers to upgrade), there are already laws in place to address that problem. In fact, there are pending class action suits addressing this very thing.
You’re only looking at it from the consumer end. The bigger issue is that smaller companies would not be able to pay for a fast lane into people’s homes the way a Netflix, for example, would. What you could end up with is a handful of large companies dominating internet traffic.
Name an industry where new, smaller companies don’t have multiple disadvantages entering the market. If you have a superior product, people will pay for it, even at a premium. Why should this be different?
In the 60’s, Sam Walton no doubt looked out on the horizon and said, “Sears is already so massive. How can I compete with them unless the government intervenes?”
Which hasn’t happened in the 20-plus years the interwebs have already been around.
” The big telecom companies want to create a fast lane pay to play model for high speed internet. ”
They already have one. Comcast, for ex., offers several levels of internet speed. All perfectly legal.
I assume that you aren’t trying to muddy the waters here. The ‘fast lane’ issue isn’t the same as paying for varying connection speeds. Rather this is about setting up ‘preferred’ channels of information that are paid for by the companies that are distributing the content.
First, as many have noted, the problem with the fast lane notion is that it creates some pretty perverse incentives. As one example, it is far cheaper to create a slow lane, and then charge companies to stay out of it.
Second, companies already pay for network connections, what network owners want is a free hand to extort more money from companies, in essence double dipping.
Finally, “why is everyone entitled to the internet?” Really?
Certainly the competition notion is bogus for a large portion of consumers. If I don’t want comcast, then I can switch to ATT, if I don’t want ATT, then I can switch to … Comcast. Duopolies are generally not good a providing the competitive environment that tends to drive down costs and improve service. You need either more competition or regulation. Way back in the 90s, we were told that the hands off approach would drive competition. Nope.
“Rather this is about setting up ‘preferred’ channels of information that are paid for by the companies that are distributing the content. ”
Those companies distributing the content also get their money from consumers. Consumers can choose to purchase from companies who pay for the fast lane, or they could choose to buy from companies who don’t, presumably at a discount.
oh, I’m sure everyone will be squeezing money from the consumers. All for some of the suckiest connection speeds in the developed world.
So, since you are entitled to not have sucky internet without paying, the government should just give it to us. Got it. Plus, we will get the added benefit of making sure that the rate our technologies and infrastructure improve falls to zero b/c no one will have any incentive to invest.
“Finally, “why is everyone entitled to the internet?” Really?”
And the list of things we’re “entitled” to receive at others’ expense grows ever-larger.
As it should. We are supposedly a fairly wealthy country, I think it is ok for us to collectively improve everyone’s standard of living.
We too steps to get everyone on the electrical grid and have telephone e service. Back, you know, when people believed in public goods.
Power? Yes, it improves standard of living. It keeps people warm in the winter, cool in the summer, allows them to safely store food, etc. Internet? No, no and hell no. 99.9% of the sh*t on the internet is for entertainment value alone.
“99.9% of the sh*t on the internet is for entertainment value alone.” — I don’t buy that precise number but I take your point. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that anyone lacking access to broadband–at whatever bandwidth is considered standard/not premium at any point in time–is at a serious disadvantage when it comes to education and employment.
And I am not suggesting that internet shouldn’t be made available to the public at large (it is free at libraries). But, that is a far cry from saying everyone is entitled to the best possible internet in their homes at little or no cost (and how would everyone use it – do we also have to provide the best computers?).
not at little or no cost. jsut shouldn’t let broadband access replicate model of pay TV. “free at libraries” does not constitute reasonable access and if you want to claim it does, then you won’t be at all credible.
You and I are not going to convince each other of anything. we are merely providing dubious entertainment for those who are able to restrain themselves from joining the fray.
Although internet is free at libraries, I can personally attest to the offering being quite subpar. I lost my job at the start of the 2008 recession and cut my cable & internet to save costs thinking the library would be a good option. I often found myself waiting in line for 30+ minutes to even get to a workstation, only to find those computers extremely out of date. I recall having a hard time trying to get my up to date resume to load on the older versions of Word and spending a frustrating amount of time trying to re-format it, only to cross my fingers it would load correctly for the potential employer.
I recall thinking how hard it must have been for those who used that “free internet” as their only option for job searching or to help increase MS Office skills. I would consider the library as an internet option only for entertainment.
I would love an option for Internet beside Comcast and AT&T. I have had both and love neither. I would be happy to get download speeds at the level I pay for, but I rarely get them. Right now AT&T says if we drop them for phone/Internet, my spouse loses his unlimited data iPhone plan (but they have given us misinformation before so who knows).
A internet provider that wasn’t in the cable channel business would be nice, like in the old days of Internet…
“You need either more competition or regulation. ”
And ATT and Comcast consistently lobby against both.
As you would if you were them
And just as they look out for their interests in Washington DC, so members of the public should look out for ours.
The real issue here isn’t whether they should be allowed to prioritize content, but whether they are allowed to block competition. More ISP competition is what we need.
or we could tell the isps to go f themselves altogether by building a true internet utility with public funds. think it’s wrong to make a private company act a certain way, well let’s just put them out of business.
Another chapter: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/f-c-c-asks-att-for-details-on-plans-to-halt-fiber-expansion/
Shameless political stunt at best, gangster government at worst. “Nice acquisition you have there, shame if something were to happen to it.”