AT&T Pausing Fiber Investment Until Net Neutrality Rules Are Decided

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know AT&T customers are seriously going to appreciate this little stunt. Waiting on fiber? Don't blame us, it's the FCC's fault. :rolleyes:

AT&T Inc will stop investing in new high-speed Internet connections in 100 U.S. cities until regulators decide whether to enact tough "net neutrality" rules proposed by President Obama, Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said on Wednesday. The investment pause is the most dramatic action yet by a telecommunications or cable company after Obama on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to regulate Internet service providers more like public utilities.
Click to expand...
 
AT&T's gonna take their toys home and hold their breath in a tantrum until their Uncle gives them their way.
 
They want to be able to double dip and steer their customers to whatever service they want them to use.

People are starting to figure this out and the ISPs are scared shitless.
 
Lith1um said:
AT&T's gonna take their toys home and hold their breath in a tantrum until their Uncle gives them their way.
Click to expand...

Politicians do the same thing. Big business and politicians are the biggest damn kids ever. The autistic fits they throw when they don't get what they want is just ridiculous. I wish someone would just walk into Congress and say "Grow the fuck up. You're grown adults and this is your fucking job - do it, or get the fuck out.". Same with many big companies. If it's not going to give them that extra .001% of a profit for their shareholders, they don't do it, even if it is 100x better for the customer. They aren't in business to help their customers, they are in business to help their shareholders. And it really does show in every corporation. Some are better than others the way they treat their customers, but they still aren't doing anything to benefit them - it's all for the shareholder.
 
AT&T fiber is pretty sucky and overpriced anyway.

Just go to their website and look it up.

For 15/?(some super low upload speed) and a stupid low cap where I am at, it costs just as much as my cable 30/5(unlimited) service.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Politicians do the same thing. Big business and politicians are the biggest damn kids ever. The autistic fits they throw when they don't get what they want is just ridiculous. I wish someone would just walk into Congress and say "Grow the fuck up. You're grown adults and this is your fucking job - do it, or get the fuck out.". Same with many big companies. If it's not going to give them that extra .001% of a profit for their shareholders, they don't do it, even if it is 100x better for the customer. They aren't in business to help their customers, they are in business to help their shareholders. And it really does show in every corporation. Some are better than others the way they treat their customers, but they still aren't doing anything to benefit them - it's all for the shareholder.
Click to expand...

And this is why shareholders should not be allowed to "run" these companies.

Get the stupid shareholders out of the way, and most likely profits would grow a lot faster, even if it takes a bit more money in the short term to improve profits in the long term.

Companies that I have seen go public or be bought out by publicly traded companies end up taking a huge turn for the worse, have high employee turn-over rates because corporate forces "lay-offs" if some stupid arbitrary profit margin isn't met, etc.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Politicians do the same thing. Big business and politicians are the biggest damn kids ever. The autistic fits they throw when they don't get what they want is just ridiculous. I wish someone would just walk into Congress and say "Grow the fuck up. You're grown adults and this is your fucking job - do it, or get the fuck out.". Same with many big companies. If it's not going to give them that extra .001% of a profit for their shareholders, they don't do it, even if it is 100x better for the customer. They aren't in business to help their customers, they are in business to help their shareholders. And it really does show in every corporation. Some are better than others the way they treat their customers, but they still aren't doing anything to benefit them - it's all for the shareholder.
Click to expand...

You should clarify WHY it's all for the shareholder. The reason being, C-suite is usually has most of their compensation composed of company shares. If the C-suite were compensated like the average employee, there would be less focus on share price.

It all comes down to the incentive model.
 
cyclone3d said:
AT&T fiber is pretty sucky and overpriced anyway.

Just go to their website and look it up.

For 15/?(some super low upload speed) and a stupid low cap where I am at, it costs just as much as my cable 30/5(unlimited) service.
Click to expand...

There is a problem there, you are looking at ILEC( price regulated ) vs CLEC (non regulated)

ILEC will always cost more "because they have to"
 
I live in a well-populated area that has AT&T and Comcast as the major options for internet and TV. AT&T's internet options are pathetic and coverage is spotty compared to Comcast's offerings. Any decline in "investment" from AT&T will probably go unnoticed. I'd be surprised if AT&T was inesting in fiber anywhere outside of a Google territory anyway.
 
cyclone3d said:
And this is why shareholders should not be allowed to "run" these companies.

Get the stupid shareholders out of the way, and most likely profits would grow a lot faster, even if it takes a bit more money in the short term to improve profits in the long term.

Companies that I have seen go public or be bought out by publicly traded companies end up taking a huge turn for the worse, have high employee turn-over rates because corporate forces "lay-offs" if some stupid arbitrary profit margin isn't met, etc.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... the shareholders are the owners of the company. You don't just get them out of the way.

I don't like what AT&T is doing here, but the purpose of a business is to make money. Otherwise there would not be any.
 
simland said:
You should clarify WHY it's all for the shareholder. The reason being, C-suite is usually has most of their compensation composed of company shares. If the C-suite were compensated like the average employee, there would be less focus on share price.

It all comes down to the incentive model.
Click to expand...

Yes, investors care about the return on investment. They want every last penny they can get. If that means lowering the costs and quality or wages of company employees, then so be it. The customer isn't the incentive. Especially in some of these places where there is no other option other than going without (which with Internet is pretty hard these days). Customers can't leave for better pastures if there are none. So, the customers can get screwed, employees can get screwed (yea, quit in this economy...), but profits rise .25%.

My philosophy, and why I wouldn't be a good CEO, is to treat your employees and customers right and your company will do well. Provide a good product at a great price. I feel that the shares would reflect that. Doubtful that the board would go with it. I'd take a share hit to please my customers & employees if I had to. The board wouldn't. I'd be out in a heartbeat.
 
Shame in most states the towns are forbidden from building their own infrastructure, funny how that works eh?
 
Ur_Mom said:
Yes, investors care about the return on investment. They want every last penny they can get. If that means lowering the costs and quality or wages of company employees, then so be it. The customer isn't the incentive. Especially in some of these places where there is no other option other than going without (which with Internet is pretty hard these days). Customers can't leave for better pastures if there are none. So, the customers can get screwed, employees can get screwed (yea, quit in this economy...), but profits rise .25%.

My philosophy, and why I wouldn't be a good CEO, is to treat your employees and customers right and your company will do well. Provide a good product at a great price. I feel that the shares would reflect that. Doubtful that the board would go with it. I'd take a share hit to please my customers & employees if I had to. The board wouldn't. I'd be out in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Too often, it's outside groups looking for short-term profits that drive decision making, which screws over the employees, customers, and eventually, the company itself. But don't worry; those investors are long gone by the time the sky falls.

Personally? I'd ban corporations outright. Reduce them back to being LLP's, and a lot of the markets problems go away.
 
AT&T has fiber investments?? We have an AT&T fiber, $6k/month for 500/500... if this is bad for AT&T then I am all for it... I hope they all burn
 
XvMMvX said:
Uhhh... the shareholders are the owners of the company. You don't just get them out of the way.
Click to expand...

In that case, the shareholders should be required to make a monthly visit to any business they want to have a say in.

That way, they actually have some clue of how the company works instead of just driving the company in the ground just so they can make that extra .1% in the short term.

They way things are run nowdays is just flat out retarded.

The same thing goes for politicians. Just as shareholders have no clue about the businesses they "own", politicians have no clue about the people they are supposed to represent.
 
cyclone3d said:
In that case, the shareholders should be required to make a monthly visit to any business they want to have a say in.

That way, they actually have some clue of how the company works instead of just driving the company in the ground just so they can make that extra .1% in the short term.

They way things are run nowdays is just flat out retarded.

The same thing goes for politicians. Just as shareholders have no clue about the businesses they "own", politicians have no clue about the people they are supposed to represent.
Click to expand...

But then how would the vampire squid class operate?!
 
It a violation of their monopoly deal, time to break it up. Oh wait, monopolies are easier to regulate and give better tribute.
 
cyclone3d said:
In that case, the shareholders should be required to make a monthly visit to any business they want to have a say in.

That way, they actually have some clue of how the company works instead of just driving the company in the ground just so they can make that extra .1% in the short term.

They way things are run nowdays is just flat out retarded.

The same thing goes for politicians. Just as shareholders have no clue about the businesses they "own", politicians have no clue about the people they are supposed to represent.
Click to expand...

Do you even know how a corporation works?

The shareholders do have a say. They vote on members of the board and then the board establishes a CEO.

In most corporations the original investors haven't sold off enough to lose control. Again I don't like what AT&T is doing here, but at least understand how a corporation structure works.
 
Except in many cases, shareholder votes and resolutions are non-binding, and the Board and management go on to do whatever the hell they please.
 
XvMMvX said:
Do you even know how a corporation works?

The shareholders do have a say. They vote on members of the board and then the board establishes a CEO.

In most corporations the original investors haven't sold off enough to lose control. Again I don't like what AT&T is doing here, but at least understand how a corporation structure works.
Click to expand...

Most shareholders have a low interest being that a good portion are mutual fund, retirement, or other 3rd party represented ownership. Them and a good deal of direct owner don't give a crap about anything but the stock price. That means appealing to the peanut gallery. The peanut gallery is a derrogatory term for a reason, very little experience, knowledge or skill but a lot of opinion. Often that opinion is boilerplate one size fits all approaches regardless of what the industry actually is.

Our Public Ownership model is a bloody joke. And very few industries of any age (meaning not dotcom or sons of dotcom) have original investors. The Stockmarket is a used company dealership after the IPO. A lot of cash changes hands and after the IPO none of it goes to the company. Outside IPO's the stockmarket serves no useful purpose but to give control to the short sighted.
 
internet in the USA is going to crash and burn pretty soon because either it will get slow as balls for anyone who doesn't want to pay big bucks, it will move towards wifi BS and have caps, they will start imposing stupid low caps on everyone so they can get more $$ and who knows what else.

Fucking BS....

you all know darn well what the outcome will be with net neutrality...there will be none. they will all be allowed to do whatever the F they want until it all comes to a crashing halt.
 
XvMMvX said:
Do you even know how a corporation works?

The shareholders do have a say. They vote on members of the board and then the board establishes a CEO.

In most corporations the original investors haven't sold off enough to lose control. Again I don't like what AT&T is doing here, but at least understand how a corporation structure works.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. and if the board members go against what the shareholders want, they throw them out.

Have you actually ever worked for a company that was private and then went public or was bought out by a publicly traded company?
 
What fiber? Oh yeah that's right their "Uverse" bullshit where they run Fiber to a node, then basically give you DSL service over copper,
"oooh pay us $60/month and you can get 18Mbps connections!!! And we'll allow you to lease our modem for $10/month too!"

Then Google Fiber comes along and AT&T changes their tune
"We can give you GIGAPOWAH!!!! And we can give you 1Gbps service for the same price as Google... as long as you allow us to target you with ads... and you live in 'select cities'"

Seriously AT&T go the fuck home, let smaller companies do shit in cities without you throwing up governmental road blocks. And watch how no one gives a shit whether or not you roll out fiber.
 
Want the USA to have the best Internet infrastructure in the world and spur investment, here's how:
  • Classify all ISPs as a utility.
  • Set a maximum profit margin allowed at 20% of gross revenue.
  • Allow owned (no leasing) investments in implemented infrastructure to to be counted as additional revenue on the profit margin formula, allowing higher effective profit margins for seven fiscal years if the ISP invests in infrastructure, meaning they'd be allowed to recover 140% of investment over seven years - and then have newer/faster hardware as well.
This would limit ISPs in profit margin, however if they invest in their network then they are allowed to legally have higher overall profits over a long term where they end up ahead compared to not upgrading, meaning improving your network is now a way to improve overall earnings.
 
XvMMvX said:
Uhhh... the shareholders are the owners of the company. You don't just get them out of the way.

I don't like what AT&T is doing here, but the purpose of a business is to make money. Otherwise there would not be any.
Click to expand...

Thus the reason some want to treat it more like a utility. Besides, the shortsightedness of businesses that worry about investor's quarterly expectations cause more problems than they solve. I don't see Google playing the quarterly earnings game. It may be changing, but up until now, Amazon hasn't either. Quite the opposite.

The reality is AT&T generally has crappy coverage that's not much better than what they offered a decade ago. Comcast is faster, but they're capping your ass, so the extra speed is less relevant.

I wasn't for regulating ISPs, but there's really no competition, which means they have little motivation to keep prices down or greatly improve bandwidth. I pay more for my internet than my parents and they have a 30Mb symmetric connection, while I have 20-25 down and about 6mb up. More for less. That's what a monopolized free market gets you.

And in case you guys think otherwise, there's a healthy profit in 1Gb fiber for $70/month. It's more than the profit from Video.
 
Bigbacon said:
internet in the USA is going to crash and burn pretty soon because either it will get slow as balls for anyone who doesn't want to pay big bucks, it will move towards wifi BS and have caps, they will start imposing stupid low caps on everyone so they can get more $$ and who knows what else.

Fucking BS....

you all know darn well what the outcome will be with net neutrality...there will be none. they will all be allowed to do whatever the F they want until it all comes to a crashing halt.
Click to expand...
Only if enough Americans are defeatist and cynical, like you.

Wait what am I saying? Of course you're right.
 
IMO ATT has only ever invested in fiber so much as they can secure business SLAs and Apartment complex contracts. It is and always has been completely useless and stupid. So I couldn't care less if they make some bogus claim that they will stop. It wont affect any of us.
 
Well if they won't do it someone else will. Could go for both sides of the this story, but if they are halting their plans other companies aren't halting theirs. They are just putting themselves further behind by halting production. What a silly hissy fit. There are a lot of things going on right lately where people will notice the dark side of the force is very strong. The hubris of people will lead to the falling of empires if they don't wake up.
 
Exavior said:
There is a problem there, you are looking at ILEC( price regulated ) vs CLEC (non regulated)

ILEC will always cost more "because they have to"
Click to expand...

OMG someone finally figured it out! I've been saying this for months on here and everyone acts like I am some crazy anti progress goon. Yet no one seems to look at the effects of what these regulations actually do. Cable providers want this. It is a license to print more money for the government, and a license to raise prices on customers.

Two things that will have zero improvement on internet speeds and reliability in the country.
 
I love coming on here and reading the financial comments from people who don't work in the finance industry, have never read a 10K, and don't even know what a discounted cash flow model is. The best part of these comments is the confidence the writer exudes.

America, #1 in self confidence, #31 in math skills.
 
m heisty said:
OMG someone finally figured it out! I've been saying this for months on here and everyone acts like I am some crazy anti progress goon. Yet no one seems to look at the effects of what these regulations actually do. Cable providers want this. It is a license to print more money for the government, and a license to raise prices on customers.

Two things that will have zero improvement on internet speeds and reliability in the country.
Click to expand...

Deregulation is great when there's competition. Unfortunately, virtually every place I've lived had at most 3 options: Dial Up, Slow DSL and relatively fast cable (though not fast compared to countries like South Korea). The only time cable is cheap is when there's competition. Comcast, TW or Cox has a competitor, the price of an internet package is about 50-60% of the price in a place where it has virtually no competition (e.g. AT&T DSL).

Sometimes they had slow/high cost wireless. Comcast can tell Netflix pay us for access, because almost everyone using Netflix in their markets has Comcast. Occasionally AT&T has built out something competitive but it's not throughout the area and thus they only offer deals to people moving from AT&T to them.

And it's not just the big guys. Smaller companies want long term exclusivity (measured in decades) for putting in high speed internet (we might be dead before the exclusivity clause ends).

When you're a monopoly or at best an oligopoly, regulation is needed.
 
Well no one would know because deregulation is not what caused your limited options, rather regulation is what caused it. Local monopolies granted by local officials, try to move in and offer an option as some cities have done ATT, Comcast or whomever will drown you in legal battles for decades and throw red tape at you forever. And it is typically easy to bribe a couple people on a local city board. I know of a case where a company wanted to put a huge factory in a town that would create hundreds of jobs and 1 city council member kept jamming everything up because they were bribed by some local scrapper who would rather the factory get scrapped on his bid than create hundreds of jobs.

That's the funny thing is that a monopoly is almost always in the USA and other parts largely held in place by a government that sets rules that impede competitors from springing up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top