AT&T CEO Warns FCC Over Net Neutrality

[kac77]

Citation, please. You keep stating that the infrastructure was paid for by taxpayer dollars, and that's not entirely true. Tax incentives were involved in many things, sure, but we incentivize people to buy houses (and health insurance) through the tax code and I doubt you'd make the argument that "all your houses are belong to us".

No citation needed. I like that strawman you did there. But in actuality our taxes most certainly do go towards the expansion of communication. On everyone's bill there's actually a tax specifically for that purpose. That's at the federal level. At the State and Local they receive lock-in agreements and further tax incentives. Now do our taxes finance it entirely? Unlikely. But then again no one is saying that.

The Internet is one of the most publically financed things next to the NASA program itself. Just about every country on planet Earth subsidizes the Internet in some way.

BTW in many States much of the land under a home isn't owned entirely by the homeowner. Water, Gas and Mineral rights are usually purchased separately from the State or local municipality. Depending on the State you lived in I could drill underneath your home and as long as I didn't affect your health there isn't' too much you could do to stop me. At the federal level it can also confiscate land. If it can prove that taking land you pay for is for the greater good of the entire country as a whole it can take it from you. Good luck taking the U.S Federal Government to court. You better be really rich and have more lawyers than OJ Simpson.

 

[flashoverride]

No citation needed. I like that strawman you did there. But in actuality our taxes most certainly do go towards the expansion of communication. On everyone's bill there's actually a tax specifically for that purpose. That's at the federal level. At the State and Local they receive lock-in agreements and further tax incentives. Now do our taxes finance it entirely? Unlikely. But then again no one is saying that.

The Internet is one of the most publically financed things next to the NASA program itself. Just about every country on planet Earth subsidizes the Internet in some way.

BTW in many States much of the land under a home isn't owned entirely by the homeowner. Water, Gas and Mineral rights are usually purchased separately from the State or local municipality. Depending on the State you lived in I could drill underneath your home and as long as I didn't affect your health there isn't' too much you could do to stop me. At the federal level it can also confiscate land. If it can prove that taking land you pay for is for the greater good of the entire country as a whole it can take it from you. Good luck taking the U.S Federal Government to court. You better be really rich and have more lawyers than OJ Simpson.

Yep, in Europe and other places they sure do finance the heck out of their internet, largely because they are built or run by state-owned telecoms. Here in the US we don't have that. What we do have is an industry that's invested 1.3 trillion dollars since 1996.

http://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry/broadband-industry-stats/investment

By the way, that tax you're talking about is the USF, which has long only applied to voice landline service. For some reason we saw fit to extend it to wireless service - the so-called "Obamaphones". Well, guess what? Under Title II, the government can compel a provider to build out service in an area, but it's financed by... you guessed it... the USF! Congratulations, now you'll be paying more taxes to build out broadband to under-served areas like rural Kentucky or West Virginia.

 

[flashoverride]

Yes they should, but it's obviously not going to happen. And where did we limit the discussion to just the backbone? That is a small part of the problem and should be easily fixable. Instead of giving these greedy asshole corporations money to spend only a small portion of it for infrastructure upgrades, they should roll out a public owned backbone to use without these money grabbing peering agreements.

Title II will apply primarily to the backbone providers.

a "small portion of it for infrastructure"? Try $1.3 Trillion since 1996. $690 Billion of that is just landline. Heck, even Wheeler acknowledged in his statement that wireless companies have invested CAPEX of $300 Billion in the past 20 years.

http://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry/broadband-industry-stats/investment
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

 

[TwistedAegis]

By the way, that tax you're talking about is the USF, which has long only applied to voice landline service. For some reason we saw fit to extend it to wireless service - the so-called "Obamaphones". Well, guess what? Under Title II, the government can compel a provider to build out service in an area, but it's financed by... you guessed it... the USF! Congratulations, now you'll be paying more taxes to build out broadband to under-served areas like rural Kentucky or West Virginia.

Timestamp 12/1/1774: LanternwickDoubler: "Congratulations, now ye will be paying more of yon taxes to provide mail service to such varied and scattered locations such as Rhode Island and Vermont!"

Society sucks, doesn't it? Too bad that our rural brethren will now have better access to the internet and be more economically successful. Some things aren't a zero-sum game - helping our nation's kids be educated, giving access to basic services such as water, sewer, electricity, mail and now, yes, broadband internet - makes us all wealthier.

 

[kac77]

Yep, in Europe and other places they sure do finance the heck out of their internet, largely because they are built or run by state-owned telecoms. Here in the US we don't have that. What we do have is an industry that's invested 1.3 trillion dollars since 1996.

Oh but we do. The "industry" didn't pay for the technology behind the internet. Why you would argue this is beyond me. But apparently you think it's arguable.

By the way, that tax you're talking about is the USF, which has long only applied to voice landline service.

Nope. It was expanded to include internet in 1996. What you are thinking of is the Act of 1934. The one in 1996 includes Internet services. Why? Probably because landline service went digital years ago.

Under Title II, the government can compel a provider to build out service in an area, but it's financed by... you guessed it... the USF!

Yep and it's on our bills, along with some sort of ARC charge as well. Sorry but we pay for quite a bit when comes communication within the US, Internet included. All anyone has to do is look at their Internet bill. There's state and federal taxes all over it.

Congratulations, now you'll be paying more taxes to build out broadband to under-served areas like rural Kentucky or West Virginia.

We already pay for them. Putting ISP's under Title II is nothing more than fixing what the industry tried to pull in 2000 by getting the FCC to classify Internet service as something other than what it was....communication.

 

[Jagger100]

Now the Tit II is looking like a done deal, all the weasels that were sneering at the idea of it bring along taxes are now laying the ground work to justify it in anticipation of their flip flops.

Amazing.

 

[tikiman2012]

The Internet was specifically designed as a communication service. These companies can't just make up new things to call it or try to redefine it to suit their greed.

"Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken!" Tyler Durden. Lol

 

[mope54]

Title II will apply primarily to the backbone providers.

a "small portion of it for infrastructure"? Try $1.3 Trillion since 1996. $690 Billion of that is just landline. Heck, even Wheeler acknowledged in his statement that wireless companies have invested CAPEX of $300 Billion in the past 20 years.

http://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry/broadband-industry-stats/investment
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

you keep throwing those numbers around like they're significant but they don't look like much investment compared to AT&T's 2014 revenue of over 130 billion dollars. That's just one company for one year. I didn't bother to look the rest up because the conclusion is obvious: they haven't been investing a significant portion of their profits into infrastructure.

 

[flashoverride]

you keep throwing those numbers around like they're significant but they don't look like much investment compared to AT&T's 2014 revenue of over 130 billion dollars. That's just one company for one year. I didn't bother to look the rest up because the conclusion is obvious: they haven't been investing a significant portion of their profits into infrastructure.

And what was their *profit*? See, revenue isn't the same as profit. If I make $50 billion in revenue but spent $55 billion to make it, then I have NO PROFIT. I actually have a $5 billion LOSS. That $130 billion number is one half of the equation. What were their expenditures for the year?

 

[mope54]

And what was their *profit*? See, revenue isn't the same as profit. If I make $50 billion in revenue but spent $55 billion to make it, then I have NO PROFIT. I actually have a $5 billion LOSS. That $130 billion number is one half of the equation. What were their expenditures for the year?

I don't know, that's why I didn't call it "profit" but thanks for the business lesson

incidentally, infrastructure is part of expenditures, doesn't come out of "profit", and it should be obvious that US telecoms are not operating at a loss

 

[Ultima99]

Its funny how some people fight so hard for things that will impact them negatively.

Its hard to understate the importance of being even handed in your research even if you have a bias for or against a position you should go out of your way to really give both sides a fair amount of research. Too many are quick to just look up "evidence" that supports what they already believe.

 

[maverikv]

Why would you make the point about profit vs revenue if you can't even be bothered to look it up yourself? AT&T's gross margin is over 50% at 71 billion dollars for 2014. All the major telecoms have obscene margins. They are taking every sleazy advantage they can of us, both directly as customers and indirectly through manipulation of regulations, taxes and subsidies. Fark them.