AT&T Using Loophole To Deny Low-Income Internet Discounts

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
When companies like AT&T use loopholes for taxes, I get it. But to use a loophole to deny low-income internet discounts that were mandated by the FCC? Stay classy AT&T, stay classy. :(

When the NDIA asked the company to apply the program to neighborhoods with speeds of 1.5 Mbps, it refused. "AT&T is not prepared to expand the low income offer to additional speed tiers beyond those established as a condition of the merger approval," the company replied in a statement. As a result, poor families that should qualify for the $5 program must pay $30 per month (and more after 12 months) for a service well below the definition of "broadband."
 
You have to have the loophole in order to drive through it. The hole was put there by the FCC. What crap was signed off on and defended, in return for some wealth redistribution that just evaporated?
 
AT&T told the Daily Dot that "the vast majority of the locations where we offer internet service are able to subscribe to internet speed tiers at 3Mbps or higher."



Vast majority.... this article is making something out of nothing.
 
"However, the NDIA points out that 21 percent of subscribers in Detroit and Cleveland (above), mostly in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods, have 1.5 Mbps or lower speeds."
It's bad enough they are poor and live in Detroit and Cleveland.
 
business-commerce-legal_department-lawyers-solictors-loophole-cartoon-jmo0023_low.jpg
 
as much as I generally dislike agreeing with what the US telco/cable companies do in this country...good on them for finding a way to stick it to the freeloaders. NDIA should not exist, most wealth distribution programs should not exist.

it's a shame though that us normal customers are still paying for this crap.
 
ml_paladin888 said:
as much as I generally dislike agreeing with what the US telco/cable companies do in this country...good on them for finding a way to stick it to the freeloaders.
Click to expand...

Why not say what you really mean? This is the year when he dog-whistling has gone out of style.
 
So because they failed to meet one commitment to roll out broadband, they use that to justify not abiding by another commitment to discount broadband.

i think it's about time that we start taking those taxes for supplying service to all areas out of their hides for failing to provide said services.
 
it hurts me to say this but I have to side with AT&T on this one. They were told they had to offer certain speeds at certain cost. If something falls outside of that the agreement can't be changed now. What if tomorrow it was decided that in addition to that they should also get X included. Both sides signed a legally binding contract. The government should have done a better job looking at what AT&T offers to know they have less than 3Mbps. It sucks and is shitty that they have places that only can get 1.5Mbps but it is the governments fault that these people fell into a loop hole. I need to go wash my brain out now
 
Semantics said:
"However, the NDIA points out that 21 percent of subscribers in Detroit and Cleveland (above), mostly in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods, have 1.5 Mbps or lower speeds."
It's bad enough they are poor and live in Detroit and Cleveland.
Click to expand...

It's bad for the citizens, but not for the government that put them there.
 
The government has a simple solution here... If ATT doesn't want to fulfill the spirit of the clause and want's to stick to the wording... I guess no tax breaks/incentives for them... And don't mind the team of 50 IRS auditors who will be gooing through your tax records for the last 5 years checking that each and every individual detail is correct.
 
PhotoBobBarker said:
The government has a simple solution here... If ATT doesn't want to fulfill the spirit of the clause and want's to stick to the wording... I guess no tax breaks/incentives for them... And don't mind the team of 50 IRS auditors who will be gooing through your tax records for the last 5 years checking that each and every individual detail is correct.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the point of a contract? If you sign a contract to buy something from me for $15,000 and we are both in agreement it will cost you $15,000. Are you going to be ok if later I come back and say I did not making enough profit and now want you to give me another $40,000 otherwise I am going to take the item away from you and keep the $15,000? Sadly this isn't about the spirit, this is about when a regulatory body states that you must do <insert action> that is what you do, if they forget parts or do not make it a requirement then make your own choice. AT&T is a business, not a charity. If regulations don't force them to not make money they are not going to volunteer to forfeit profits out of the kindness of their hearts. When you create a contract if you ake loopholes or don't explain things correctly that is your fault, not the person you had sign it.
 
At&t is a utility meaning they have to fulfill certain obligations to the citizens, it's not a signed contract it's a forced obligation, the nature of doing business as a utility. I'm sure that the 3mb floor was likely added in order to create the loophole for at&t not necessarily to follow the spirit of the act. The government is more malleable than most people would like to believe because most of what gets created is created in small subcommittees who can be influenced by outside pressure, why else do car dealerships exist outside the fact a lot of states get a large amount of state tax revenue from them. Instead of selling cars for a cheaper set price like any other product.
 
Semantics said:
At&t is a utility meaning they have to fulfill certain obligations to the citizens, it's not a signed contract it's a forced obligation, the nature of doing business as a utility. I'm sure that the 3mb floor was likely added in order to create the loophole for at&t not necessarily to follow the spirit of the act. The government is more malleable than most people would like to believe because most of what gets created is created in small subcommittees who can be influenced by outside pressure, why else do car dealerships exist outside the fact a lot of states get a large amount of state tax revenue from them. Instead of selling cars for a cheaper set price like any other product.
Click to expand...

That is true. I was just trying to dumb it down for the average person. If I started to talk about ILECs, regulations and tariffs that would have confused 99.5% of the people here. Being that they are an ILEC and not a CLEC in these areas they are required to set certain prices. That said they have got around that type of stuff in the past given their sized. Last time the FCC raised the cost of local phone service for ILECS and stated that you have to start charging X amount for residential and Y amount for business since their business rates were already a tad over the residential rates they got the ok to no change residential rates to keep them lower then the FCC requirement since they said they would pay the difference from the business side. The FCC said that was ok, everyone else tried to do that and was told to fuck off. Only AT&T and Verizon were said to be large enough to do that. But yes it is a regulation obligation not a contract.

As for the loop hole, honestly I doubt anyone in the government knows that some areas are only being given a choice of 1.5Mbps. What was it 7 years ago that congress thought that all cooper phone lines had been removed from every house in the USA. Which I can't find the article of course now :( But there was some discussion about telephony and during the topic there wasn't a single representative that knew people still have DSL or land lines. They had thought the cell phones and wifi and replaced those. One of the aids there had to inform people that the nation is still using phone lines and that is how people get internet service. So given that, I could see when the deal was made up that who ever put it together didn't bother to do their research and just assumed that everyone had to be able to get the old broadband definition at the very least.
 
Just guarantees they'll never update the networks in those neighborhoods. That's a losing investment .. update network and have to lower the rate to $5 or $10.

Why can't they just use the public library?
 
Toepunch said:
Good how about work harder or get a second job to get better internet.
Click to expand...

You think low income people are only people that don't work hard? I guess you have never had a bad injury before. You should try getting injured at work and see what kind of garbage workers comp does to you. The little settlement you receive, and then go and fight the government for disability. I would love to work like I used to be able to, but I can't due to tearing up four discs in my back.
 
It's not really a loophole, this is just ATT's policy. The FCC simply hasn't weighed in so far.
 
AT&T has changed its mind about denying its service for poor people to people who are too poor to afford poor people service:

"We're currently working to expand the eligibility process of Access from AT&T to the 2 percent of our home Internet customers unable to receive Internet speed tiers of 3Mbps and above," AT&T told CNN Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top