back to article AT&T wants Big Tech to help fund US internet access

AT&T thinks that internet-based technology giants should contribute to a fund that subsidizes access to telecoms and broadband services in the US, and wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to force them to do so. Speaking at a telecoms industry forum in Utah, AT&T chief John Stankey said that Congress should give …

  1. Mishak Silver badge

    $30 to $75 a month discount

    Why is internet so expensive in the US? The top level of discount is about twice the cost of a decent rural connection* in the UK.

    Similarly, my "no frills" mobile (cell) contract is only about $6 (unlimited calls, unlimited SMS, 5GB data - $24 gives unlimited data).

    * sure, the distances are a lot shorter.

    1. vtcodger Silver badge

      Re: $30 to $75 a month discount

      Why is internet so expensive in the US?

      Distance does have a lot to do with it in rural areas, but basically, because the big communication companies have us by the balls and our hearts and minds (if any) have little choice but to follow. (Paraphrased quotation turns out to be from Theodore Roosevelt. I thought it was one of our Vietnam war generals). Not much can be done about the distance, but the corporate abuse could probably be solved by electing some sensible politicians. If only we could find some.

      1. blackcat Silver badge

        Re: $30 to $75 a month discount

        "some sensible politicians"

        First step would be to make all corporate lobbying illegal. Money should never affect policy.

        Secondly make political funding by corporations illegal as well.

        Thirdly stop the revolving door between govt and big corp.

        The sums of $$$ spent in US elections is just eyewatering compared to the UK. I saw references to $25 million being spent in a primary by one group to oust a candidate.

        1. Like a badger

          Re: $30 to $75 a month discount

          At least in the US the market for buying politicians is well understood and vaguely transparent, and you know if somebody has bought a politician.

          Here in the UK (and to a large extent Europe) it's all much more genteel, with a greater pretence of serving the electorate, but behind the scenes lobbyists wield undue amounts of power. And not just corporate lobbyists, also NGOs who operate extremely effective lobbying for their particular interests.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    US internet costs (and speeds) vary dramatically by location. Where it's expensive that's usually because there's no worthwhile competition and no regulation to stop incumbents gouging, raather than because the underlying cost base is notably higher.

  3. Zibob Silver badge

    In addition to the $17 billion noted in the 2000s in the article, there was also the 1996 telecommunications act which was at that time supposed to fund fibre for the connected 48 states.

    So now they want a third industry changing sum of money to not do what they were supposed to with the first one.

    Stop listening to these companies and privatise them you are wasting money with this idiocy.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Stop listening to these companies and privatise them you are wasting money with this idiocy.

      But they are already private businesses in the USA?

      1. Like a badger

        Not to mention that privatisation of telecoms in the UK hasn't reduced the demands from industry for vast government handouts to get broadband to people who don't want to pay the full costs themselves.

  4. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Mushroom

    "AT&T thinks that"

    Someone else should yet again foot the bill for its revenues.

    This story is getting seriously old. Put in some damn fiber, or fold and let someone competent take care of the problem !

    1. blackcat Silver badge

      Re: "AT&T thinks that"

      The worst bit is if someone else comes along and offers to run a service the big incumbents screech and scream and get it blocked.

  5. DS999 Silver badge

    As much as I hate to admit it

    They have a point.

    If you're talking about subsidizing internet access for low income people who are already connected (rather than getting those who are unserved/underserved any sort of viable access) then in an ideal world you'd have Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and other megacap tech companies that are wholly reliant on the internet to serve their customer base chipping in to make that happen. It doesn't make sense to put that burden on the ISPs.

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: As much as I hate to admit it

      Why would that make any more sense than requiring any other company to do it? Everyone uses the internet, so because I need a company name at random, let's just send the bill to Cisco. They use the internet, so they're responsible for making it available.

      The ISPs are responsible for building the networks they said they would. They are free not to serve an area if they think it's too expensive, and they sometimes do. When they don't, it's usually because the government gave them millions to serve that area. If that wasn't enough, they should have refused it and not built the service. Instead, they take it and provide substandard service at ridiculous prices, and every few years, they demand more money to make even slight improvements. This time, they're trying to get it from some companies rather than the taxpayers, but either way, it boils down to trying to put the bill on someone else for services they agreed to provide.

      If I sell you electrical products, I am not responsible for getting better electricity service to your house. If I sell swimming pools, I am not responsible for giving you bigger pipes and water treatment plants. If I operate services on the internet, I am not responsible for connecting you. In each case, there are businesses who do those things and they have both private market reasons and often government subsidies to improve their services to you.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: As much as I hate to admit it

        Cisco could exist without the internet - and indeed the internet was almost non-existent when they were founded. Google and Facebook could not, their business is entirely dependent on the internet.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: As much as I hate to admit it

          That changes nothing, because without the internet, Cisco would be much smaller if it existed at all. Without a valuable network to drive demand for equipment to communicate, there would be less money for companies building that equipment. That example works as well as any other, that is to say, not at all.

          I provided many examples of utilities where products that require them should not and are not responsible for providing them. Do you agree with any of them? If you think that manufacturers of toasters should be paying to build power plants, why? If you don't, why should the internet be any different? Also, I'm wondering what you do, and therefore which services I should be making you pay for instead of paying for them myself. Would it be fair if I demanded that, far from me paying you for whatever work you do, I should be paid by you to use it?

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    AT&T are Fools

    I received a letter the other day about a data breach from at&t. I haven't been with them in over 20 years...They don't even provide services in this part of the state... When I called, I spoke to a bunch of folks...none could tell me what info of mine they still had from so long ago.... Just saying....they prob aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and folks shouldn't pay much attention to them.

    ---------------------------------------------

    Interestingly, if you look at your cell bill, cable bill, phone bill, whatever... You are already supposedly paying into a recovery funds a lot of the time to help develp rural areas.... It doesn't do any good. So this crap that at&t is trying to push is only for more money in their pockets and absolutely no help for a lot of us.

    --------------------------------------------

    By the way.... It's also worth mentioning.... In rural areas there are tons and tons of folks with No access to internet or cell phone services.... and the big companies/govt don't give a damn....BUT They still want all of our farm and ranch goods to be sold for nothing as well as making sure that the urban areas get first dibs on all the food and services.

    -------------------------------------------

    Hoping for a solution some day....

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like