AT&T To "Pause" Gigabit Internet Rollout Until Net Neutrality Is Settled 308
An anonymous reader writes AT&T says it will halt its investment on broadband Internet service expansion until the federal rules on open Internet are clarified. "We can't go out and just invest that kind of money, deploying fiber to 100 cities other than these two million [covered by the DirecTV deal], not knowing under what rules that investment will be governed," AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson said during an appearance at a Wells Fargo conference, according to a transcript provided by AT&T. "And so, we have to pause, and we have to just put a stop on those kind of investments that we're doing today."
yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should we upgrade when we don't really have to?
Re: (Score:3)
Why should we upgrade when we don't really have to?
Because if they don't, someone else will. That's why you also need laws to block local communities from arranging their own local services, you see.
I'm not normally a huge supporter of the world of corporate politics, but in this case, I hope the likes of Google call their bluff and cost them a staggering amount of money.
Re:yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if they don't, someone else will.
This is a joke, right?
No, someone else WON'T, and that's the whole problem. The vast majority of the U.S. has one, and only one, decent low-latency broadband provider. The big ISPs divided it up that way on purpose where they could. Heck, they even said testified as much to the FCC, even though dividing up the country that way is an illegal anti-competitive practice.
I'm all for market solutions... when there is a real, competitive market. There isn't, in most of the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a joke, right?
Um... Yes. I kinda figured that was obvious from next sentence. Oh well.
Re: yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)
Um . . no.
AT&T is NOT a proactive company. Never has been. The ONLY reason Gigapower is being deployed is due to the threat from Google deploying their own solution and whisking away all of AT&T's customers in the process. Think about the timing of it all and realize it's merely an " oh shit " reaction to Google's announcement ( bluff ? ) to introduce high speed broadband in select cities.
The recent announcement of Metros rolling out their own Wi-Fi will only hasten this along.
There is another pr
Re:yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a joke, right?
Yes, it clearly was actually...
The vast majority of the U.S. has one, and only one, decent low-latency broadband provider.
No, the vast majority has two: cable (DOCSIS) and telco (DSL). Though currently in all but a few lucky areas with FIOS, etc, the telcos (like AT&T) are way behind cable. The point of AT&T's upgrade is to finally ditch the ancient copper lines and leapfrog cable.
The big ISPs divided it up that way on purpose where they could.
Again, no. The telcos have a monopoly because copper was installed to homes about 100 years ago via the only phone company in existence, the original AT&T. Their markets were "divided" by the antitrust breakup of AT&T, not a bunch of telcos deciding where to offer service.
Cable has a bit different history, but also had ZERO to do with "ISPs" since the Internet didn't *exist* when cable infrastructure was built into most cities. And in this case the cities are the ones who decided which cable company would get the franchise. Not to mention back then there were hundreds of smaller cable companies - it was almost the opposite of the telco evolution, probably in fact *becuase* of backlash to the AT&T monopoly. And of course it's the US government's fault as much as anyone, now, that those baby Bell telcos were allowed to recombine back into AT&T and Verizon and the cable companies to consolidate into the 5-6 that dominate the market.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the shitty policies and practices of cable and telco companies as much as anyone, but I'm also a realist. If anyone else wants to compete at this point they will either need to spend massive amounts of money to build the infrastructure (we can only hope Google can pull it off), or come up with some completely new technology/infrastructure (metro wifi, LTE+, etc) that is cheaper to deploy.
Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right, AT&T. You were totally about to give us awesome internet but the big bad government stopped you? Please.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of hard to pause something the said they wanted to do. Which means they didn't even start it. Maybe notes on the back of a napkin. But that would be giving them to much credit.
This is about holding customers hostage on promised upgrades and throwing a tantrum over possible Title II reclassification. Even though they already enjoy the benefits of Title II (subsidies) without having to be classified as such.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
hey maybe they can just return all the fucking money they took to provide broadband and never did all these years
Re: (Score:2)
By what incentive would they want to do that? Everybody just got done reelecting their servants back into office. I don't see how AT&T is the problem. The voters gave their consent through apathy and complacency. Those that deny that are only fooling themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, if only we had all gotten out and voted for Lizard B things would be better, it's not like *he's* in the pocket of all the same corporations.
There is something to be said for voting - it lets us have some influence over which direction the government takes us so long as profits and power aren't on the line. But until we can figure out a way to get candidates elected without massively well-funded election campaigns and/or hold them accountable for campaign promises we're basically just voting for wha
Re: (Score:3)
As it happens I protest-vote a straight third-party ticket whenever such a candidate is available, unless one of the lizards is so dramatically worse than the other as to justify voting against them. But it's a well understood problem of first-past-the-post voting systems that they *always* devolve into a one- or two- party system, those are the only mathematically stable positions in the game. You have to vote for someone who has a realistic chance of winning if your vote is going to count at all, and th
Re:Yeah right (Score:5)
hey maybe they can just return all the fucking money they took to provide broadband and never did all these years
Yeah, let's go back to the money that Pacific Bell got, let alone Southwestern Bell. I'm sure that there's similar stories in other regions. But I consider AT&T on the hook for that. Pac Bell was claiming they would provide DSL to 100% of their customers back when they were still a thing. Over a decade later and the company that bought the company that bought Pac Bell still hasn't done it. They've spent a lot of customer money to erode customer rights, though. I wish people would stop giving them money when there's any alternative.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
This [dslreports.com] money.
And that [techdirt.com] money.
More techdirt goodness: Fiber To The Press Release (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/... [techdirt.com]
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
it worked out just fine for douchbags, i mean att
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know maybe the 200 billion we gave in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's hard to see this as anything other than a threat, that if the government doesn't do what AT&T wants, they might just take their ball and go home. I can see how someone would think this is fair, in the sense that businesses can't make good decisions without knowing what "the rules" are, but at the same time, you can only take that so far.
It seems like businesses and rich people are constantly pulling this act. "I'm afraid that if you tax me at all, I'll just have to pull all my money and business out of the country and operate someplace where they don't have taxes." or "Well, we can't have laws barring us from acting immorally and unethically. If we can't be completely unfettered, then we can't get anything done and our business will fail!" At some point, I think we just have to say, "Sorry, but we can't just let you do whatever you want with no boundaries. The reality is, we all operate within constraints, and we all have to cope with an uncertain future. If you can't operate with fair and honest business practices within a framework that allows our society to grow in a healthy direction, then we'll find someone else to fill your shoes." I mean, really, AT&T doesn't see the benefit in growing and upgrading their network? Fine, let's rip their network out and replace it with public infrastructure. I suspect that if those were the options, AT&T would find that it could manage to upgrade their network while operating within the principles of net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
No *YOU* have to operate with constraints. My buddies and I all bought a six-pack of senators each specifically so that WE don't have to. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. We make the laws, you obey them, everybody's happy. At least everybody who matters. The rabble gets a little uppity from time to time, but throw a good "real life disaster" novella on the newsreel and they'll be *begging* you to abuse them some more. Just look what we accomplished thanks to a handful of fundamen
Re: (Score:2)
http://movie-sounds.org/war-mo... [movie-sounds.org]
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
It's all about politics. Even if AT&T never had any plans for gigabit internet, just saying they are "pausing" puts pressure on the government.
Because now the other party will just go and say "Look, it kills jobs and investment" even though it killed 0 jobs and $0 investment because they never intended to do it. It's just to say "look, we WERE going to, but this new legislation makes it hard for us to justify, so no".
Strictly a political play - try to call them out on it by saying "we'll refund you the cost of the equipment you already ordered when you made the announcement" and you'll find there were no POs issued, no supplier got any order from AT&T for gigabit-capable equipment, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they cut investment, then hear from the President, then blame the cut on the President's plan.
Typical AT&T bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they cut investment, then hear from the President, then blame the cut on the President's plan.
The reason that AT&T is pausing their gigabit rollout is that their networks are already fast enough to hear the future!
Re: (Score:3)
Kind of hard to pause something the said they wanted to do. Which means they didn't even start it. Maybe notes on the back of a napkin. But that would be giving them to much credit.
Really? The 900 Mbps+ up and down I enjoy at my house from AT&T Gigapower is imaginary?
AT&T pausing their gigabit rollout when the President announces that he wants to make broadband a utility is completely reasonable. They have no idea what is going to happen, so it is hard to justify continuing to spend $$$ with the network upgrades.
Now, that's COMPLETELY different than not rate-shaping different types of traffic or trying to double-dip by charging both the sender and the receiver for traffic.
Re: Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they don't. Everyone always get this wrong. Companies exist to provide a product or service. Profit is the byproduct of this existence and which allows the company to continue to provide the product or service.
Didn't you watch Elmer Fudd [youtube.com] when you were growing up? (As a side note, I find it hilarious it is explicitly stated that as a result of having more efficiency the company can pay higher wages. How naive we were back then)
Re: (Score:2)
They exist to make a profit.
No, they don't. Everyone always get this wrong. Companies exist to provide a product or service.
Well, no. Companies exist to execute a common goal. Corporations exist to fulfill a charter, the primary goal of which is usually supporting shareholder interest. In short, profit is the primary goal. And really, that's true of any business that isn't a labor of love. Some people seek profit to continue doing a thing, but most people wouldn't work if they didn't have to — or at least, they would do something else.
Re: Yeah right (Score:2)
I think it's more of an admission they'll only give you fast Internet if they can absolutely make sure you can't use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If Google announces fiber in a city that they don't own via a bunch of anti-competitive legal nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to make it so that if Google goes to a new city and builds an awesome new fiber network, that AT&T gets to least that network from them? Why should AT&T upgrade anything if they can just wait for Google? But why would Google upgrade anything if they're doing all the investment and then AT&T gets equal benefit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, total BS that only and I mean ONLY those who are bought and paid for by the big telecom lobbies and those who are completely stupid will fall for this.
if only (Score:2)
of only they had some competition in this country.
Re: (Score:3)
AT&T UVerse is the main competition for your local cable monopoly. But only where they already operate. I use them. They're only OK. But it's really nice to have a choice other than Time Warner.
Re: (Score:2)
Uverse and cable are competitors to a product nobody really wants...
Re: (Score:2)
Having an alternative to Time Warner is a lot better than not having an alternative to Time Warner.
What rhymes with "douchebag"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
yup i think all big ISP should actually shut their doors in response to this. its time to reinvent the local ISP
Re: (Score:2)
ATTlas... (Score:2)
...shrugs.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy might be giving AT&T a bit too much credit, given that they've been slacker oligopolists with minimal interest in doing any actual work for some decades, if not longer.
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T has found a new excuse to not invest in their infrastructure.
I'm not an AT&T customer, so I can only assume that AT&T does not ask its customers to pay for bandwidth (e.g. it gives its services away for free), and AT&T relies on content providers for all of its profit? That's the only situation I can imagine where such behavior makes sense.
It was mostly lies to begin with. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.dslreports.com/show... [dslreports.com]
Seems like a political in-fighting tactic (Score:2)
The investment climate won't change so entirely that this investment will be a poor one. I'm quite sure they can always find a way to monetize their product.
This seems more about politics and political pressure than about any solid business reason.
Opening for the competiton! Yes! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lies. They've deployed Gigapower advertising to a large number of service trucks! They've deployed a gigapower website, where you too can go to learn you also can't get Gigapower!
Dear Taxpayers, Screw you! - ATT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
he said, speaking mostly to the wind. The wind never answered back and no audits ever occurred.
Please AT&T had paused it's rollout long ago (Score:2)
As far as anyone can tell they just promised it in markets to dampen municipal efforts to build out their own or aid potential competitors. They might as well promise not to fire their deathstar.
This is Just Marketing Drones Sowing FUD (Score:2)
AT&T doesn't want re-classification, so they're making it seem like infrastructure costs will be increased by it.
It seems to me that by remaining under TItle I [fcc.gov] and being able to throttle user data for arbitrary reasons, they would incur higher operational costs to support that capability. Re-classification under Title II [fcc.gov] could require them to allow packet transit without throttling or other arbitrary "management." It would also require them to sell (not give away) service in non-discriminitory ways.
So
Proof positive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can foresee the pig fuck that 'net neutrality' will become in the hands of the clueless federal bureaucrats?
Seriously, we can define QOS so it's not in violation of net neutrality. What do you figure the odds of DC morons getting it right? What damage will the misregulations cause?
Re: (Score:3)
You can foresee the pig fuck that 'net neutrality' will become in the hands of the clueless federal bureaucrats?
Seriously, we can define QOS so it's not in violation of net neutrality. What do you figure the odds of DC morons getting it right? What damage will the misregulations cause?
Please give me the name of just one ISP/transit provider/Tier 1 provider/etc. that honors QoS tags from networks other than their own. Just one. I'd love to hear about it. But I won't, because it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
att WAS going to do it, but not now...
AT&T confirms its future business plans... (Score:2)
The headline rephrased for truth:
AT&T confirms its future business plans depended on being able to double-dip subscribers AND content providers for payments.
or perhaps with the correct context:
AT&T confirms its future business plans depended on being able to shake down content providers for bandwidth subscribers already pay for.
The modern day "Chewbacca Defense" (Score:5, Insightful)
"We're going to stop doing that thing that we've been promising for years that we were gonna get around to doing one of these days, but never actually got around to doing, because OBAMA"
It's sad, but adding "Obama" to any argument has become the modern day equivalent of the "Chewbacca Defense", and has been used to rationalize some profoundly stupid decisions. Even sadder, because it seems to work.
I'm a moderate (r)epublican, and it's *lonely* nowdays. The intelligent ones liked David Frum have been muffled or sidelined. Meanwhile, the Wingnut Brigade as personified by Ted Cruz is always on the lookout to shoot the public in the foot for the sake of rich people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As good as your post is, I can't help but add that for over a decade now the Democrats are the moderate Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a moderate (r)epublican, and it's *lonely* nowdays.
The other people like you are called Democrats. They have long since stopped being the party of the actual left.
No you aren't (Score:3)
You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.
You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.
Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy
Let me be the first... (Score:2)
Let me be the first to welcome Google to these 100 cities!
Regime Uncertainty (Score:2)
Re:Regime Uncertainty (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was any indication that their 'plans' were ever more than paper, we might not laugh so much at the concept of pausing them. That's like taking time out from your sleep to get a quick nap in.
I was going to cure cancer and create the fountain of youth today, but I had to put those plans on hold because the Easter Bunny told me that some retail stores would be open on Thanksgiving.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is very easy to poke at AT&T for this decision, it is also a very understandable position to take. AT&T doesn't know what the laws or rules are going to be after the fact.
Actually, they know exactly [wikipedia.org] what the laws and rules are. Until 2002, they were covered under TItle II and some portions of their network still are.
We are probably not going to get true Title II net neutrality, and quite frankly, 80 year old law really shouldn't apply to something that is fundamentally more complex than a telco or OTA network, and applying the same kinds of laws to the internet providers is legally and technically stupid.
Saying that the law [wikipedia.org] setting up the FCC is 80 years old is like saying that the 27th Amendment is 225 years old. The law [wikipedia.org] has been amended numerous times to address technological change, the latest of which was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org], with numerous additional amendments proposed since then, but never enacted.
There are a variety of very good reasons why Title II, or Title II-like laws are a very, very bad idea for the internet.
Please tell us what those "good reasons" a
Re: (Score:2)
"Did I miss anything important?" just the part where | ATT Good, net neutrality BAD|
Re: (Score:2)
"Did I miss anything important?" just the part where | ATT Good, net neutrality BAD|
My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. I keep forgetting that unfettered crony capitalism good, gub'mint bad.
I guess we should get going and abolish the EPA, the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the IRS, the Departments of Justice, Education, HUD, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, HHS, Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs and Interior, sell all the National Parks, privatize the Interstate Highway system, amend the constitution to allow only the Federal government to "regulate" business. That will leave much mo
Re:Regime Uncertainty (Score:5, Informative)
No, no one knows whats going on now legally speaking, that's why we're having this discussion. The Verizon vs FCC decision removed that certainty. They know what the regulatory regime might be, but they don't know what it is going to be. The FCC chair is looking at splitting the baby [washingtonpost.com] which doesn't really sound like a clear indicator of what he's going to do from a legal perspective. It appears that the FCC chair wants to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic for security and use (e.g. e-mail traffic doesn't need the kind of priority as streaming video) because not all traffic deserves the same level of attention from the ISP, but not do so for business reasons (e.g. Time Warner shouldn't be allowed to hobble Netflix streaming service). But at the same time, he appears to be distancing himself from Obama's plea for Title II. Writing this into law is more complex than simply saying what the FCC chair said he wanted: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business."
Oh my. Title II classification worked quite well until 2002 when the FCC reclassified broadband providers as "Information Services" under Title I. Which was so obviously a great move, because we had so much less competition then. Not only that, the big broadband providers were so poor before that, they were going out of business. Thank goodness for that! Otherwise, the Internet would have failed completely and we'd all be using punched cards and telexes again by now. Not.
The last twelve years have seen increasing consolidation, local monopolies and duopolies, less competition, higher prices for basic consumer connectivity, more abusive Terms of Service for consumer connections, throttling of competitive content providers who threaten the media content distribution strangleholds that the big broadband providers have.
Title II reclassification isn't the whole of the answer, just a small part. But it's a start at least. Unfortunately, if you tell the same lies over and over again ("we're so poor that reclassification will stop us from upgrading our networks" and "Forcing us to be common carriers will destroy all innovation on the Internet") people start to believe it.
It's just a smokescreen for the big ISPs to keep protecting their abusive business model and maintain their huge profits in a non-competitive marketplace. These big ISPs are holding back innovation in last-mile technologies, despite being given USD$200 Billion in subsidies over the past 18 years to do otherwise.
They're bluffing (Score:2)
If they want to keep making money and not get trounced by the competition, they will eventually stop their bluff/tantrum and come back to play ball. Remember that their only current, likely avenues for growth are broadband and mobile, and mobile is probably very slow, if not at a stand-still. They can only pull this off if they no longer want to grow at a significant rate.
You can say that their competitors could do the same thing if they become Title II, but someone will choose to take the growth even under
Re: (Score:2)
Competition? What competition?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice internet you've got here... (Score:3)
...You know the rest.
Net Neutrality is not the reason (Score:2)
It's the Public Utility issue. Their profits become whatever the government will allow.
Re: (Score:2)
Blackmail? (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
You would have to be pretty stupid to think that this matters a damn.
Dats a nice innernets you gots der (Score:2)
Be a shame if something happen to it.
Government ISP's? (Score:2)
I would love to see Government (Federal, State & Local) start providing high-speed internet to its citizens, the same way there are municipal water companies and power companies.
Perhaps they could embed the signal on the power lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. Lets see:
New ToS- All packets will flow into a government data center to be analyzed before being forwarded onto their ultimate destination. Seems like a good idea to me.
And even better when our politicians get in a bitchy mood they can shut down the government mandated monopoly to get us to pay them more money. No thank you
We can end this nonsense today. (Score:5, Interesting)
And .... ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They pulled this stunt before (Score:2)
With Project Lightspeed ( aka their DLS rollout ). I say call them on their bluff.
Re: (Score:2)
With Project Lightspeed ( aka their DLS rollout ). I say call them on their bluff.
Dude, that was Pacific Bell. Unless AT&T did it all over again, many many years later, with the same name.
Perfect! (Score:3)
Are you saying that if we mandate net neutrality, AT&T will close up shop and blow away in the wind? Two birds one stone! Let's make this happen!
Re: (Score:2)
You used the phrase 'despite knowing' but I think you meant to say 'because'. Obama has a very bad habit of appointing foxes to guard the henhouses. I voted for him twice myself. It's not like his opponents would've been better, though. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
With all the times many people on this board have said the same thing, you would think more people would catch on. But we just keep getting "lesser of two evils" crap.
Hey, the nation gets the government we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
You should help work to pass citizen's redistricting, national popular vote and open primary legislation in your state. California has done all three, but until more states follow suit, tactical voting will continue to be rational in national elections.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't support national popular vote. It doesn't do what we need. And the electoral college isn't just a good idea, it is one of the lynchpins of the Constitution. Without it, you might as well disband the Senate too, since that isn't proportional representation.
Or how about, all the members of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and the President and Vice President all get into one big group, have a bill introduced, and everyone votes on it en masse. If it's voted for, it is law and constitutional, since th
Re: (Score:2)
And the electoral college isn't just a good idea, it is one of the lynchpins of the Constitution.
I guess you don't see the logical fallacy here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the false dichotomy of republican vs democrat
The parties, and their politicians, have strikingly different platforms with strikingly different historical outcomes. That's a fact, even if they're just right-of-center and slightly-more-right-of-center. But hey, feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you justify not voting in national elections.
Vote for someone you actually like
I do whenever possible, as in California's state and local elections and especially our open primaries. Unfortunately, tactical voting is the rational choice in US national elections. The new redistricting com
Re:Obama screwed us intentionally or intentionally (Score:4, Interesting)
"False dichotomy" as in "there are more than two choices."
The parties, and their politicians, have strikingly different platforms with strikingly different historical outcomes.
Bullshit. That's only true if you concentrate on a select few issues. When it comes to getting us into war (or bombing other countries and saying it's something other than war), or violating the constitution, both parties are largely the same. You have The One Party to thank for the TSA, the Unpatriotic Act, citizen assassinations, the NSA's mass surveillance, unchecked corruption in government agencies everywhere, and a host of other freedom-violating nonsense. They're the same in pretty much all the ways that actually count. The economy is a truly minuscule issue. Both parties refuse to shrink military and defense spending as it should, and when someone shrinks it *slightly* (nowhere near as much as it should be), whichever party didn't make the decision gets angry. Both parties are in on the "The terrorists, child molesters, and other bogeymen are going to get us!" scam, as well.
But hey, feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you justify not voting in national elections.
I strictly vote third party, because there are next to no good candidates in The One Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Winner-take-all systems inherently favor a binary political system. Until the reforms I mentioned, and perhaps others such as proportional representation, are implemented, tactical voting will remain rational (at the national level). Follow the next several elections at the local level in California, I think you'll be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because his opponents were worse and no third party has any chance of winning thanks to the first past the post system used in American elections.
Nonsense. Voting for evil would still be disgusting even if third parties had zero chance of winning. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. How is any candidate ever going to win if no one ever takes a chance? It might be low, but giving up just brings the chances down even further. In addition, they don't even need to win in order to send a message to the two scumbag parties.
See what good it accomplishes.
We have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, unfettered border searches, all sorts of warrantless surveillance, constitution-fre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
nope, that's monopoly. supported by our tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
1) execute the AT&T executives
Among others.
If you want a CPM-10V guillotine blade with TiCN coating, I can get one for you.
Durability, because it's gonna get a lot of use.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a Mayor of a city that AT&T serves; I would respond by saying that this will mean the city will need to start rolling out it's own gigabit network now.
AT&T can't complain that the city is competing with them, if AT&T isn't providing the service in the first place.
Of course. Which is why they (among others) support blocking [fiercetelecom.com] municipal [arstechnica.com] broadband [broadbandnow.com] networks. [dailytech.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for putting the truth behind being The First Honest Cable/Telco Company [youtube.com]
Wow! Great deal! Sign me up! Does that come with an extended warranty plan? Gosh I hope so!
Unfortunately (Score:2)
Unfortunately, they delegated that responsibility to AT&T (among others) and now AT&T is saying they're not going to spend the money we gave them on what we gave it to them for.