5 ms·

> but its hard to blame AT&T for not wanting Google contractors to touch its infrastructure Exactly -- AT&T thinks it's their infrastructure, but it's not. It'

> but its hard to blame AT&T for not wanting Google contractors to touch its infrastructure Exactly -- AT&T thinks it's their infrastructure, but it's not. It's ours.

rayiner 9y ago
"We" (the government) didn't build it or pay for it. Even back in the AT&T monopoly era it was always private infrastructure.[1] AT&T got certain rights (e.g. easements) but that also came with a lot of strings attached (they had to build in a bunch of rural places they never would've built otherwise). Public ownership of the wires was never part of the bargain. [1] The same is true for power lines. They're mostly privately owned. The power utilities are subject to various regulations (rate regulation, etc.) but the wires were built with private money and are private property. In contrast, most water/sewer lines are owned by the municipality, and paid for by the public through taxes and hook-up fees for new construction.
- talmand 9y ago
  I would wonder if the subsidies and tax breaks that have been given over to these companies by the government over the years would count towards the idea us having paid for it. There's always that scandal from decades ago that comes up from time-to-time.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Companies were not given subsidies or tax breaks to pay for telephone or power lines. They were allowed to have local monopolies, in exchange for the requirement they provide utility services to all customers in the area, without regard to the cost of building out service to those customers.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    The government can't just go and deem something it's property after the fact, even if "we paid for it".
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      It can be "ours" without being government property.
    - justherefortart 9y ago
      It sure as hell can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_S...
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        It would also then, have to pay AT&T for it. ...Again. Because AT&T presently owns their property, and regardless of any handouts they've been given, they'd need to be compensated for it's fair market value in order for the government to relieve them of it. Also, it's likely eminent domain attempts for Google's benefit would run afoul of the law. I don't think the government can eminent domain something for the benefit of another corporation.
    - trophycase 9y ago
      Actually it can. The government is the only thing that enforces the notion of property in the first place
- marnett 9y ago
  > We" (the government) didn't build it or pay for it. This is not and has not ever been true. Here [1] is an open auction with ~$2 billion in federal aid attached - "a total of $1.98 billion for 10 years." This was last updated just over a week ago. I would dig further back for other subsidies, but it is not necessary. Through tax breaks and subsidies we (the government, tax payers, etc) have certainly aided infrastructure build out for telecom cos. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/caf2-auction https://www.fcc.gov/caf2-auction
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The Connect America Fund is funded through a special tax on telcos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect.... It's likes taxing cell phone companies to provide free phones for low-income people. Yes, some cell phone companies will end up getting "subsidies" but companies like AT&T (or Apple) would be net payors. And whether or not you call that a "subsidy" in rural areas, everywhere outside of rural areas it's the opposite of "subsidized." The taxes that pay for CAF make service in urban areas more expensive, thus decreasing demand and revenue. Municipalities also treat telecom service as a revenue source (a tax of 5% of gross revenue is typical). And there's all the extra obligations, like build-out requirements. There was some tax dollar funded subsidies in the ARRA, but it's a vanishingly small fraction of the trillion+ dollars invested in telecom infrastructure in the last few decades.
    - Rebelgecko 9y ago
      > The Connect America Fund is funded through a special tax on telcos Is this one of the taxes that they just throw straight onto my monthly bill?
      - rayiner 9y ago
        One, companies can’t just pass on taxes like that. If they add a surcharge, that increases the price of the product, which reduces demand. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps: you can’t increase your revenue by having the government add a tax to your product and kick it back to you, maybe unless you sell heroin or something. (But then you could just raise the price without the pretense and people would pay it.) Two, AT&T is paying the tax, but the government is mostly kicking the subsidies back to small rural telcos and coops. Telcos with more urban footprints, like AT&T, subsidize telcos in high cost rural areas. So calling CAF a subsidy to AT&T really makes no sense. It’s like saying Apple would love the government to slap a 5% tax on iPhones and kick the money to providers of low cost phones. Even if Apple could increase prices to compensate, and get some of those subsidies for the iPhone SE, it’d still be worse off than without the “subsidy.”
mattnewton 9y ago
The government has precedent to intervene to make sure new competition is allowed in the market. IANAL but I think they should be exercising this right here, otherwise the incentives are for AT&T to move their wires over for a competitor approximately never.
mcguire 9y ago
The real question is, who has to fix it when the Google contractors screw something up?

> but its hard to blame AT&T for not wanting Google contractors to touch its infrastructure Exactly -- AT&T thinks it's their infrastructure, but it's not. It's ours.

rayiner 9y ago

"We" (the government) didn't build it or pay for it. Even back in the AT&T monopoly era it was always private infrastructure.[1] AT&T got certain rights (e.g. easements) but that also came with a lot of strings attached (they had to build in a bunch of rural places they never would've built otherwise). Public ownership of the wires was never part of the bargain. [1] The same is true for power lines. They're mostly privately owned. The power utilities are subject to various regulations (rate regulation, etc.) but the wires were built with private money and are private property. In contrast, most water/sewer lines are owned by the municipality, and paid for by the public through taxes and hook-up fees for new construction.

talmand 9y ago
I would wonder if the subsidies and tax breaks that have been given over to these companies by the government over the years would count towards the idea us having paid for it. There's always that scandal from decades ago that comes up from time-to-time.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Companies were not given subsidies or tax breaks to pay for telephone or power lines. They were allowed to have local monopolies, in exchange for the requirement they provide utility services to all customers in the area, without regard to the cost of building out service to those customers.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The government can't just go and deem something it's property after the fact, even if "we paid for it".
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    It can be "ours" without being government property.
  - justherefortart 9y ago
    It sure as hell can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_S...
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      It would also then, have to pay AT&T for it. ...Again. Because AT&T presently owns their property, and regardless of any handouts they've been given, they'd need to be compensated for it's fair market value in order for the government to relieve them of it. Also, it's likely eminent domain attempts for Google's benefit would run afoul of the law. I don't think the government can eminent domain something for the benefit of another corporation.
  - trophycase 9y ago
    Actually it can. The government is the only thing that enforces the notion of property in the first place
marnett 9y ago
> We" (the government) didn't build it or pay for it. This is not and has not ever been true. Here [1] is an open auction with ~$2 billion in federal aid attached - "a total of $1.98 billion for 10 years." This was last updated just over a week ago. I would dig further back for other subsidies, but it is not necessary. Through tax breaks and subsidies we (the government, tax payers, etc) have certainly aided infrastructure build out for telecom cos. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/caf2-auction https://www.fcc.gov/caf2-auction
- rayiner 9y ago
  The Connect America Fund is funded through a special tax on telcos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect.... It's likes taxing cell phone companies to provide free phones for low-income people. Yes, some cell phone companies will end up getting "subsidies" but companies like AT&T (or Apple) would be net payors. And whether or not you call that a "subsidy" in rural areas, everywhere outside of rural areas it's the opposite of "subsidized." The taxes that pay for CAF make service in urban areas more expensive, thus decreasing demand and revenue. Municipalities also treat telecom service as a revenue source (a tax of 5% of gross revenue is typical). And there's all the extra obligations, like build-out requirements. There was some tax dollar funded subsidies in the ARRA, but it's a vanishingly small fraction of the trillion+ dollars invested in telecom infrastructure in the last few decades.
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    > The Connect America Fund is funded through a special tax on telcos Is this one of the taxes that they just throw straight onto my monthly bill?
    - rayiner 9y ago
      One, companies can’t just pass on taxes like that. If they add a surcharge, that increases the price of the product, which reduces demand. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps: you can’t increase your revenue by having the government add a tax to your product and kick it back to you, maybe unless you sell heroin or something. (But then you could just raise the price without the pretense and people would pay it.) Two, AT&T is paying the tax, but the government is mostly kicking the subsidies back to small rural telcos and coops. Telcos with more urban footprints, like AT&T, subsidize telcos in high cost rural areas. So calling CAF a subsidy to AT&T really makes no sense. It’s like saying Apple would love the government to slap a 5% tax on iPhones and kick the money to providers of low cost phones. Even if Apple could increase prices to compensate, and get some of those subsidies for the iPhone SE, it’d still be worse off than without the “subsidy.”

mattnewton 9y ago

The government has precedent to intervene to make sure new competition is allowed in the market. IANAL but I think they should be exercising this right here, otherwise the incentives are for AT&T to move their wires over for a competitor approximately never.

mcguire 9y ago

The real question is, who has to fix it when the Google contractors screw something up?