5 ms·
AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
- hn_acker 2y agoThe original title is: > AT&T Refuses To Upgrade Millions Of DSL Customers To Fiber Despite Untold Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies And Government Favors
- uberman 2y agoThey should be required to return the money with interest.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoWhat good will that do anyone? Just force them to do their job.
- tehlike 2y agoIf they are forced to pay, it causes stock to drop fast, which triggers shareholder lawsuits. It is to teach a lesson. I can see both approaches work.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nilamo 2y agoIn a non-totalitarian state, fining them for the funds is how we force them to do it. It's not like we're going to start locking up executives for misappropriating public funds and defrauding the government, that's not a crime anyone cares about in this country.
- mindslight 2y agono, the term you're looking for is specific performance. Having to abide by the terms of a contract is not "totalitarian". Doubly so when we're talking about a corporation (ie a government creation) and not individuals.
- ortusdux 2y agoI am a big proponent of claw-back provisions.
- adastra22 2y agoI gave up on waiting. I live in Silicon Valley, and was stuck with a 50Mbps DSL line from AT&T. Insane.
- bitmasher9 2y agoInternet connection is a personal top priority when choosing a residence. Why haven’t you moved?
- ghaff 2y agoA usable Internet connection is important. I certainly wouldn't move because I "only" had a reliable 50mbps connection. That's about what I have (not in Bay Area) and don't really have a complaint.
- adastra22 2y agoI would get dropped from video calls if my wife or kids started downloading something. I’ve managed to fix this with QoS, but there is a noticeable loss of quality. Ultimately we switched to cable internet, but given the bandwidth I use running home servers, I expect to be forced onto a corporate plan once they notice, at $200-$500/mo. My usage is within terms of service for AT&T fiber, fwiw, but cable is a shared resource.
- Der_Einzige 2y agoBecause moving out of the bay area, even with shit internet, is extraordinarily stupid if you work in tech.
- ghaff 2y agoThat sounds like a perfectly usable Internet connection but tons of reasons one might choose to move out of the Bay Area. There are various good reasons to live there (including some that have nothing to do with employment) but the idea that you must in tech is misguided.
- marxisttemp 2y agoWe all know what to do at their next shareholder meeting.
- _fat_santa 2y agoJust wait until the FBI shows up at your door with a screenshot of this comment.
- reverendsteveii 2y agoWhy? We're just gonna Pokemon Go to the Polls!
- solardev 2y agoFume indignantly?
- mrbluecoat 2y agoIs AT&T still around? Bell Labs is a long-faded memory at this point.
- nyc_data_geek1 2y agoBrian?
- jahabrewer 2y agoWasn't Bell Labs a result of ATT's natural, sanctioned monopoly?
- xp84 2y agoSure, but back in those days (the 50s, 60s, 70s) two things were true about the company that bore the AT&T name: 1. They invested in research that benefited the whole industry with Bell Labs, and 2. they built out and maintained the infrastructure well. Today they're just operating with the most cynical approach, where they extract the maximum amount of value out of a network built by our grandfathers' generation, only doing capex in the most targeted areas where the ROI will be instantaneous. (new subdivisions, and specifically ones where they can get the HOA to bake in their services to the HOA fee). I used to live in a large urban tower and AT&T did finally come in with fiber, in 2017, on that condition. They'll be cash flow positive from Day 1 because 100% of the homes in that tower are customers, and they literally can't cancel their service (or more specifically their payment).
- ghaff 2y agoWhether or not its monopoly was "natural" is perhaps a topic for debate. But it was definitely a regulated monopoly.
- linksnapzz 2y agoWhat is now "AT&T" is the former Baby Bell RBOC SBC, plus PacBell, plus a couple of other companies, which bought AT&T wireless & long-lines. Thus, SBC acquired and assumed the AT&T name from its former parent.
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoMy top desire is that the FCC go back and do what Congress actually asked for in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to make fiber and hybrid loops part of the require unbundled network elements offerings. This infrastructure is so heavily subsidized. The FCC in 2002/2003, with some prompting from the courts, allowed fiber to be effectively an monopoly offering. Contrary to the law that Congress had passed! > Elimination of ILEC unbundling obligation for new fiber-to-the-home loops. In order to encourage ILECs to invest in new broadband-capable facilities—fiber to the home in particular—the FCC ruled that ILECs need not provide such facilities on an unbundled basis to competitors. https://www.dwt.com/insights/2003/02/splintered-fcc-modifies-rules-regarding-ilec-netwo https://www.dwt.com/insights/2003/02/splintered-fcc-modifies...
- xp84 2y agoDon't get me wrong, I wouldn't oppose anything at this point that hurt AT&T, purely out of spite, since I'm from California, where their allergy to capex (besides Wireless) has allowed our cable companies (mainly Comcast, Spectrum, and Cox) to simply set prices, bandwidth caps, and service levels for Internet at whatever they feel like. But anyway, I think if you wanted to force AT&T to compete by offering FTTP more widely, mandating that they have to sell access wholesale to others, like they do with DSL, would not be the way to do it. They've deployed basically no fiber in the past decade, and they'd deploy zero if they thought it likely their competitors would exploit the infra they built instead of them gaining retail customers. Even if they were taken over tomorrow by leadership that weren't crooks, they're already in a terrible position to compete as it is -- in the 20 years since they did anything, Comcast and the others have gone from the ~10Mbps connections they once offered, to 1 and even 2Gbps in many places, so I assume in nearly all the areas AT&T doesn't serve with fiber, the incumbent cable co has about 95% market share already. Tough to break into that. even though customers hate the cable companies, they know AT&T is just as slimy -- and nobody wants to set aside a day to wait for an internet installer.
- _fat_santa 2y agoMy first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring the cost down to around the cost of existing DSL for consumers. EDIT: My comment failed to account for congestion on the Starlink network which other commenters have pointed out. Honestly after reading that I've concluded this is just a shit situation, fiber is expensive as hell to lay and Starlink poses congestion issues both for customers and up in space.
- happymellon 2y agoDoes Musk need more government charity? He's made a lot off begging, we can see whether he puts more restrictions on companies that are non-viable without government handouts but considering most of his haven't been, I can't imagine it.
- llamaimperative 2y agoHe’s already come out saying he wants to remove EV subsidies after his company was able to get off the ground with them. Age old pull-the-ladder-up!
- happymellon 2y agoAnd the rest of it... All of his companies are basically wanting government handouts.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mort96 2y agoThis seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.
- reverendsteveii 2y agoThis thing where the government funds R&D for private corporations and then the corporations get to keep all the profits because tHey tAkE AlL tHe RiSk is pretty amazing. I'm a stockholder in several fortune 50 companies except my stock is non-voting, doesn't pay dividends, I don't get to pick which stock I buy and I don't ever get to sell it or borrow against it.
- Neonlicht 2y agoAs I understand it the US government is why every American home- from the deserts in Nevada to the mountains in Virginia- has electricity. And that investment has paid for itself a million times over.
- BrianGragg 2y agoAs a loan and not subsidies/grant. A ton of rural nonprofit electric cooperatives started out of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act
- ghaff 2y agoEvery is a bit of an overstatement. Generators in some places are a thing. (And so are fairly large areas without houses.) But generally, yes, also subject to the caveats in another comment. Satellite broadband does seem to be the "hack" for making locations that don't have broadband or really usable cell coverage in many cases practical.
- lowmagnet 2y agoSorry but it's not satellite broadband, it's the same rural electrification that is the "hack". My electric cooperative rolled out fiber to every address in the 3-county region it covers. It did so within a year. How? They already run poles everywhere, so they asked "why should we bury fiber?" As it turns out, it's easier to scale out on the pole!
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
- flerchin 2y agoI guess it should have been fixed price instead of cost-plus.
- bitshiftfaced 2y agoI'm no fan of AT&T. Their contract terms are garbage, and I feel lucky to love somewhere with options. But the article hasn't done a great job of explaining this headline. It makes it sound like these subsidies were designed to encourage AT&T to build out more fiber. But when I follow the links, they're about things like general tax cuts that were followed by layoffs or misrepresenting figures to benefit from a COVID program. Maybe I missed the part where there's something about building more fiber.
- jahabrewer 2y agoYeah that's the vibe I got. More accurate headline: "ATT has been beneficiary of government action. ATT says it won't build new fiber to some dsl customers."
- ethbr1 2y agoThat's always been ATT's corporate messaging around anything financially beneficial to them -- we need this money because it will help us deliver better service to more people. So it's not unjust to call bullshit when it turns out they aren't doing that, but are still keeping the money.
- marcus0x62 2y agoThe neighborhood I live in has basically three choices for Internet service: Xfinity cable, AT&T DSL, and Starlink. AT&T ran fiber directly past our neighborhood to reach new housing developments adjacent to us. As far as I can tell, they have no plans to to give us access to their GPON service, even though our development has a couple of hundred houses that are, essentially in three rows with wide and easy to access utility easements along the back of every row. So, in other words, my neighbors and I have two viable choices for Internet service: Xfinity and Starlink.
- dwood_dev 2y agoThis is no surprise and is not new. I live in a rural area and long, long ago gave up any hope of the AT&T DSL ever being better then 3mbps. I switched to LTE in 2015 and have not looked back. Since then I have been through a few different providers, but have been generally content with T-Mobile Home Internet for the last few years. Starlink is tempting, but its $165/month versus the $50/month I pay to T-Mobile. If anyone thinks AT&T or any service provider is going to run fiber to these communities, you are dreaming. It makes dramatically more profit for them to sell LTE/5G home internet options, even if it is not optimal for then end user.
- scionthefly 2y agoThat's why I'm upgrading myself off of AT&T and on to a modern provider.
- hubbins 2y agoI read that as "on to a modem provider". That might be the way to go.
- theyeenzbeanz 2y agoThey ran fiber down the street connecting to the street my grandparents are on, but didn’t go down theirs. But of course they’ll gladly charge more for “up to” 50mbit when it’s only 25 on a good day. They’re all criminal.
- sneak 2y agoTheir criminal co-conspirators are the ones that make and keep it illegal to start new ISPs.
- busterarm 2y agoVerizon pretty much did the same thing with $5B in money from just New York City. They completely got away with it too.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stuaxo 2y agoAnd they got their incoming president who will run the country like a business and let them carry on doing nothing.
- xp84 2y agoTo be completely fair, Biden has done f*k all to hold AT&T to account in the past four years. I doubt a second term of Democrats would be different. Both parties are failures in most areas, and telecom regulation is something neither party cares one whit about.
- martinald 2y agoI don't understand AT&Ts strategy here. I assume the vast majority of AT&Ts network is overhead, and it is not expensive in the scheme of things to run PON fibre on the poles. They are effectively giving away ~50% of their footprint to competitors, forever to avoid a one time capex cost. Obviously there is going to be a portion of their network which is completely uneconomic to serve (requiring huge fibre runs for a handful of customers). But I do not think that is 50% of their userbase. Just checking a handful of 10-20k pop towns in some states they 'cover' and no FTTH is available.
- 7e 2y agoIt’s not one time capex. The poles must be rented to run fiber across them.
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] Actual article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/att-says-it-wont-build-fiber-home-internet-in-half-of-its-wireline-footprint/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/att-says-it-wont... Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338721
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoNot quite a dupe because Techdirt typically adds details and background to these stories. Karl Bode in particular has been writing about bad ISP behavior for longer - and more persistently - than most anyone. He brings it to the table. I've been reading him for 20y. Over and over he's been the sole source of sunshine on certain dark telecom corners.
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago'not quite' doesn't cut it. The point is don't split up the discussion, which is over there. This one doesn't add as much to the arstechnica article. Share Karl's weird obtuse link-heavy writing style over there if need be.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago> 'not quite' doesn't cut it. Sure it does. Cleanly. > This one doesn't add as much to the arstechnica article. Karl's backlinks help complete (and provide further evidence of) the narrative about AT&Ts long, long history of gross unethical behavior and consumer mistreatment. The links are the backstory that belong in ~every article about bad telecom behaviors (but are usually missing). Evidencing assertions is part of stellar journalism.
- danans 2y agoWhat this tells me is that industries with limited growth potential and who are focused on incremental rather than transformative technology do not respond to government carrots, and to the extent that they do anything, it is to arrange scenarios where they privatize the carrots and socialize the costs. There is no return on investment for investments in rural fiber. Infrastructure needs a high density of users to be profitable. If we really think that the speed and reliability of fiber service is important for rural users, we should directly subsidize it - like we do for Amtrak in the Great Plains states - and stop pretending like we care by paying off the corporations and their shareholders.
- axus 2y agoSubsidize community broadband, and stop subsidizing it when the incumbents rush fiber there. The current subsidy scheme hasn't worked.
- danans 2y agoSure, because a community likely has more to gain from this than a big telecom corporation. A community benefits when its members can reliably attend telemedicine visits, even if the community broadband is provided at cost. They care about what you can do with the connection, not the connection itself. A telecom corporation doesn't have a way of profiting from such community benefits. It only benefits if it can somehow charge a transaction tax on those benefits in the form of Internet connection fees high enough to turn a profit.
- 6SixTy 2y agoProblem is that we live in an environment where a company like AT&T can lobby for basically anything they want, and have basically no accountability when they don't meet their obligations. You even have people telling stories where they could get fiber service, but the provider just doesn't want to.
- xp84 2y agoWhat's most tragic is how cheap lobbying is, or more accurately, how great the ROI is. A company like AT&T, or a defense contractor, or an oil company, spends low millions on lobbying, not billions, and as a result reaps enormous windfalls in the tens of billions. I don't have any idea how to fix "money in politics" because first amendment is so tied up in it once you try to do anything, and they've mastered indirection so well that any restrictions are easily worked around by astroturf PACs.
- throw7 2y agorant: A few months ago I got a flyer that I can now get Verizon 5G at my home. I read that as fiber and got so excited I texted my neighbor barely a mile away that finally after all these years I can get fiber to the home just like him. Imagine my anger when I realized that's not fiber dummy that's cell wireless.