3 ms·
There's a history in the US of the government giving large corporations money to do something, but then not attaching any requirements to it. So the corporation
by tumult 17y ago
There's a history in the US of the government giving large corporations money to do something, but then not attaching any requirements to it. So the corporations, obviously, act in their own best interest. Communication networks that otherwise wouldn't have existed are built on taxpayer money, and the company that controls it is now in a hugely advantageous position, having been "bootstrapped" on someone else's dollar.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- pasbesoin 17y agos/attaching/enforcing/ at least in some instances, e.g. with SBC now renamed AT&T (ignore the purchased name; the culture is SBC). They, along with, I believe, the other "baby Bells" and perhaps some other entrenched interests, received hundreds of millions of dollars in concessions, in return for pledges of network build-out and competitors' access to their physical networks. They then progressively reneged on those pledges, and hired lobbyists to push legislative changes to eliminate their obligations. It's another aspect of what is in the U.S. commonly termed "corporate welfare". Or corruption. Choose your moniker.