dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T's 'Support' Of Net Neutrality is Blistering Hypocrisy

Today's major protest opposing the Trump FCC attack on net neutrality has been joined by a decidedly odd ally: AT&T. Outside of perhaps Verizon and Comcast, there hasn't been a bigger enemy of net neutrality over the years than AT&T, which alongside Verizon and Comcast has spent $572 million to kill net neutrality protections since 2008. Whether talking about AT&T's decision to block Facetime to drive users to more expensive plans, or its use of zero rating to hamstring streaming competitors, AT&T's frontal assault on a healthy, open internet is utterly indisputable.

Click for full size
So it's incredible to see a blog post pop up by AT&T's top policy man Bob Quinn, who proudly announced that the company would be participating in today's protest. Why? AT&T's just a huge, incredible fan of net neutrality, apparently:
quote:
Tomorrow, AT&T will join the “Day of Action” for preserving and advancing an open internet. This may seem like an anomaly to many people who might question why AT&T is joining with those who have differing viewpoints on how to ensure an open and free internet.

But that’s exactly the point -- we all agree that an open internet is critical for ensuring freedom of expression and a free flow of ideas and commerce in the United States and around the world. We agree that no company should be allowed to block content or throttle the download speeds of content in a discriminatory manner. So, we are joining this effort because it’s consistent with AT&T’s proud history of championing our customers’ right to an open internet and access to the internet content, applications and devices of their choosing.


So obviously there's a few problems here. One being that AT&T claiming it has a "proud history of championing our customers’ right to an open internet" is simply comical. AT&T technically got the entire debate rolling when in 2005, former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proudly proclaimed he was going to start charging content companies an entirely arbitrary toll just to touch the AT&T network. The goal was to use a lack of broadband competition to force other companies to pay for AT&T network upgrades, and it was met with obvious and sustained criticism.

The push to create net neutrality rules was in large part driven by a fear of AT&T's threat of anti-competitive behavior. Fears that, as noted above, wound up being very well founded.

But given its political influence, AT&T injected itself into the writing of the FCC's original 2010 net neutrality rules alongside Verizon and Google -- ensuring they were the internet policy equivelent of wet garbage. Those initial guidelines were so filled with intentional loopholes as to be largely useless, and were also crafted to completely avoid covering wireless networks.

When efforts emerged in 2015 to try and craft legally-defensible rules that actually meant something, AT&T again spearheaded the legal assault on those efforts as well. So AT&T professing, in any context, that it actually supports net neutrality might just be the most incredible bullshit to ever emerge from the Dallas-based telecommunications conglomerate.

So what is AT&T really up to here? Quinn gets to the real point a little further down in AT&T's missive:

quote:
The debate around an open internet has been going on for nearly 15 years. In the end, the issue is never really about what the rules should be or whether we should have an open internet. Rather, the debate focuses on whether open internet rules should derive from the 80-year-old Communications Act or some other theory of Congressional authority because the current law predates the internet. Instead of having this debate again, Congress should act now to provide the clear statutory authority that guarantees an open internet for all consumers.
So in an ideal world, Congress would craft a net neutrality law that was meaningful and had teeth, putting the whole debate to bed. But you may have noticed that Congress suffers from a dash of partisan dysfunction, and the idea that it could ever craft real consumer protections in the wake of major ISP campaign contributions is absurd. Even if such a law could get written, AT&T is well aware that its lawyers would likely be the ones writing it. Quinn is apparently hoping you don't watch the news, have no idea about the government's corruption issues, and apparently have the IQ of a walnut.

So yes, AT&T supports net neutrality in much the way a serial drunk driver supports tougher DUI laws, or a bank robber supports tougher locks. As in: they don't.

Most recommended from 26 comments


etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
united state

24 recommendations

etaadmin

Member

Hypocrites

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

What a wonderful way to sabotage net neutrality that to be inside the process.

Takuro
join:2016-10-17
Chapel Hill, NC

9 recommendations

Takuro

Member

Reading Between the Lines

This may seem like an anomaly to many people who might question why AT&T is joining with those who have differing viewpoints on how to ensure an open and free internet.

This one sentence sums up the entire article. It's a linguistic tightrope walk by saying they aren't against net neutrality, outright. What they are really saying in this quote is that they want an "open and free internet" on their terms. Ie: They get to define what "open" and "free" means.

RR Conductor
Ridin' the rails
Premium Member
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
ARRIS SB6183
Netgear R7000

8 recommendations

RR Conductor

Premium Member

The new AT&T is NOT the old AT&T

It's a sad shell of what once was a proud company, a company that innovated with things like the transistor, considered to be the greatest invention of the 20th century, and the workers took pride in their work, our phone network was the envy of the world. Sure, it was a monopoly, but it was a regulated monopoly, AT&T today is trying to be a monopoly, but they don't want all those pesky rules the old Ma Bell had to abide by.

tyspeed29
Premium Member
join:2001-01-04
Simi Valley, CA

6 recommendations

tyspeed29

Premium Member

No Comment needed

For those of us that are following the merger, just another attempt to get a happy merger, then bamm rate hike, but why because they can and will use there reining kings monopoly if this merger is aloud to go through.

Well this is just my opinion about it and what I see. Any others want to chime in.

TestBoy
Premium Member
join:2009-10-13
Irmo, SC

6 recommendations

TestBoy

Premium Member

Protest AT&Ts protest.

Yeah.... I am serious.

Because it's not a real protest. AT&T is taking advantage of it.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· K0uvBmCQ

GOD666
join:2017-03-10

5 recommendations

GOD666

Member

Two faced lie

The majority of most consumers do not know what goes behind closed doors. What little leaks out and ends up on sites such as DSL Reports are only read by those who take an active interest. So privately (from the consumer standing point) they can trash Net Neutrality all they like, while publically and in a way that most of the general public will notice, they'll support Net Neutrality.

Sadly, that is how politics works.
tlbepson
Premium Member
join:2002-02-09
dc metro

3 recommendations

tlbepson

Premium Member

AT&T, not fooling anyone...

I laughed out loud when I saw AT&T's full page ad in The Washington Post today. Who do they think they are fooling?

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

3 recommendations

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Be careful what you wish for.

Well, you know...

Anonb06f0
@verizon.net

3 recommendations

Anonb06f0

Anon

Stream saver cannot be turned off on the unlimited choice plan

They provide an unlimited plus offering without throttled video traffic, and stream saver can be turned off on limited data plans, but their budget unlimited plan always has throttled video. They can argue they are providing a choice of forgoing higher resolution streaming for a cheaper plan, but they said they don't support the right to discriminate traffic so they are being hypocritical by choosing what traffic to compromise to create a more economical offering.

TIGERON
join:2008-03-11
Boston, MA
Motorola MG7550

2 recommendations

TIGERON

Member

This does not surprise me

A company that offers sub-par shit service joint net neutrality protests? Color me surprised. NOT. This is nothing more than a political move by AT&T to stop opposition to what they are doing in state legislatures all over the areas they serve and to win hearts and minds of those who oppose the company.

Anon52402
@pacswitch.com

2 recommendations

Anon52402

Anon

Open and Free internet

By reviewing AT&T's plans it's ironic they are supporting the net neutrality protest. AT&T plans are restrictive and the opposite of an open free flowing internet. Note the following observations of non competitive restrictions;

1.They offer an unlimited choice plan that allegedly hard capped at 3mbps.

2.They offer throttled tether or hotspot speeds of 128 kbps which is contrary to other competitors. Namely Verizon and T mobile.

3.They do not offer competitive prepaid alternatives to their postpaid plans which hinder or prevent those with bad or no credit from meaningfully accessing the internet in a cost effective manner. T mobile has T mobile one prepaid.

AT&T is profit motivated and the above observations make it likely AT&T would apply more restrictions if it was legal and profitable.