SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AT&T is promising to offer cheaper Internet service to poor people if it's allowed to buy DirecTV. This is similar to a promise that helped Comcast gain government approval of its 2011 acquisition of NBCUniversal.
Qualifying residents in areas where AT&T's top speeds are below 5 Mbps (that's not a typo) will be offered DSL service of "up to 1.5 Mbps, where available" for $10 a month, AT&T said in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission last week. It'll be $5 a month for the first year before rising to $10 for the next three years. AT&T is proposing a four-year commitment in total.
In areas where AT&T's top speeds are higher, the company said it "will offer a broadband wireline DSL service at speeds up to 5 Mbps to households in AT&T's wireline footprint for $10 per month for the first 12 months of service (rising to $20 per month for the remainder of the term of the commitment)."
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Thursday July 09 2015, @12:12AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2015, @12:25AM
(Score: 5, Informative) by hash14 on Thursday July 09 2015, @12:55AM
All ISPs do this.
Take Verizon for example: not building out in New Jersey or Pennsylvania (they were happy to take the money and then bribe regulators into not investigating them for unfulfilled promises).
They're doing the same thing in NYC. In this case, they're lagging behind on their fiber optic deployment - they've only deployed to about 50% of the city, but they're claiming to have done 100% because they argue that actually wiring the apartments they're supposed to serve shouldn't be counted as part of the final roll-out (wtf seriously???). And then they make up some bullshit excuse for this, like landlords not cooperating with allowing them to install (but this is because Verizon would force them to consent to exclusivity agreements which their contract with NYC _explicitly banned_ - yes they are flouting the rules this openly).
Verizon are taking quite a lot of heat in NYC though: in a city with large banks and other big money flowing around, it takes bigger bribes to make the regulators go away. Google these stories - you'll find all sorts of coverage on Ars Technica.
Or Comcast, when it came to light that they had ignored so many promises from their NBC merger that the extra attention from their TWC acquisition almost got them into a further investigation! I posted about this on a similar story a short while ago: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7819&cid=193235#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Also, the post I referenced above was also on promises that AT&T was making: "We will only obey net neutrality if you approve our merger."
They really do the best job of highlighting how backward things are. ISPs should be on _unconditional_ good behaviour _all the time_ of the time and then use that good will to garner support for regulatory approvals on these sorts of deals.
Instead, we have the opposite: ISPs saying that we'll only be on good behaviour if you give us what we want. I would be mortified to act this childishly. Very literally, it reminds me of a three-year-old bargaining with his parents, "I'll take a bath if you let me have pastries first!"
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday July 09 2015, @02:00AM
Verizon are taking quite a lot of heat in NYC though: in a city with large banks and other big money flowing around, it takes bigger bribes to make the regulators go away. Google these stories - you'll find all sorts of coverage on Ars Technica.
So, good -- the system works.
(Score: 2) by kaganar on Thursday July 09 2015, @03:11AM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 09 2015, @05:09AM
where'd all the apparent choices for DSL ISPs go?
There never really were any DSL choices beyond your local phone company.
When people were on dial-up, they could dial into any ISP they wanted. There could be a dozen in a large city.
But DSL requires short runs of dedicated lines - to the nearest central office or local office where it could jump to fiber or whatever. It was very range limited.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday July 09 2015, @02:05AM
Let's add in a clause where if they fail to deliver 100% we go back to 1983 and break them into pieces again. Only this time we make sure they stay in pieces. Maybe seize the stock holdings of board members and executives as well, to be properly used for infrastructure upgrades.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by t-3 on Thursday July 09 2015, @03:16AM
Rather than breaking them up, nationalize them and let USPS run the internet. Save a dying and underfunded government service and put the internet in the hands of people who won't look without a warrant.
(Score: 4, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday July 09 2015, @03:52AM
then throw them into a volcano.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday July 09 2015, @04:11AM
"I know they can GET the fiber, but can they FILL the fiber? I'm not arguing that with you. if I said that, I would have been wrong."
lol
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday July 09 2015, @02:09PM
One of the coolest movies ever made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2015, @07:47AM
Ah, yes, the scientology solution! MDC, I like the way you think! All praise Xenu!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday July 09 2015, @10:37PM
It's a plant disease that is the result of disposal of radioactive nuclear waste in volcanoes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Adrian Harvey on Thursday July 09 2015, @08:59AM
Better yes do what NZ has done and force them to split the physical cable owning bit in a separate wholesaling company. Then regulate that bit so you get multiple competing retailers operating on top and let the free market do something useful for a change! NZ did it by only allowing unintegrated wholesalers to bid on the government sponsored regional fibre build, but making it happen in a merger approval would be good too....
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday July 09 2015, @03:54AM
They can't even give DSL to everyone (like in rural areas or neighborhoods not close to the big city) even if the customers are willing to pay for the last mile out of their own pocket.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday July 09 2015, @04:12AM
Yeah! I am in a rural area (read: BFE), and would LOVE to have even a crappy voice line.
WTF? When I lived in metro areas, I paid beau-coup bucks every month to provide BFE folk a simple analog line... Now that I'm in BFE, where The Fuck is my line?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday July 09 2015, @02:13PM
One of life's little tradeoffs for choosing to live in Bum Fuck. Oh, I'm sorry. You were relocated to Bum Fuck under guard in a windowless railway car with sawdust on the floor and imprisoned there?