AT&T CEO confident Title II will be overturned by courts or Congress

That's why Title II isn't killing AT&T's fiber investment, he says.

Read the whole story

 

[captainadamo]

He said after getting his bribe checks...errr... campaign donations finalized.

 

[Liquid Snake X]

"Of course it'll be overturned, we've bribed too many public officials for it not to be!"

 

[Pantagruel]

Actually, he is confident that those investments will pay off one way or another. It just pays more to hedge.

 

[siliconaddict]

The best government money can buy. Frak this country.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

It's interesting how the corporate cultures of companies reflect the personality of their CEO.

And they wonder why they have become, so far as is possible, the face of faceless, remorseless corporate lies, greed and overreach.

edit: added lies, can't forget that.

 

[THavoc]

AT&T is continuing with its investments as planned, he said. "Based on our reading of the Title II order that came out, we're operating and we're investing under the scenario that these rules will probably be changed," he said. "

I'd believe you if it wasn't for this little tid-bit:

http://meincmagazine.com/business/2015/05 ... -coverage/

AT&T home Internet falls short, years after promising 100% coverage

 

[THavoc]

AT&T has claimed to be considering fiber deployments in up to 100 cities, but it never revealed an exact number, making it difficult to determine whether AT&T's actual construction matches the company's internal plans.

I've claimed to be considering rolling out Fiber to every major city too and I'm sure AT&T's claim is just as valid as mine is.

 

[TimmyD]

So he's bribing the judges too, I see.

 

[DNick]

TimmyD[/url]":20takus8]So he's bribing the judges too, I see.

Belt and suspenders....

 

[SixDegrees]

If you can't live with the law - buy a new one.

 

[captainadamo]

dio82[/url]":14xi0lty]Huh?

Wasn't it judges that legally forced the FCC to enact Title II?! Not enforcing Title II would be contempt of court ...

No, that is not what the court did.

 

[Celtic1888]

Our rent-seeking behavior must be protected!!!!!!!

 

[whoisit]

So this guy gets to buy laws, bank offshore, and bail out with a golden parachute. I'm in the wrong line of work.

 

[trekologer]

THavoc[/url]":2cq3tezv]

AT&T has claimed to be considering fiber deployments in up to 100 cities, but it never revealed an exact number, making it difficult to determine whether AT&T's actual construction matches the company's internal plans.

I've claimed to be considering rolling out Fiber to every major city too and I'm sure AT&T's claim is just as valid as mine is.

0 still falls within the "up to 100" range.

 

[THavoc]

trekologer[/url]":1s57jk4v]

THavoc[/url]":1s57jk4v]

AT&T has claimed to be considering fiber deployments in up to 100 cities, but it never revealed an exact number, making it difficult to determine whether AT&T's actual construction matches the company's internal plans.

I've claimed to be considering rolling out Fiber to every major city too and I'm sure AT&T's claim is just as valid as mine is.

0 still falls within the "up to 100" range.

True.

Just like their ISP speed claims too.

 

[groghunter]

That sinking feeling when a evil overlord explains his diabolical plan, & you realize you can do nothing to prevent it. I feel like Rorschach.

 

[trimeta]

captainadamo[/url]":2tqpr83m]

dio82[/url]":2tqpr83m]Huh?

Wasn't it judges that legally forced the FCC to enact Title II?! Not enforcing Title II would be contempt of court ...

No, that is not what the court did.

It kind of is...the court basically said "you can't impose net neutrality without first imposing Title II," so Wheeler said "in that case, I guess we have to impose Title II."

 

[macromorgan]

Comcast was confident they would merge with TWC. When you piss off enough people, it doesn't matter how many politicians you bribe.

 

[captainadamo]

trimeta[/url]":2lheejsv]

captainadamo[/url]":2lheejsv]

dio82[/url]":2lheejsv]Huh?

Wasn't it judges that legally forced the FCC to enact Title II?! Not enforcing Title II would be contempt of court ...

No, that is not what the court did.

It kind of is...the court basically said "you can't impose net neutrality without first imposing Title II," so Wheeler said "in that case, I guess we have to impose Title II."

Sure, they said the rules were invalid under the current classification. That is a far cry from the claim that the courts forced the FCC to do that under threat of contempt of court. There was no such order.

 

[Tiernoc]

I wonder how much of this is simply corporate bluster? The concept of NN is far too popular, and the apocalyptic claims by the ISPs have all (all? Have any come true yet?) proven to be false, so it's pretty easy to see the courts upholding NN especially considering the legal framework that went behind the order as written.

 

[THavoc]

Tiernoc[/url]":354x0q2s]I wonder how much of this is simply corporate bluster? The concept of NN is far too popular, and the apocalyptic claims by the ISPs have all (all? Have any come true yet?) proven to be false, so it's pretty easy to see the courts upholding NN especially considering the legal framework that went behind the order as written.

Most, if not all of it, is bluster.

Do you really expect a CEO to come out and say "Sorry, we were wrong about Title II, etc. We'll be good corporate citizens from now on"?

 

[Decade]

…especially if a Republican wins.

Meanwhile, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and so many other Republicans are working hard to make sure I don’t vote Republican in the next election.

 

[Matty]

So he's banking on a Republican controlled congress and senate gutting the FCC or at least passing some legislation around net neutrality -- but doesn't it still need the presidents signature?

Obama is unlikely to sign it.

Does he think the next president will be a Republican? Seems like a big bet if the stakes are as high as he claims. And the election is still more than a year away anyway.

Or more likely, the big telcos have such a massive profit margin on broadband that these new rules won't make that much of a dent. This posturing is just pure greed.

 

[mrnoglue]

If I could count the number of congressmen and judges in my pocket, I too would be confident.

 

[THavoc]

Decade[/url]":2pksw7jx]

…especially if a Republican wins.

Meanwhile, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and so many other Republicans are working hard to make sure I don’t vote Republican in the next election.

I'm kinda liking the former IRS Chief, although he probably doesn't stand much of a chance of winning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Everson

Edit: added URL

 

[RickyP784]

But irrespective, the Congress seems inclined to make a change here so we really think these rules will be modified to a format that will be conducive to investment in the long haul."

...It's as if he knows something he's not sharing...like how much money he and his buddies have dumped into super PACS to get their way.

Citizen's United sucks.

 

[THavoc]

RickyP784[/url]":1u6nnyww]

But irrespective, the Congress seems inclined to make a change here so we really think these rules will be modified to a format that will be conducive to investment in the long haul."

...It's as if he knows something he's not sharing...like how much money he and his buddies have dumped into super PACS to get their way.

Citizen's United sucks.

And right now, Jeb Bush can spend as much of that PAC money as he wants.

 

[jdietz]

Matty[/url]":3qph4vs5]Obama is unlikely to sign it.

The naive person in me says what the proposed legislation actually says has some bearing on whether he'll sign. If the legislation mirrored the FCC's current net neutrality rules, I think he would sign it.

 

[Blue Adept]

Talk is cheap.

 

[imutau]

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/ ... ns-in-fees

Hypocrite!

 

[Matty]

jdietz[/url]":3ayjzc8l]

Matty[/url]":3ayjzc8l]Obama is unlikely to sign it.

The naive person in me says what the proposed legislation actually says has some bearing on whether he'll sign. If the legislation mirrored the FCC's current net neutrality rules, I think he would sign it.

But we have already seen some drafts. And it doesn't. It has gaping loophole to allow business as usual for the telcos who sponsored it.

http://meincmagazine.com/business/2015/03 ... eutrality/

Obama asked Wheeler for title II.

Besides, Wheeler is Obama's appointee. I don't think it likely for him to start signing legislation that undid his work.

 

[cpragman]

Stephenson said he is confident that either the courts or Congress will overturn or heavily alter the FCC's decision.

But he HAS to say that. He answers to the shareholders. If he didn't believe that, they would replace him with someone who did...

 

[aliasundercover]

Blue Adept[/url]":3qrdefv7]Talk is cheap.

And yet money is speech.

 

[DwightJ]

The only reason AT&T is running fiber now is they are now FORCED to compete. They know that if Title II stands there will be, or could be, more competition kicking their POS DSL to the curb.

 

[Mystiq]

Is he just as confident as David Cohen (Comcast Lobbyist) was that the government would let Comcast buy Time Warner Cable?

Still investing because they're confident Title II will get overturned.

Or still investing because they see no reason not to do otherwise.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Tiernoc[/url]":87ixyq79]I wonder how much of this is simply corporate bluster? The concept of NN is far too popular, and the apocalyptic claims by the ISPs have all (all? Have any come true yet?) proven to be false, so it's pretty easy to see the courts upholding NN especially considering the legal framework that went behind the order as written.

Call me paranoid; but when somebody spends as much on lobbyists every year as AT&T does; I adopt the theory that there is no 'simply bluster' only strategic bluster...

 

[wahoospa2]

And if he is wrong...

 

[jeromeyers2]

Ironically, technically speaking, he's in exactly the position he described he wouldn't be in. Specifically, he said "We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed." But now those rules are known. He is now, however, "investing under the scenario that these rules will probably be changed". So, he is investing under a 'probably'.