The following may be attributed to Joan Marsh, AT&T Executive Vice President of Regulatory & State External Affairs:
“Tomorrow, the FCC will release a draft order that will bring to an end this country’s brief and ill-conceived experiment with heavy-handed regulation of the internet. Abandoning decades of prudent, bipartisan regulatory restraint, the Wheeler FCC took the draconian step of dragging broadband access services into the morass of common carriage regulation, imposing a new conduct standard that effectively gave the FCC a blank check to shut down innovative new ISP services that consumers want based on little more than speculative concerns. While we look forward to reading the details of the order, this action will return broadband in the U.S. to a regulatory regime that emphasizes private investment and innovation over lumbering government intervention, ending the regulatory uncertainty created by the 2015 rules and the deleterious impact such uncertainty had on investment and job creation.
“Make no doubt, the circulation of this order will bring the ‘sky is falling’ crowd to the fore, and they will foretell a day when websites will be blocked, content censored and internet access controlled by ISP overlords. Such claims, while great for fundraising, are as nonsensical now as they were a decade ago when they were first prophesied. The internet was an open environment for innovation and inclusion prior to intrusive government intervention and will continue to remain open after this order is adopted. All major ISPs have publicly committed to preserving an open internet and the proposed transparency rules will require that all ISPs clearly and publicly articulate their internet practices. Any ISP that is so foolish as to seek to engage in gatekeeping will be quickly and decisively called out.
“Importantly, the adoption of this order will restore the careful balance needed between ensuring internet freedom while continuing to attract private investment in broadband facilities – investment that is essential to delivering on the promise of broadband for all Americans.”
This is a new age that requires new laws. However, concerns about blocked websites, censored content, and ISP Overlords are not “nonsensical.” They are valid concerns that should be considered. The original reason government got involved at all was because of these concerns. Even though AT&T has committed to an open internet now doesn’t mean that they won’t change their mind in the future. Saying that government protection of an open internet is no longer needed because society just won’t let those bad things happen is like saying that people are always going to say what they want so protected free speech is no longer needed. Do you see the danger? I’m not familiar with the restrictions the current laws put on AT&T, but if they are harming the business, then maybe that should be addressed. However, the concerns are NOT nonsensical and should ALSO be considered as we decide the future of internet business ethics.
Bookmarking this post and screenshotting it. If net neutrality is repealed and AT&T doesn’t either start internet censorship OR jump on other ISPs bandwagons in the following 12-14 months after that, I will switch my internet and phone back to AT&T (I quit AT&T about 1.5 years ago and I’m enjoying better service). I promise this. Feel free to bookmark this comment yourself.
The concerns are not nonsensical. You know why? Because when given the opportunity and means to make money, you would have to be truly “special” to NOT go ahead and do it. And AT&T is a for-profit corporation, not some non-profit organization that gives out free internet to people in need. Don’t blame the public for having no trust in you. Prove it and I’ll eat my words. For now, we have no precedent from any ISP that they can be trusted with this much power. Quick and decisive calling out isn’t enforced by the law. It’s just words that don’t hurt ISPs or any corporation that much.
I will be dropping my connection if I have to pay for a restricted Internet. It’s all about the money you can squeeze from your subscribers. Greed. We’re not fooled for one second.
Keep Net Neutrality. We want a Free and Open internet. Say NO to the change the Republicans want.
Keep Net Neutrality. We need our free and open internet.
Dear Joan,
First, I do not believe you. Second, “the ‘sky is falling’ crowd” is me and other AT&T customers. Third, it does not appear that AT&T’s glowing reports to the investor community make mention of stymied investment. Rather, it appears investment is at its highest and that partnerships with Tillman and I am sure others, continue the drumbeat of progress.
Sincerely,
Christian
Amen, Josh. Amen!
AT&T has proven it cannot be trusted to do the right thing which is why these regulations need to remain in place. Make no doubt AT&T will circulate false information about detractors being miss informed and use the chicken little defense.
If Net Neutrality is eliminated, I will do business with someone else. It is not in the best interests of your customers to go along with the FCC’s recommendation which is, in essence, digital discrimination. Keep the internet open for all!
Experiment? You don’t say…
I have an idea for an experiment. Let’s put a link to this very article up on a few choice social media outlets and check back here in about a week. I think that the 3 existing comments are a bit conservative and I’m just dying to know what the public (read actual human beings who aren’t on AT&T’s payroll) have to say about the matter of Net Neutrality.
Oh, and I kicked AT&T to the curb right around a decade ago for TMobile. Never regretted it. Not even a little bit. Turns out that when your customer service sucks and you’re consistently on the wrong side of history people stop liking your company. Think on that.
Net neutrality !
As a life-long AT&T Customer, I am so disappointed Ms. Marsh’s comments and tone – political rhetoric that sounds more like the tweets our politicians post lately than a thoughtful statement of position, which is what we deserve. Two Key Factors – Competition: in most markets, there are only two internet connection offerings, so trusting competition to ensure a neutral internet is not reasonable. Look at what one spiteful politician is doing to your Warner acquisition. Lack of Innovation – I have done business with ISP and Mobile Carriers throughout my career and remember the “walled garden” of terrible web content and services that you and your competitors created with the pay-to-play approach early on. The internet only thrived when that model died. I urge you to document publicly the specific commitments to your consumers that you will make should Mr. Pai be successful. Focus your efforts on making net access faster and more reliable and I’ll pay more for performance.
The concerns you call “nonsensical” are things that have already happened. We’ve already seen attempts to shuffle Netflix into a “slow lane” unless they pay more. We’ve already seen Canadian telcoms shut down access to union websites during employment disputes. These are not up for debate. Reality is more than cries of “fake news”. We, the consumers, know from experience that major corporations will turn every inch into a mile wherever they can.
Please, feel free to prove me wrong. But I’m not holding my breath. Instead, I’m canceling my AT&T subscription and looking into locally-regulated alternatives.
If AT&T doesn’t charge extra to do sites I love each day, on top of my Gigapower connection, I will remain a faithful AT&T customer.
The freedom and the ability to access the web with equal access is everything.
There has been overwhelming support of Title II, and the blog team’s inflammatory characterizations of it do nothing but raise suspicions of AT&T’s ulterior motives. Ms. Marsh’s comments — along with reports of AT&T’s lobbying budget — have seriously eroded my trust. If you want to keep customers, you’d better change your position.
In a time when our government is openly flirting with authoritarian policies and rule, the concerns of blocked websites and censored content are the exact opposite of “nonsensical”. I find the promises of a corporation that stands only to gain from the repeal of net neutrality at the expense of smaller companies that have truly sought and managed to find ways to innovate ridiculous. Our government is openly telling its departments what they can and cannot publish, banning words like “diversity” and “science based” and for you to expect the public to believe that you’ll do the right thing for the public is disingenuous and quite likely a flat out lie. I’ve been a loyal AT&T customer for my entire adult life, but based on this response, I’m afraid that those days are now over. I’d much rather support the little guys that promise to fight for a fair and open internet for everyone over the companies that put corporate interest above public interests and possibly democracy as a whole.