AT&T Intervenes in Kansas Town's Fiber Network Plans

[NoShoes]

AT&T Intervenes in Kansas Town's Fiber Network Plans

On a scale of 1 to 10, how surprised are you?

The town of Chanute, Kansas is doing something incredible for their residents, or at least is trying to. Citizens of Chanute could soon be enjoying the wonders of a 1Gbps fiber network, but not without some action from AT&T first, which offers Chanute a 6Mbps DSL network.

In the wake of the city's plans to implement this network, AT&T "filed an injunction and was granted that permission on Tuesday morning." According to AT&T, "Any decision made by the [Kansas Corporation Commission] KCC could impact AT&T's business operations in the area, which is why we asked to intervene in the proceeding. AT&T remains interested in both broadband issues and the work of the KCC."

However, Chanute city officials don't seem too concerned with AT&T's injunction. According to The Wichita Eagle [http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article4233820.html], city officials only need to wait for the KCC's "permission to sell bonds to fund its fiber-to-home project" before moving forward. The fiber network plans "[have] already survived a major challenge after activists beat back legislation that would have all but crippled towns' ability to build their own fiber networks," according to BGR.

In response to questions from Ars Technica, AT&T said that they "[have] not taken a position on this fiber network," and according to Ars, "described intervention as a routine procedural matter used when an interested party believes it will be affected by a case and wants the opportunity to receive information and keep up with its developments."

What are your thoughts on AT&T's injunction?

Source: Ars Technica [https://bgr.com/2014/12/03/att-vs-municipal-fiber/]


Permalink

 

[gigastar]

Wait, so are filing against this because they would have to biuld it, or are they against it because it would mean actual competition in an area they effectively own?

 

[fix-the-spade]

it would mean actual competition in an area they effectively own?

Bingo.
Things like this mean they'll have to invest in their own infrastructure and compete on price, which rather undermines their 'slow and expensive forever' vision for the internet of the United States.

But it's good it's finally starting to happen, as long as they don't figure out a way to destroy it.

 

[Mid Boss]

Oh look a corporation trying to use its power and influence to kill competition. And an internet corporation to boot! That legislation the town had to beat back was put forward by ISP lobbyists and supported by officials who had received heavy election fund donations from said ISPs. The same damn people who claim to support a free and open market are fighting against competition for their sugar daddies. Is anyone actually surprised? Anyone?

The only thing I'm shocked by is that the town actually managed to win against all that money.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

"And it was on this day that the great megacorp of AT&T fired teargas into the crowd of belligerent and unwashed masses who should be grateful for their offering of substandard internet connections."

Really though, AT&T is it smart to be this obvious with your smacking down of the public's attempts at competing?

 

[FalloutJack]

One again proving that large companies don't know how business and economics actually works.

 

[Jeteye]

I'm so glad my town got fiber optic without Charter noticing and was able to avoid this. TDS snuck fiber optics lines under everyones nose. To the point where for 4 years I nor my neighbors know fiber optics was sitting at the end of my driveway and I live on a dirt road off a dirt road off a side road in the middle of the woods. I hope AT&T can't do anything to stop this and Chanute and other towns soon get more internet options. These monopolies benefit no one who actually has to pay for this service.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Five bucks say many of the areas the KCC would service within months, AT&T would not expand proper DSL coverage to for years from know, by that time 6Mbps would look like dial-up.

The same damn people who claim to support a free and open market are fighting against competition for their sugar daddies. Is anyone actually surprised? Anyone?

You make it sound like either the ISPs are pimping the politicians or hired them like mecenaries, and I think both are pretty spot on descriptions.

One again proving that large companies don't know how business and economics actually works.

They do. They just do not want to spend the initial money to expand and improve their networks and have been secretly using the government to protect their monopolies, through vaguely named (or outright labeled as a "consumer protection" group) lobbying groups. At least now they are stupid enough to do it openly after many sources exposed those lobbying practices and the dirty state-level laws preventing local broadband from getting to customers the big ISPs neglect or abandoned. Now the very thing they were supposed to be improving is being used to fight back.

 

[FalloutJack]

snip

Lemme explain. Manipulating the economic system makes them sly, greedy, and an ass...but it doesn't meant they understand it. Because if they DID, they wouldn't do it because economy needs to pay into itself and encourage competition for advancement and smarter returns in investment in the long run.

 

[EndlessSporadic]

One again proving that large companies don't know how business and economics actually works.

Quite the opposite. They have a monopoly, so why would they waste money to improve what they don't need to? In the short term it also costs less money to fight against optics in court than it does to replace their infrastructure and retrain their employees.

If anything they are manipulating their customers which is extremely unethical and should be dealt with. Our government just doesn't want to invest the money into fighting these assholes.

 

[Bat Vader]

Wouldn't the town have more say about what infrastructure they want in their town then some corporation?

 

[FalloutJack]

One again proving that large companies don't know how business and economics actually works.

Quite the opposite. They have a monopoly, so why would they waste money to improve what they don't need to? In the short term it also costs less money to fight against optics in court than it does to replace their infrastructure and retrain their employees.

If anything they are manipulating their customers which is extremely unethical and should be dealt with. Our government just doesn't want to invest the money into fighting these assholes.

The point is that it's not the opposite because when a failure to read and use the market reaches some kind of high-point, there is no fight because the government would simply impose will and go "This is ridiculous." STOMP. Since the economy is overseen by the government, anything that would make it not work would automatically be stepped on once it reaches a watershed point to restore balance.

Of course, there is the OTHER possibility which as of late has been showing itself, which is that once a company achieves critical mass, it begins to make such dumbass moves that the money then bleeds out of it again like a guy severing his artery. (Case in point: Microsoft has lost more money lately than it ever has, period. It still HAS money, but it has taken a large hit and we have yet to see any real recovery.)

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

snip

Lemme explain. Manipulating the economic system makes them sly, greedy, and an ass...but it doesn't meant they understand it. Because if they DID, they wouldn't do it because economy needs to pay into itself and encourage competition for advancement and smarter returns in investment in the long run.

That's true. If the high-payed executives didn't scoop up all of the profits for themselves and outsource jobs overseas, the economy would be in much better shape, with money flowing around how visionary capitalists though it should centuries ago. I'm sure many of these execs are stubborn idiots holding on to their ideas to keep their markets cornered, lucky they are in the positions they are with the customers they have. (The video game industry seems to be full of those.)

But, there are enough smart ones who will eventually cave in to the market refusing their manipulation of it and will pull PR moves that make them look like good guys again. They are just trying to see how far they can push their limits and how much extra profit they can make immediately.

Even with honest companies, it's hard to convince investors and shareholders that the company has to expect lower profits, or even go into the red, to keep up with the changing world. That's where the impatience and stupidity starts.

 

[Remus]

"described intervention as a routine procedural matter used when an interested party believes it will be affected by a case and wants the opportunity to receive information and keep up with its developments" Is this a real sentence? Because it sounds an awful lot like bullshit lawyerspeak to me. MUMBLER! I can't understand you when you mumble like that!

 

[drkchmst]

Not sure why AT&T was granted an injunction when sure they offer 'broadband' but not the same speeds... By a lot so it seems to me that the town is offering a completely different product and would not be competing in the same market as AT&T and their puny 6Mbps service.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

About damn time. Seriously, it seems like people in this country forgot how to use legislation to encourage competition, rather than crush it. I blame the democrats and republicans for simplifying our political system into "big government vs small government." And corruption. Can't forget corruption.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Wouldn't the town have more say about what infrastructure they want in their town then some corporation?

Not when that corporation basically owns state and local politicians.

 

[Chefsbrian]

From my understanding, this is actually pretty common, and not really malicious (yet). This is the business way of saying "I have an interest in this", and getting the injunction means they HAVE to be involved in most of the following steps. Because of what the FCC has done to change how internet is handled, I don't think they can do much to slow or stop this.

 

[Bertinan]

You guys are overblowing this just a bit.

This is the business equivalent of you wanting to know what your neighbors are doing on the edge of your properties. There's nothing outright malicious about this YET.

 

[Vivi22]

The point is that it's not the opposite because when a failure to read and use the market reaches some kind of high-point, there is no fight because the government would simply impose will and go "This is ridiculous." STOMP. Since the economy is overseen by the government, anything that would make it not work would automatically be stepped on once it reaches a watershed point to restore balance.

Except that watershed moments are usually the total collapse of the market, and the government never actually steps in to end the problems or "restorer balance." Case in point, the fact that regulation has been continually and gradually eroded in the US for more than half a century despite multiple recessions and, in more recent history, the gutting of the Dodd Frank act. That pesky thing that was supposed to prevent the recession of 2008 from ever being possible again but which was quickly rendered toothless by politicians when the initial period of public outrage subsided enough.