AT&T Once Again Wants ‘Big Tech’ To Pay For Broadband Upgrades
For decades AT&T has sought to shovel its broadband network upgrade costs on to the shoulders of other companies. It was the primary catalyst for the net neutrality wars, after AT&T made it clear it wanted to (ab)use its monopoly over broadband access to force companies like Google to pay an extra troll toll if they wanted their traffic to reach AT&T customers.
In recent years AT&T's tactics have shifted.
The FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) program historically involves a small surcharge on voice and broadband lines that helps pay for broadband to rural schools and unserved regions. The program has been facing a shortfall thanks to the death of the landline, forcing many to suggest expanding the contribution base to include tech giants like Netflix, Google, and Facebook.
The FCC is having conversations about how to shore up the contribution base so funding for the program remains stable. AT&T, unsurprisingly, has been quick to enter those conversations with enthusiastic support for making tech giants pay for broadband upgrades. From the company's policy blog:
the biggest winners in today's internet ecosystem should lead the way in funding its realization.
Contributions from large technology companies, edge service providers, and others that directly benefit from the nation's universal service goals will ensure the fund is big enough to continue to support American connectivity needs and the USF's objectives."
As an aside, I'm impressed that AT&T policy folks wrote a blog post on this subject without accusing companies like Netflix and Google of getting a free ride" on the internet, which suggests a more subtle approach by AT&T. Some variant of that claim almost always gets included in these arguments.
Here's the problem.
A major reason U.S. broadband access is so spotty is that regional monopolies like AT&T spent decades attacking competitors, suing governments, undermining consumer protection regulators, effectively defrauding the government, refusing to upgrade old DSL lines in marginalized neighborhoods, and generally dismantling absolutely any effort that might encroach on the company's monopoly power.
All while getting untold billions of dollars in regulatory favors (like the death of net neutrality and broadband privacy protections), subsidies, and massive tax breaks - often in exchange for network upgrades that are somehow always half-completed.
The reason U.S. broadband remains spotty, sluggish, and expensive in 2023 is concentrated monopoly power and the corrupt politicians who protect it (see: the entirety of the GOP, and a sizeable chunk of the DNC). Yet somehow when it comes time for the FCC to shore up the USF and expand access to affordable broadband, cracking down on monopoly power never even enters the conversation.
It's literally not mentioned by careerist U.S. policymakers. As in, never.
The GOP has loyally protected America's broadband monopoly problem for forty years. But even Democratic FCC officials like Jessica Rosenworcel, often heralded for her quest to bridge the digital divide," seem afraid to even acknowledge America's obvious broadband monopoly problem (as of just a few years ago, something like 83 percent of U.S. households lived under a broadband monopoly).
Because AT&T is so tethered to both our first responder and domestic intelligence gathering apparatus, regulators are genuinely afraid to hold the politically powerful company accountable for much of anything. Needless to say, you can't fix a problem you refuse to acknowledge.
Yeah, the USF needs updating. Yeah, having tech companies throw some of their untold billions at rural broadband deployment isn't the worst idea (they routinely set piles of money on fire for far dumber ventures). That said, none of those efforts will fix U.S. broadband if policymakers don't first take direct aim at concentrated monopoly power, and reform existing subsidy programs that have spent decades throwing billions at companies for AT&T, often in exchange for bupkis.