AT&T’s Neutrality Reply a Red Herring

November, 2014

While on the surface, it is commendable that a large player such as AT&T is taking on the US government on net neutrality, its response is totally self-serving. The carrier knows that it will make relatively little money in providing fiber to residential customers. Plus, the biggest cause of network congestion does not come from uploads and downloads to and from the home; it is about the interconnection of data centers for high-volume content.

Verizon’s concentration with fiber to the home was in areas that had large enterprises nearby. It divested a lot of its other lines that did not fall into this category. Verizon saw an opportunity to disguise aggressively going after the very lucrative business customers from the regulators – and FTTB subsidized FTTH.

To this day, lots of people in the industry would prefer to believe Verizon was just crazy to do so much FTTH, especially several years ago when it was truly uneconomical. For whatever reason, an explanation based on rationality continues to be widely dismissed.

While AT&T in its incumbent territory does not have the same geographic advantages as Verizon in terms of achieving networking economies with large metropolitan areas so adjacent to each other, the former could have adopted a similar strategy, such as along the California coast. The problem is that AT&T has retained too much of the old Ma Bell mentality. At least, it has started to move in a direction of selling off less attractive portions of its incumbent territory.

All in all, the FCC should be suspicious of AT&T’s explanation of putting its FTTH plans on hold. Nevertheless, given its pledge with the DirecTV pickup to connect two million subscribers with FTTH, it buys the service provider some time.

[written by Mark Lutkowitz]

To get a sense of AT&T's bureaucratic situation, please click here.)

Share Article

Add Comment




Read Comments

Verizon/AOL: Bypassing Title II with New Internal Infrastructure? | fibeReality | fiber optic consul
May, 2015
[…] As we have mentioned in the past, Verizon has a track record for adopting strategies, which may not make sense if examined in a superficial way. The company was characterized as being nuts, specifically in the early days, when it decided to deploy a substantial amount of very costly fiber to the home. In this situation, it was actually a matter of the FCC providing some relief in deciding in 2003 that the incumbent service providers did not have to unbundle such access networks to their competitors. […]
Monetizing Older Networks: An Overreach? | fibeReality | fiber optic consultants
March, 2015
[…] Both experts also recognize the challenges associated with cyber-hacks preventing full utilization of the cloud. Eric states that a key motivator of SDN is with service chaining at a granular level, which means even maybe down to a pair of source destination addresses, an application ID, etc., security can be actually tailored much more tightly that encompasses processing traffic analytically attempting to go in a particular area. While Eric agrees with us that there is quite a bit of resistance at big carriers to move in an SDN direction, he believes that telephone companies can regain a lot of the Internet business they have lost to the cable TV companies with SDN — in combination with related monetized services. (However, we have made known our view that companies like Verizon would prefer to concentrate on more lucrative opportunities in serving large enterprises.) […]
Absurdity of Stressing Metro 100G Now | fibeReality | fiber optic consultants
February, 2015
[…] (For our belief on Ciena’s willingness to get purchased, please click here. For our discussion of Verizon’s original FiOS strategy, please click here.) […]