Technology seems to be making many corporations obsolete (at least under their current business model), and they are “clawing at the insides of the coffin”, so to speak.

Translation: “The reason I resist using the term ‘Net neutrality’ is that I don’t think government intervention would be good for our long-term plans,” he said, according to the story, going on, ” I don’t think government will be sympathetic to our goal of using the net as a distribution platform for premium content. Right now, I think Net neutrality is a huge thorn in our sides.”

The statement about 20 houses generating more traffic than the whole internet is of course, based on them purchasing ‘high definition’ content from att and watching/listening to it 24/7. Of course 90+% of the ‘data’ will be the DRM overhead.

Analyst Daniel Beringer argued in a 2006 article that network maintenance and upgrade expenditures are a lower priority for AT&T than attaining monopoly control of the market through acquisitions. “The Bells only invest in more monopoly which usually means buying each other. The track record shows steadily lower spending on networks to increase free cash flow for acquisitions. The $140 billion SBC spent acquiring Ameritech, PacBell, SNET, AT&T Wireless, and AT&T lifted the company’s market cap by only $40 billion,” wrote Beringer. “SBC missed an opportunity as $140 billion happens to be about what it would cost to run fiber to every home in America.”