AT&T calls for “Internet Bill of Rights”

In recent months, AT&T, one of the most powerful communications companies in the world, has made some rather interesting statements regarding their stance on the controversial issue of net neutrality.

The company released a statement in January which called for consumers to have an “Internet Bill of Rights.” In this statement, they noted that although they remain committed to net neutrality, “the commitment of one company is not enough.”

AT&T’s statement is their effort to be on the right side of history and remind everyday citizens that, although the powers in our government may be fighting to eliminate net neutrality, they are committed to stand in the way of such actions.

AT&T doubled down on this statement just last week when senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs, Bob Quinn, wrote on AT&T’s Public Policy website in support of the net neutrality Day of Action. In his detailed writing, Quinn was unequivocal about his support, writing on behalf of the company. “We want it to be clear that AT&T supports a Federal Consumer Bill of Rights that offers consumers protections across all Internet platforms.”

What may come as a surprise to some is that not everyone is so thrilled with AT&T these days, and I’m not merely referring to the folks at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Many are calling out AT&T for their lack of commitment to this issue in the past and the sudden misalignment between their statements and actions. Evan Greer, the campaign director for “Fight for the Future,” doesn’t intend to forget AT&T’s past transgressions. “We had an Internet Bill of Rights,” Greer said. “It was called Title II and AT&T’s army of lobbyists did everything in their power to burn it down.”

Greer went on to say that among many other Internet Service Providers (ISPs), it was AT&T’s plan all along to squash net neutrality and subsequently make self-righteous statements in response in order to maintain a positive public image.

The CEO of Comcast, Brian Roberts, predictably sided with AT&T, stating that “we just thought Title II was unnecessary…we believe Congress will hopefully now act to put some enduring set of enforceable Internet protections that can no longer get revisited and reversed with different administrations.”

Optimists would believe that the internet service providers (ISPs) are genuine in their effort to preserve net neutrality. It is easy to demand a quick reaction from the ISPs to immediately combat the actions of the FCC.

Perhaps it is better to negotiate a proper deal and avoid settling for what was initially on the table, but if that is the case, we must in fact see legitimate strides made by major ISPs to cut a deal that benefits net neutrality. It’s easy to let focus on these topics slip, which would be a fateful mistake.

In this uphill battle to preserve net neutrality, it is important to hold each and every party involved responsible. Our role in advocating for ourselves and each other is vital if we are going to do so.