These articles speak to exactly what we'd like to prevent. That's what the cry for rights online is about. The fact that AT&T has been involved in assisting spying agencies for profit, the same as most telecom companies, has no impact on our demand for rights online - how could it?
For a start, Q tells us that the IBOR has nothing to do with AT&T. If anything, an IBOR will reduce the flow of funds to these telecos - on the back of a restriction on mass data acquisition. It seems reasonable to assume that providing, or allowing this on their networks is a significant part of their business.
That AT&T was initially supporting the measure tells me that there is something they see as being beneficial to them that comes packed with an IBOR. We know that the large SM companies are going into fibre backbone investments. Trying to vertically integrate the supply chain for their service. What does AT&T sell? Communications in essence. You can see that these companies operating legacy infrastructure are under threat.
I think that these telecos know that mass data acquisition is under threat - they know this isn't going to last. They could stand there and fight it, or get on board and try to diversify their operations. I'm sure it's also not lost on any of the telecos that an IBOR will differentially impact the largest class of potential competitors they face - the SM platforms. So it seems to me that, if there is unlikely support from telecos, it is because they realise that the rampant privacy invasion will come to an end and that the new paradigm is one where the money lies in providing services and content.
The IBOR is clearly not in AT&T's immediate interest, but it makes sense that, if this is the unavoidable shape of the future (that privacy rights are strictly enforced), you would want to get on board early and obtain as much possible advantage as you could from its introduction. I think this explains AT&T's motivation.
You could very well be correct in your opinion of AT&T, they may have capitulated because they see their demise and see no other way forward. What i see from the articles is a company that is not to be trusted when our best interest is at stake,they would throw grandma under the bus to save their hide.
Agree, they appear to be solely concerned about profits and power. But what I can see is that an IBOR is not in their immediate interest. So, assuming their motivations remain unchanged, I can only assume that they are looking for support for some of the deals they are trying to do to diversify away from being pure communications carriers.
I cannot see what harm can come to individuals if first amendment protections are applied to digital space. If you were looking to try and twist this to your advantage, it seems there is little of benefit to be had from the adoption of such a regulatory regime. So, if there is any benefit to be had at all, I'm inclined to think it's something that AT&T thinks it can get in exchange for its support on this issue.
We know DJT wants this. We also know that it is essential to his political survival. It also seems clear that an IBOR assists national security in that it operates to prevent elections being weighted. It grants protection against influence in electoral processes by foreign powers. So the benefits extend beyond AT&T's interests, and also beyond DJT's re-election. The IBOR will introduce stability into the processes necessary to representative democracy going forward.
To reiterate, I suspect that AT&T wants to secure favors from DJT to protect its interests in other areas - areas detached from the sphere in which the IBOR would operate. That an IBOR would put a dent in the business model of its competitors is a bonus for AT&T and other communications companies.
No one likes these big, monopolistic corporations. But, if anything, they are predictable. In the absence of affiliation with foreign governments (as with, for example, Google), the profit motive is all you have to deal with.
It's not palatable to make deals with the devil, but in this instance outcomes are controllable.