Hours after Google announced Google Fiber in Austin – the second city in which Google Fiber will be rolled out – AT&T pretended it, too, will build a 1-gigabit network there.

No one actually believes this is true. What we're seeing is a bit of gamesmanship.

But I think AT&T’s press release reveals much more between the lines: It’s complaining about the deal terms by which Google got the rights of way in Austin. And, it’s confirming the very message it’s been trying to deny for years: that only when there's real competition will AT&T invest in making a better service.

#### Mike Masnick ##### About [Mike Masnick](https://twitter.com/mmasnick) is the CEO of [Floor64](http://www.techdirt.com/about.php). His insights into business, technology economics, and public policy inform his frequent posts to the award-winning [Techdirt](http://www.techdirt.com/) blog. Prior to founding Floor64, Masnick worked in business development at an e-commerce startup and in marketing at Intel. He earned his MBA and a bachelor's degree in Industrial and Labor Relations, both from Cornell University. Masnick is also known for coining the term the “Streisand effect.”

When it found its first home in Kansas, Google Fiber famously got the city to kick in all sorts of concessions making it extra-favorable for Google to build its first fiber network connections there. To be number two, the city of Austin probably offered similar benefits to Google. And so within AT&T's press release, there's this – I bolded the salient tidbit:

AT&T announced that in conjunction with its previously announced Project VIP expansion of broadband access, it is prepared to build an advanced fiber optic infrastructure in Austin, Texas, capable of delivering speeds up to 1 gigabit per second. AT&T's expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives.

In other words: Sure, sure we'll consider building a 1-gigabit fiber network (note that AT&T says it is "prepared to build" not that it absolutely will build it). Just give us the same favorable terms you gave Google.

Basically, AT&T's announcement had little to do with actually offering a competing service, and much more about calling attention to the favorable terms that cities are giving Google to get Google Fiber.

Now, this is something that deserves reasonable scrutiny. Some are quite understandably concerned that it's not right if Google gets extra-favorable terms. But, let's look at the real history here: Municipalities have been giving AT&T and other incumbents incredibly favorable deals for years. And AT&T has tended to return the favor by providing the bare minimum in quality of service to its broadband customers while focusing its efforts trying to block any hint of competition from showing up.

>Both companies have been able to squeeze concessions out of the cities … But one of them gave customers the bare minimum.

Given how hard AT&T has fought back against real competition in the broadband space for the past decade, it's not clear AT&T really should be spreading this message in its post-Google Fiber release – that without the competition, we’re happy to provide crappy service.

Because hours after real competition showed up, AT&T suddenly claimed it would offer a better level of service. At this point, any city, state, or federal government in the U.S. should look at AT&T’s move – and other telcos – to realize, well, these guys just admitted they'll offer better service if there's real competition. Their next question should be, “How do we make sure there's real competition?"

Both companies have been able to squeeze concessions and favorable deals out of the cities in question. But one of them pocketed the cash and gave customers the bare minimum. The other focused on using those incentives to provide a truly impressive level of service (the early reviews from Kansas City have been fantastic).

If there were more real broadband competition around the country, perhaps the incumbents would be innovating, upgrading, and getting great reviews as well. Not just announcing their "intent."

Editor’s note: An earlier, unedited version of this article appeared on the author’s blog.

Wired Opinion Editor: Sonal Chokshi @smc90