# Did ISP “pocket” $400 billion that was supposed to be dedicated toward fiber cable infrastructure? Bruce Kushnick, author of "The Book Of Broken Promises:$400 Billion Broadband Scandal And Free The Net," makes some pretty major claims. The most prominent article, an ad for his book written by Bruce Kushnick, makes the following falsifiable/provable claim:

"By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up." It then goes on to detail various contributions to that number, some of which were "charges for upgrades" from companies that never delivered upgrades, some of which were tax cuts and benefits, some of them were regulations intended to increase growth that never did. In his book and on reddit, he repeatedly claims we should take the FCC and companies, including ISPs and "state utility telecommunications companies" to court, implying that what they have done incurs civil liability on them. Is there truth to this number? Is the number realistic? Are the FCC/ISPs/state utility telecommunications companies actually as liable as he claims? • The$400B claim is notable however, as it has been reproduced in infoworld: infoworld.com/article/3189828/internet/… – Fizz Nov 25 '17 at 4:26
• news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 might have some leads – Fizz Nov 25 '17 at 4:32
• "for a fiber optic future that never showed up" - the fact that I'm posting this comment using Verizon FIOS should be a sufficient disproof of that claim, no? :) – user5341 Nov 26 '17 at 14:43
• @user5341 - not if the promised "future" is more comprehensive than just someone, somewhere, being able to access it. – PoloHoleSet Nov 27 '17 at 17:10
• @user5341 - I'm not sure why you say that "widespread statistics" don't suit me. I was only stating that your anecdote and a vague, unspecified definition of "fiber optic future" are not sufficient. Nowhere did I dismiss your claim about Verizon's overall availability. I merely pointed out that, by referencing that, you've expanded the scope beyond "you," (which is completely fine) which means, no, "YOU" posting a comment, itself, is not sufficient. You asked a question, I answered. – PoloHoleSet Nov 27 '17 at 19:15