Earlier this week "fake Steve Jobs" (Newsweek journalist Dan Lyons) wrote a satirical tirade against AT&T, lamenting the company's inability to adequately address iPhone bandwidth demand, and their recent comments suggesting they might impose new metered charges for iPhone users. In response, Lyons urged readers to use as much bandwidth as possible this Friday in protest against AT&T's failure to understand that people using your product is a good thing. As you'd expect, a fake CEO issuing a call for a real DDoS didn't amuse AT&T. The company issued a statement calling the joke "irresponsible and pointless:"Is requesting users engage in a DDoS the best avenue of attack to make that point to AT&T? Absolutely not: a DDoS can lead to real problems with people not being able to call for emergency services (assuming the network was in the mood to connect the call in the first place). That said, apparently the effort to draw attention worked -- since a gigantic international telecom conglomerate is taking the time to respond to a fake CEO's blog post. As you'd expect, fake Steve Jobs had a response of his own:Fake Jobs goes on to make a real point often missed: while AT&T wireless revenues have exploded, CAPEX investment back into the network has stayed the same or dropped over the last eight years -- despite the fact that AT&T engineers predicted this looming explosion in iPhone user bandwidth demand. While AT&T still invests billions into their network, they frankly needed to invest billions more -- and certainly had the funds to do so. Instead they chose to please investors, cut corners, and as a result spent most of 2009 defending a network that for many users simply doesn't work properly.

To add insult to injury, AT&T wireless chief Ralph de la Vega last week came out with comments that seemingly blamed customers for actually using the network, and inaccurately argued the flat-rate model they've been making tens of billions of dollars off -- wasn't able to fund expansion. Of course de la Vega was talking to investors, who usually lack long-term vision. You''ll recall how the same investors whined extensively about Verizon future-proofing their network with fiber to the home, oblivious to how the investment made the company a game changer and solidified Verizon's competitive position for years to come.

As we noted during AT&T's recent 3G advertising fight with Verizon -- the best defense at this point isn't talk -- or more ads featuring Luke Wilson. The best defense is sucking it up, ignoring your myopic investors (at least up to a point), and investing the necessary money back into the network. If investors complain, AT&T can direct angry users and satirical bloggers to their home numbers. It would save money on support costs and maybe AT&T's overworked Seth Bloom could finally take a break. Anyone have Craig Moffett's personal cell phone number?