AT&T Weighs In On Net Neutrality

[dfergie]

CEO Randall Stephenson seemed to fire a noisy warning shot at the FCC this morning as regulators consider President Obama’s appeal for them to adopt tough net neutrality rules. “We can’t go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,” the AT&T chief told investors at the Wells Fargo Technology, Media and Telecom Conference according to a Reuters account.

Is this an example of the chilling effect on investment that broadband companies warned would follow if the government claims the power to oversee Web practices?
Possibly not. “AT&T’s fiber investments weren’t particularly impressive to begin with,” Broadband DSL Reports’ Karl Bode notes. What’s more, AT&T “has used network investment as carrot on a stick with regulators for most of the last decade, promising to withhold or accelerate network infrastructure investment only if government does their bidding.” AT&T and DirecTV promised in May — when they announced their merger plan — that “AT&T will use the merger synergies to expand its plans to build and enhance high-speed broadband service to 15 million customer locations, mostly in rural areas where AT&T does not provide high-speed broadband service today.” (The deal is being reviewed by the FCC and Justice Department.)

Source & More at deadline.com

 

[Aridon]

They can keep running 6mbs in most areas then and get stomped by cable. Their loss.

 

[Drucifer]

When it comes to money, all businesses lie.

 

[Jimbo]

They can keep running 6mbs in most areas then and get stomped by cable. Their loss.

Who said anything about capping at 6mbs ?
U verse will run in the 50 mbs area in most cases currectly and rising.

 

[bigjohnok]

Isnt ATT already being sued by the FTC over deceptive trade practices?
oh yeah they are http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/28/7084497/ftc-sues-att-over-unlimited-data-throttling
ATT your corporate goons have no credibility anymore.

 

[RONZ]

AT&T is the worse cell provider in northern lower Michigan. They have 60 mile holes in their service. When you call they say there is not enough money up here for them to add towers

 

[edisonprime]

Great, more government regulation... geez...

 

[Aridon]

Who said anything about capping at 6mbs ?
U verse will run in the 50 mbs area in most cases currectly and rising.

You realize Uverse isn't' available nearly every where right? Down here in SE FL its nearly non existent for many. Where it is not available AT&T generally caps out at 6mbs and its not guaranteed speed either. Where it is available speeds caps out around 25mbs. The regular comcast offer is 50mbs here and goes up from there. That is delivered just about everywhere, not just 2k feet from a VRAD.

Naturally areas will vary, regardless just because you're in a strong Uverse area doesn't mean the rest of the county is as well.

You know as well as I do that if AT&T wants to remain relevant in the Internet delivery space they need to run fiber. Them holding off on it is laughable as it only hurts themselves. Most of the country doesn't have 50mbs available from AT&T. Most of the country has some crappy DSL though which was my point. Crappy and expensive.

 

[Aridon]

In addition to that, PRIOR to the net neutrality announcement AT&T had already said they would cut 3 billion from their capital investment plans.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2109245-at-and-t-buying-mexican-mobile-carrier-iusacell-for-2_5b


http://stopthecap.com/2014/04/21/at...apower-fiber-expansion-dont-hold-your-breath/

 

[Aridon]

Great, more government regulation... Just like the Unaffordable Care Act, geez...

Allowing internet providers to TIER packages and exclude / degrade services is terrible for consumers and not how the Internet should word. Netflix, Youtube and other start ups would of never gotten off the ground had Comcast and Verizon were allowed to slow and disrupt their traffic from the start and charge for what amounts to the same megabits.

Also internet has nothing what so ever to do with health care. Try and not bring up false equivalences. Much less something you vehemently oppose yet your own party tried to push not that long ago and ran a candidate in just the last election that did the same for his state. I'm a registered gun toting Republican btw before you start on some liberal tirade.

The real issue is cable companies are afraid of losing their TV subs to IP based services and actually having some competition. Since they are effectively monopolies or duopolies in most areas these services should be considered utilities. If they don't want to be held to that standard then competition needs to be allowed to flourish.

These companies have benefited heavily from subsidization for their build outs many years ago and enjoy near monopolistic status where the internet is concerned. Now they want to tier the internet and charge more for it. Simply unacceptable to anyone with an ounce of thought in their brain.

 

[edisonprime]

Allowing internet providers to TIER packages and exclude / degrade services is terrible for consumers and not how the Internet should word. Netflix, Youtube and other start ups would of never gotten off the ground had Comcast and Verizon were allowed to slow and disrupt their traffic from the start and charge for what amounts to the same megabits.

Also internet has nothing what so ever to do with health care. Try and not bring up false equivalences. Much less something you vehemently oppose yet your own party tried to push not that long ago and ran a candidate in just the last election that did the same for his state. I'm a registered gun toting Republican btw before you start on some liberal tirade.

The real issue is cable companies are afraid of losing their TV subs to IP based services and actually having some competition. Since they are effectively monopolies or duopolies in most areas these services should be considered utilities. If they don't want to be held to that standard then competition needs to be allowed to flourish.

These companies have benefited heavily from subsidization for their build outs many years ago and enjoy near monopolistic status where the internet is concerned. Now they want to tier the internet and charge more for it. Simply unacceptable to anyone with an ounce of thought in their brain.

Still government regulation, still government interference, still less choice. The Internet in its current status couldn't be any freer.

 

[Aridon]

Still government regulation, still government interference, still less choice. The Internet in its current status couldn't be any freer.

So you're ok with Comcast charging you for 300gb of data and then extorting Netflix to pay them again for data you're already paying for? That doesn't seem right. You can download 300gb of porn for free or torrent 300gb of movies but Netflix has to pay? Well you can for now until Comcast decides to throttle any video until you upgrade to their $100 tier. Despite paying for 300gb of access.

You OK with them charging you more for YouTube access, Facebook all the while using the lines taxpayers helped put in the ground and while enjoying virtually no real competition in many areas?

I'm not. They don't operate in a free market and as such shouldn't be allowed the same freedom. They should not be allowed to limit YouTube to 500k when you're paying for and getting 50mb everywhere else. Especially when you vpn into YouTube or Netflix and get full speed.

They are a utility and should be treated as such. End of story.

 

[Jimbo]

You realize Uverse isn't' available nearly every where right? Down here in SE FL its nearly non existent for many. Where it is not available AT&T generally caps out at 6mbs and its not guaranteed speed either. Where it is available speeds caps out around 25mbs. The regular comcast offer is 50mbs here and goes up from there. That is delivered just about everywhere, not just 2k feet from a VRAD.

Naturally areas will vary, regardless just because you're in a strong Uverse area doesn't mean the rest of the county is as well.

You know as well as I do that if AT&T wants to remain relevant in the Internet delivery space they need to run fiber. Them holding off on it is laughable as it only hurts themselves. Most of the country doesn't have 50mbs available from AT&T. Most of the country has some crappy DSL though which was my point. Crappy and expensive.

And the MAJORITY of the country doesn't have FIBER running to thier home, regardless of provider, unless your in a NEW development or a major Business.

Also keep in mind that just because U Verse TV is not available everywhere, doesn't mean that the internet isn't.

There are plenty of places that U Verse Internet is available, but not TV.

As for Capping speeds, when the rest of the major internet suppliers decide to not Cap thier service, than att would more than likely as well.

You seem to be forgetting that the Capping of speeds is only a very SMALL percentage of people.

 

[Aridon]

You seem to be forgetting that the Capping of speeds is only a very SMALL percentage of people.

Tell that to the people getting throttled by Comcast and Verizon while watching Netflix until they got paid off. <Loading Please Wait>

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

http://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080


We aren't talking about just heavy users getting throttled this is blanket traffic specific throttling and its BS. That is why net neutrality is a big deal unless of course you're ok with what they are doing then by all means just say so.

The point is you pay for data and should be able to use it however you like. Your provider shouldn't be able to hold a particular website or stream hostage and make them pay so you can get what you're already paying for.

 

[Jimbo]

Tell that to the people getting throttled by Comcast and Verizon while watching Netflix until they got paid off. <Loading Please Wait>

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

http://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080


We aren't talking about just heavy users getting throttled this is blanket traffic specific throttling and its BS. That is why net neutrality is a big deal unless of course you're ok with what they are doing then by all means just say so.

The point is you pay for data and should be able to use it however you like. Your provider shouldn't be able to hold a particular website or stream hostage and make them pay so you can get what you're already paying for.

Fwiw, I agree with you on this point about Net Neutrality.

From what I have seen, the throttling of speeds is for those that are huge users.

 

[edisonprime]

You realize Uverse isn't' available nearly every where right? Down here in SE FL its nearly non existent for many. Where it is not available AT&T generally caps out at 6mbs and its not guaranteed speed either. Where it is available speeds caps out around 25mbs. The regular comcast offer is 50mbs here and goes up from there. That is delivered just about everywhere, not just 2k feet from a VRAD.

Naturally areas will vary, regardless just because you're in a strong Uverse area doesn't mean the rest of the county is as well.

You know as well as I do that if AT&T wants to remain relevant in the Internet delivery space they need to run fiber. Them holding off on it is laughable as it only hurts themselves. Most of the country doesn't have 50mbs available from AT&T. Most of the country has some crappy DSL though which was my point. Crappy and expensive.

I have a response to that, but apparently you can't talk politics here, so I'm shutting up.

 

[raoul5788]

Politics are welcome in the Pit, but only in the Pit.

 

[dangue]

And a net neutrality debate doesn't have to get political in the dem versus repub sense. Everyone I know, regardless of political affiliation, thinks what is being done to Netflix is problematic and would only become more so if it spread to other sources of data.

Not to mention that most conservatives will admit that the free market works best in competitive open markets. The ISPs are a small oligopoly with near monopolies in certain regions. Throw in the high barrier of entry and it's not exactly the ideal situation for the invisible hand to balance things out.

Long story short, I don't see this as a traditional conservative versus liberal argument.

 

[dishcomm]

They can keep running 6mbs in most areas then and get stomped by cable. Their loss.

Not in rural areas. Cable franchise agreements do vary. However, for cable to be required in certain areas, there is a requirement of a certain number of dwellings per mile of roadway.
For example, in the county where I reside, Time Warner is required to run their physical plant when the density reaches 18 dwellings per mile of roadway.
That leaves about half the county un-cabled.

 

[dishcomm]

Who said anything about capping at 6mbs ?
U verse will run in the 50 mbs area in most cases currectly and rising.

Not everywhere.
My friend lives in a town where AT&T is the incumbent Telco. U-Verse is not available there simply because the surveys taken have pointed to no enough potential customers. AT&T will not make the investment in physical plant if the company cannot make a profit there.