AT&T Weighs In On Net Neutrality

Status
Please reply by conversation.
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
AT&T wireless has massive holes in their coverage.
In areas of West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky, AT&T is virtually useless.
 
negative I am one of those grandfathered in customers.
Right. But no one ever considered the heavy use of bandwidth by some customers.
Now it has gotten to the point where the system is getting bogged down. In order to prevent dropped calls and other issues, bandwidth use has to be dealt with.
So instead of charging more for use, the company has to do something to prevent the above issues.
I do not imply this is the right thing to do. Quite the opposite.
However, I do think the heaviest users should pay a premium.
In every other consumable, the more one uses, the more they pay.
 
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.
Be careful what you wish for.
As you know, when business is faced with new and more restrictive govt regulations which adversely affect their bottom line, typically business will find ways to get around the regulations or they will limit the supply of their current product in order to keep the value of the product from falling.
Should the government institute rules which ISP's consider onerous, I can guarantee investment in expansion and new technology will slow to a crawl. And this will do nothing to stop the consumer cost from rising as usual.
And there will be no value in churn because the ISP's will simply price match. Businesses watch each other closely. If one sees another do something that may cause customers to turn to them, the other companies will follow suit.
When was the last time you saw an intersection of roads where there are two or three gas stations and the prices of each vary by more than a penny?
 
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.
Internet access is NOT a public utility.
Tell me, what consumer product can you buy where you do not pay more when your quantity used is more?
Lets take an automobile....
Let's say I have a Toyota Corrola and you have an Ford F-250....My fuel tank holds 14 gallons . Yours holds 27. Should we both pay the same amount for a full tank of gas?
After all, according to your logic, a tank ( access to the internet) is a tank..
We pay for speed in MBPS. NOT the amount of bandwidth we consume.
The landscape is changing because of IP tv and other services ISP's simply wish to capitalize on the use of their systems. Heavy users of bandwidth consume far more than regular web surfers and home based workers( Toyota Corrola's) who are not using video streaming and graphics heavy products( Ford F-250's).
If the ISP's and providers are prohibited by government regulations from pricing their product, the result will not be good for anyone.
 
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.
We do not pay for data. We pay for flow.
 
Internet access is NOT a public utility.
Tell me, what consumer product can you buy where you do not pay more when your quantity used is more?
Lets take an automobile....
Let's say I have a Toyota Corrola and you have an Ford F-250....My fuel tank holds 14 gallons . Yours holds 27. Should we both pay the same amount for a full tank of gas?
After all, according to your logic, a tank ( access to the internet) is a tank..
We pay for speed in MBPS. NOT the amount of bandwidth we consume.
The landscape is changing because of IP tv and other services ISP's simply wish to capitalize on the use of their systems. Heavy users of bandwidth consume far more than regular web surfers and home based workers( Toyota Corrola's) who are not using video streaming and graphics heavy products( Ford F-250's).
If the ISP's and providers are prohibited by government regulations from pricing their product, the result will not be good for anyone.
You must be intentionally being obtuse. This isn't about usage caps. Netflix delivery is throttled regardless of whether I stream 20 Megs of data or 20 Gigs of data. This has nothing to do with data amounts and everything to do with source. This is about stifling competition while making additional revenue by screwing their customers.

To use your analogy of pumping gas... I'm paying for 20 gallons of gas (data) but if I want to get gas from pump A (Netflix) there's an additional charge, if I want gas from pump B (web browsing, email, torrents, spirit, YouTube, etc.) there's no extra charge. It makes no sense for the gas station (Comcast) to get to charge extra because they happen to control the hose (inter-connection) between the pump and my gas tank.
 
Internet access is NOT a public utility.
Tell me, what consumer product can you buy where you do not pay more when your quantity used is more?
Lets take an automobile....
Let's say I have a Toyota Corrola and you have an Ford F-250....My fuel tank holds 14 gallons . Yours holds 27. Should we both pay the same amount for a full tank of gas?
After all, according to your logic, a tank ( access to the internet) is a tank..
We pay for speed in MBPS. NOT the amount of bandwidth we consume.
The landscape is changing because of IP tv and other services ISP's simply wish to capitalize on the use of their systems. Heavy users of bandwidth consume far more than regular web surfers and home based workers( Toyota Corrola's) who are not using video streaming and graphics heavy products( Ford F-250's).
If the ISP's and providers are prohibited by government regulations from pricing their product, the result will not be good for anyone.


So much wrong with this.

First off, you pay by use for electric right? No reason cable wouldn't be similar even if classified as a public utility. In fact the classification changes only one thing, that the company has to allow the product to pass through to the consumer without being modified or altered. What is the problem with this? I see none. Comcast can still cap and charge for excess bandwidth. What they can't do is throttle based only on where the traffic comes from. If you can't see the problems with that then there is no hope to reason with you.

I never, never said anything about high bandwidth users. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are throtteling everyone using Netflix, youtube and other video service regardless of usage. That was the issue and why people were up in arms. Its not about the dude torrenting 300gb of porn and movies, this is about Aunt Fae who streams some netflix and can't catch an HD stream because Comcast wants to extort money from Netflix. This will stifle innovation like IPTV and other video services, not classifying an established monopoly for something everyone now needs as a public utility.

Someone said you paid for bandwidth not useage, bull crap. You pay for both (there are caps and you can be charged if you go over) and if you pay for bandwidth you should get it regardless if you are on facebook, youtube or netrflix.

Some of you are talking about heavy users, that isn't what this is about. This is about throttling entire classes of traffic regardless of individual bandwidth use. This is wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dalyew and dangue
Is it fair to the ISP's like comcast, Verizon and AT&T that spent billions to build out their network, to allow a service like Netflix to use their network so customers can bypass their video service ?

My feeling is that if the customer is not paying comcast for TV but getting their TV via the Internet, they should pay more for the Internet so the monthly costs worked out about the same.

If you think it's bad now, wait a few years when we see ip based cable service where a company ships you s set top box and you connect it to the Internet and it's just like having Dish or directv.

You think comcast, Verizon and AT&T are going to put up with having higher bandwidth usage and costs so you can bypass buying TV from them directly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dishcomm
Is it fair to the ISP's like comcast, Verizon and AT&T that spent billions to build out their network, to allow a service like Netflix to use their network so customers can bypass their video service ?

My feeling is that if the customer is not paying comcast for TV but getting their TV via the Internet, they should pay more for the Internet so the monthly costs worked out about the same.

If you think it's bad now, wait a few years when we see ip based cable service where a company ships you s set top box and you connect it to the Internet and it's just like having Dish or directv.

You think comcast, Verizon and AT&T are going to put up with having higher bandwidth usage and costs so you can bypass buying TV from them directly?

I am all for net neutrality, but the isp's have to get paid, I see data usage in the future being charged like electricity, but by the gigabyte used.

If you surf just the net your bill will be small, you stream 4k Netflix your going to have to pay $$$$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dishcomm
Is it fair to the ISP's like comcast, Verizon and AT&T that spent billions to build out their network, to allow a service like Netflix to use their network so customers can bypass their video service ?

My feeling is that if the customer is not paying comcast for TV but getting their TV via the Internet, they should pay more for the Internet so the monthly costs worked out about the same.

If you think it's bad now, wait a few years when we see ip based cable service where a company ships you s set top box and you connect it to the Internet and it's just like having Dish or directv.

You think comcast, Verizon and AT&T are going to put up with having higher bandwidth usage and costs so you can bypass buying TV from them directly?


Read this:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html?ref

First, we pay for internet and should be able to use it as such. Its not up to the cable companies to stifle innovation and prevent companies like Netflix from thriving. If people go over their cap then charge them but that isn't what is happening. I wish people at least educate themselves on that. This isn't about heavy internet usage. Its been said a few times even in this thread yet keeps coming up. Internet providers are NOT bandwidth starved.

Pay TV may under go a transformation, Netflix may become the next HBO but in the end the providers of internet service need to pass the content on to consumers untouched and charge for the service. Its not up to comcast to charge you for the type of data, only for how much you use.
 
I do not believe that any service AT&T offers has any value. I know people on U Verse and they continually complain but nothing is never done. In the past I had Comcast with except for a outage once in a while everything worked fine
 
One last note. Until AT&T actually invest into their system and serious upgrades and expand their service they are useless
 
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.
Correct ...
As any company would, if the business isn't there, most won't expand.
 
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.
You DO REALIZE that the 6mg in most cases is NOT uvsere ....

There is two different trechnologies being used out there, originally they were up to 6mbs with the older technology, which still works fine.
Then they came out with the U Verse internet and it went from 6 to now 55 and expanding depending on where you live and what you can afford ... (gotta love these other companies and people posting that so and so has 100 and what not ... can you AFFORD it ?)
Anyways, now AT&T has made the 1.5 to 6 mbs available to any one as well if you don't want the higher speeds. Not EVERYONE wants or can afford or has any need for a bazzilion mbs
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts