AT&T Weighs In On Net Neutrality
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 110
- Views 7K
- Status
Towers ?
Towers are not supplying the data, unless your talking about Cell service .... if thats the case, I have been discussing the wrong subject.
Apples to oranges.
The bottom line is ISP's should be able to place a premium on the heaviest users of bandwidth. It's called a free market.
The problem here is the widespread perception that data use is and should be unlimited.
So, if those who wish to use high amounts of data should be able to do so as long as they are willing to pay for it. That is also a free market concept.
Ask yourself this question. In your memory can you recall at any time when government decided to regulate a consumable product or service which as a result increased competition AND reduced the cost to the consumer while giving the consumer more choices....
This is a classic slippery slope issue. The federal government ( factions within) wish to heavily regulate the internet as though it were a public utility. This would have the same effect as introducing price controls.
With this action there is the strong possibility of two things occurring.
One, the ISP's and the providers of the pipelines will limit their investments in expansion and new technology because it will no longer be financially wise to do so.
Two, those entities will be reluctant to add new services and with the prices being controlled while the costs( programmers will not stop demanding increases in rates) keep rising, consumers will find choices becoming fewer as providers simply drop services because regulations will limit their ability to pass the additional costs along to the consumer. In effect, access to programming will be rationed.
Please be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
I will tell you what I believe is wrong.
Wrong is the thinking that running to government to fix problems perceived by consumers is a good solution.
Now, a couple questions. How do you know the providers you mentioned above are doing what you claim?
If government gets involved in the internet marketplace, where then will be the incentive for ISP's to expand their systems and invest in improved technologies?
In which direction do you think pricing of services will go?
I think if a provider sees a service using their property to get to their customers, that company SHOULD pay more for that access. Especially in light of the fact that the company in question, let's use Netflix, is in direct competition with the provider.
If you truly are interested in open markets and competition, then the providers of the pipelines who also provide video services should be permitted to charge other video services a fee to deliver their products via the providers property.
Right now, outfits such as Netflix are sort of sliding in the back door, if you will. And that is draining away video customers from the firms that are selling access to their pipelines.
The playing field is no level. By throttling( Since the providers right now are not charging for fast lanes, but will if this is all put to bed) the owners of the physical plant are recouping some of their losses due to cord cutters moving to other means of video delivery.
look, in ten years or less, this point may quite possibly be moot. I predict the entire model by which we receive video services will be dramatically different.
The LAST thing we need is more government intrusion in the marketplace.
This is along the same lines of what I am attempting to convey.
Taking it a step further, I believe government intervention will stifle expansion or systems and stifle the introduction of newer technologies.
Such interference will also slow to a crawl the flow of investment dollars to the industry.
Unbelievable. Dismiss everything I say and then go back heavy usage and unlimited data? How about explaining why you think that?
Let me break it down for you like this: I'm paying $45/month for something in the neighborhood of 20 down and 10 up (connection speeds aka bandwidth). This is more than enough to stream Netflix in HD. And yet, Comcast in its greed refused to provide me with the data I was requesting until Netflix paid them.
How do you justify that? They have advertised and are selling me the connection with the bandwidth, but when I go to actually use it they can degrade it such that I can't use it meaningfully? Sorry, but that's just BS. Data is data, they shouldn't get to degrade the data I request just because I want to watch Netflix instead of a Comcast affiliated service.
This has nothing to do with unlimited data. I am not talking about going overhead monthly data cap they have set. I'm not even talking about streaming more data than what they are supposedly selling to me. A Netflix stream is well below the capacity of the connection I am paying them for. So please, please tell how this is at acceptable? IT ISN'T.
Also, your regulatory FUD doesn't square with the reality in other industries countries where there is more ISP regulation yet amazingly internet connections are faster and cheaper than here in the US.
To answer your question... How about when the government forced the old ATT to split up. That certainly fostered competition and drove down phone rates. That's off the top of my head and I'm not familiar with the details, but I think that fits your hypothetical. The relatively unchecked reconsolidation of that industry is part of why there are so few ISPs and cell phone carriers to compete against one another now.
It is highly likely U-Verse is not available in your area. All you need to do is go to AT&T's consumer website, click the link to U-Verse, enter your phone number or address and the site will tell you if U Verse is even available.
I am willing to make a pretty stiff wager that because you live "out in the country" all that is available is DSL over copper. If that is the case then 6 mbps is pretty darned good.
Yes, you're right. We should encourage companies in a monopolistic position to abuse said position to engage in anti competitive and anti consumer behavior. What was I thinking? That's exactly how things should work. Hell, that's not even good enough, they should be able to force us to buy TV and landline service just to get internet! Ok, I think that's enough sarcasm for one post...
Thank you for continuing to ignore the fact that the consumers are already paying the fee to receive the data. And Netflix is paying its ISP. And all these ISPs are making ridiculous margins on all our backs. If they don't want cord cutters to leave them for Netflix, they need to find a way to compete with Netflix and win consumers back. Abusing their position to throttle data and reduce the quality of services the competition is selling to me is unacceptable in general, but even more so since I am paying for the connection and they are refusing to deliver it.
Here's my explanation. The average internet consumer actually believes that the monthly fee they pay for internet access includes unlimited data usage. Gamers, heavy downloaders of video, those who stream large amounts of content are in effect not paying for their excessive usage.
In the other case your ISP sees Netflix as competition. And because your ISP OWNS the pipeline while depending on their customers to purchase video content from THEM, the ISP is well within it's rights to go to the competition who once again is getting to you using the property of the ISP, to recoup some of the revenue the ISP is losing because you are not buying video services you receive from Netflix from the ISP.
Think of it this way...
Let's say there is a privately owned road that goes through a semi rural area. The public has been using this road as a short cut to avoid a much heavier traveled road. No big deal. However, lately there is a developer who has built a 100 home subdivision and those new residents have discovered the short cut. Meanwhile the road is now showing wear. The state does not maintain the road. The residents of the neighborhood go into their own pockets to do so.
So the neighbors get together and vote that they have had it. They decide to limit access to the road to just the residents who own the road. . The owners of the private road tell the others "hey, here's an idea. You can use our road provided you help pay for maintenance."...
Of course the people in the new neighborhood are upset. They go to the town and demand intervention because they view the closing of access to the road as unfair.
Now, who do you side with?
The way I see it is the owners of the private road are the ISP. The people in the new neighborhood are the Netflix users. They want full access to the road( internet) without having to pay extra( above their normal town road taxes) for it's use.
You keep on conflating net neutrality with unlimited data usage. One has nothing to do with the other. They aren't throttling people that exceed a usage level, they are discriminating against the source of the data.
Your road analogy doesn't work. I'm paying for access to the road. It is my access they are degrading despite promising a road that is perfectly suitable for my uses and despite taking my money in exchange for my access. They're selling me the connection, they're not selling me a connection that only works if they approve of what I want to access with it.
Here is another thing to consider. Eventhough we have bandwith caps, the system is not designed so everyone can Max out their data every month.
The 250 gig cap relies of the fact your neighbors aren't using their fair share
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Ahh. So you are assuming that profit margins for ISP's are "ridiculous"..
Quite frankly unless you are I have access to the company yearly reports, neither of us know that.
If you are assuming i think the providers are charging rates which are market based, the answer is no. That is to a certain extent.
If you look here, you'll find widely varying prices and data capacities across the US and intern
You are NOT paying for access to the road because you are not paying for maintenance or upkeep. That is being done by those who OWN the road.
The ISP you pay is for "access". Netflix is not paying to USE the pipeline. That is unless of course Netflix and the owner of the pipeline come to an agreement.
I can see you are not understanding the concept of private property and market based capitalism.
I will make this simple. Users of the pipeline are paying fees to the provider. The provider in return expects the users to buy their products. Now along comes a company which is in direct competition with the provider of those products. That compnay is also using the pipeline owned by the provider. It stands to reason the owner of said pipeline is going to take measures which will offer itself a competitive advantage. Or at least charge the competition a fee for use of the provider's property. I see nothing wrong with that. Now if netflix and similar companies wish to have the same conditions, they can invest in the the installation repair and maintenance of their OWN physical plant and of course charge fees for its use.
If you think all of this is unfair or undesirable, think of all the things the federal government does well, on time and within budget and get back to me.
You realize those lines are tax payer subsidized and they still get billions in government fees directly from every bill? Probably not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
There are other links in this thread concerning tax payer money for improvements that never come.
I love how some people talk about government intervention and say free market when in actuality it's more of a monopoly supported in part by tax payers. Monopoly that has agreements with local areas to prevent competition.
That is a free market?
They should pass the data directly to consumers. Comcast shouldn't be able to block competitor data or slow it down. That means they should be categorized as a utility just like 2002 and prior. Charge for data use but pass that data unhindered.
You asked for proof they were doing this, video evidence is in this thread. Try reading it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
There are other links in this thread concerning tax payer money for improvements that never come.
I love how some people talk about government intervention and say free market when in actuality it's more of a monopoly supported in part by tax payers. Monopoly that has agreements with local areas to prevent competition.
That is a free market?
They should pass the data directly to consumers. Comcast shouldn't be able to block competitor data or slow it down. That means they should be categorized as a utility just like 2002 and prior. Charge for data use but pass that data unhindered.
You asked for proof they were doing this, video evidence is in this thread. Try reading it.
To whom aRE YOU RE
Define "ridiculous"....
Is this a complaint?
Because if it is, I must ask a question...When did discovering an idea which becomes marketable and over time wildly popular and in turn makes the owners of said idea a hefty profit, become a bad thing?
Is there some kind of pact of "social consciousness" businesses must make with those who see profit as something obscene?
BTW, Google just cut a check for $100 million to help fund the fight against Ebola....
And those fees are collected from customers.
Those fees are an incentive to extend physical plant into far flung areas. Here's the rub. The fund will not cover anywhere NEAR the actual cost to do so.
Now, to answer your question...YES...It IS a free market. It is so because we are free to choose any one of several sources for our entertainment and information. Heck you can use the internet for free if you like.
There is hardly a library in at least suburban and urban areas in which you can free of charge or at least a nominal fee use the computers ANd internet connection. ASnd if you are not a a property owner, you don't pay for it.
Or with a lap top, you can go to hundreds of places and with the use of a VPN use the wifi connection to your heart's content.
This idea of deeming the internet as a public utility comes nowhere close to applying to modern technology.
Those rules which included the phone companies apply to technology which is an equivalent to stone knives and bearskins.
Should the federal government get its grubby paws on the internet, we will see little if any investment in expansion and new technology. A fine example is the fact that Verizon has all but stopped expanding their FiOS footprint.
No one will actually come out and state this in public, and this is just a conclusion I have come to based on the evidence, that Verizon's management has been concerned with the institution of government controls. Controls which Verizon managers know will make it difficult for the company to see a positive ROI.
- Status
