Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You’re not forced to do business with AT&T. You’re free to conduct business with Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Virgin, Cricket, Boost Mobile, or any other wireless carrier.

i don’t have a choice. google gave up bringing fiber to my area because of relentless legal action by at&t. there is no competition here. i have the luxury of having a choice with carriers, but some places aren’t that fortunate
 
People and companies do evolve over time and let’s also look at as far as myself as a Consumer if I don’t like the crap that a company is giving me then I can go elsewhere.

So if there are folks still upset over the FaceTime mobile share stuff then why even switch to a mobile share plan? Port your numbers out to a carrier that doesn’t have such a requirement.

However if you choose to put up with it then you put up with it.

Let’s not act like the other carriers are innocent either then. Also there are two masters a company have to serve its customers and it’s shareholders.

So consumer friendly and shareholder return rarely mix and that is where horns are locked.

Get your story straight. You can't both argue that competition is alive and well so "just choose another option", and at the same time say that there aren't that many other options and those are also bad.
 
Has the sky not fallen yet? I thought we'd all be paying per web site or something now, wasn't that the FUD going around?

These are big companies, used to moving slowly. They will raise the temperature gradually until most people don't realize that they're boiling. It starts with zero-rating in-house (or partner) services anti-competitively--or charging competitor services for access to their network--or replacing not-found DNS-searches with sh!tty portal results--or spying on your traffic and selling that data to advertisers. We haven't seen how far the public will let it go before there are political consequences.
 
Well AT&T is the only cell carrier I haven't seen attacking net neutrality. Meanwhile Verizon and T-Mobile have been doing it blatantly with video sites, even when the law was in place.
 
And in other news, I have oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.....really this is just about the same.
[doublepost=1516830723][/doublepost]
You’re not forced to do business with AT&T. You’re free to conduct business with Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Virgin, Cricket, Boost Mobile, or any other wireless carrier. The government changes and every 4-8 years (yes it can stay blue or red longer but in recent memory it is more or less back and forth). We all obviously didn’t vote for the same candidate-so why should any of us be forced to toe the line? Or in other words why should every facet of my life be flipped depending on “who’s in power”? A more educated and free populace is more important than just being ignorant, controlled and regulated. If any company wants to hold itself to the net neutrality standards or similarly the Paris Accord, good for them. Use that as a selling/marketing point. Feel free to educate and persuade as opposed to force and ignorance.

For all the hate already in this thread-see if AT&T lives up to it, if they do great, if not you have several other carriers to vote with your wallet.
You do understand that this is about the ISP end right? And in many places you get the choice of AT&T or nothing. Sorry, but until that is resolved, this will continue to be a problem.
 
i don’t have a choice. google gave up bringing fiber to my area because of relentless legal action by at&t. there is no competition here. i have the luxury of having a choice with carriers, but some places aren’t that fortunate

You do understand that this is about the ISP end right? And in many places you get the choice of AT&T or nothing. Sorry, but until that is resolved, this will continue to be a problem.

Would net neutrality change that scenario? Would google fiber sprout up all over? Take over Comcast, and other big ISP’s? Did any of that happen when net neutrality was being enforced?

Net neutrality wasn’t designed to solve the issues you are both describing.
 
Yes, he agrees with an open internet. You'll just have to pay to get faster access. Still 'open' though.
Yes, open for some and even more open for others. No reason to waste our time scrutinizing the “minimal” differences because AT&T will have our back...kinda.;)
 
These are big companies, used to moving slowly. They will raise the temperature gradually until most people don't realize that they're boiling. It starts with zero-rating in-house (or partner) services anti-competitively--or charging competitor services for access to their network--or replacing not-found DNS-searches with sh!tty portal results--or spying on your traffic and selling that data to advertisers. We haven't seen how far the public will let it go before there are political consequences.

Throwing the whole kitchen sink in there aren't you? Far cry from the predictions being tossed around prior to reversal and some of those have zero to do with net neutrality at all.

I was told I'd be paying for each site I want to visit. I'm still waiting, and I expect I'll be waiting forever.

I've said it before and I'll say it again now, I'm willing to wager anyone that no national US telecom company will offer plans in which you have to subscribe to a specific named web site (e.g. pay $5 over your standard rate plan or you can't access Facebook) in the next two years (I'd go ten years but at some point I want to collect from those of you spreading the FUD :p ). We're all doomed from the reversal of net neutrality so here's your chance to make easy money as the world burns, right? Any takers?

edit: to keep this on the up and up the wager will be for a donation to the charity of the winner's choice.
 
Would net neutrality change that scenario? Would google fiber sprout up all over? Take over Comcast, and other big ISP’s? Did any of that happen when net neutrality was being enforced?

Net neutrality wasn’t designed to solve the issues you are both describing.

if at&t has no competition, then there’s no reason for them to not be abusive. i can’t just “take my business elsewhere” without uprooting my life and moving, now can i?
 
You’re not forced to do business with AT&T. You’re free to conduct business with Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Virgin, Cricket, Boost Mobile, or any other wireless carrier. The government changes and every 4-8 years (yes it can stay blue or red longer but in recent memory it is more or less back and forth). We all obviously didn’t vote for the same candidate-so why should any of us be forced to toe the line? Or in other words why should every facet of my life be flipped depending on “who’s in power”? A more educated and free populace is more important than just being ignorant, controlled and regulated. If any company wants to hold itself to the net neutrality standards or similarly the Paris Accord, good for them. Use that as a selling/marketing point. Feel free to educate and persuade as opposed to force and ignorance.

For all the hate already in this thread-see if AT&T lives up to it, if they do great, if not you have several other carriers to vote with your wallet.

The problem you have here, which everyone is already pointing out, is that you are assuming that this is only fir wireless service. You aren't taking into account any broadband or home service. You're not taking into account the services offered by Comcast, Charter, Frontier, Cox, or Time Warner. They all come into play with regards to NN, especially with any broadband service coming into your house. Nearly all of them are against NN when it comes to broadband into someone's home, and until that changes, what everyone else is saying stands.

Right now, I'm stuck with the lesser of all of the evils with ATT; I won't go to Comcast because of how much they are against NN, I'm not in the next biggest town (bay area) to get TW, and Google stopped with Google Fiber. If we move to where we would like to move, our only choice would be Comcast, which sucks worse, because Google Fiber had been planning to start service in that town.

I'm going to act like the motto of the State of Missouri when it comes to this: Show-Me. ATT, I'll believe it when I see it.

BL.
 
Would net neutrality change that scenario? Would google fiber sprout up all over? Take over Comcast, and other big ISP’s? Did any of that happen when net neutrality was being enforced?

Net neutrality wasn’t designed to solve the issues you are both describing.

No, it was designed to protect consumers from corporations who take advantage of our reliance on the internet. They want to control it because broadcast tv is dying. Who's to say that ISP's won't block or censor smaller ISP's trying to give people more choices? They have the freedom to do it now. You're trying to optimistic about something that has literally no benefit to us as consumers.
 
Well AT&T is the only cell carrier I haven't seen attacking net neutrality. Meanwhile Verizon and T-Mobile have been doing it blatantly with video sites, even when the law was in place.
That is actually not a violation of net neutrality, so long as they allow ANY service that is willing to meet their terms to be a part of it and so long as the terms are the same for all companies.

What net neutrality prohibits is saying Company X must pay $10 per GB of data streamed while Company Y must pay $30 per GB.

They can say that video/music/etc. won't count against a data cap, again as long as the rules are applied uniformly to all.
 
That is actually not a violation of net neutrality, so long as they allow ANY service that is willing to meet their terms to be a part of it and so long as the terms are the same for all companies.

What net neutrality prohibits is saying Company X must pay $10 per GB of data streamed while Company Y must pay $30 per GB.

They can say that video/music/etc. won't count against a data cap, again as long as the rules are applied uniformly to all.

And conversely, what Net Neutrality prohibits is saying Company X must pay $10 per GB of data streamed, but if Company X's customer goes to a particular site, Company X charges that customer $30 to access that site in addition to the $10 per GB they are already charging the customer, otherwise they throttle their customer's pipe to that particular site.

BL.
 
That is actually not a violation of net neutrality, so long as they allow ANY service that is willing to meet their terms to be a part of it and so long as the terms are the same for all companies.

What net neutrality prohibits is saying Company X must pay $10 per GB of data streamed while Company Y must pay $30 per GB.

They can say that video/music/etc. won't count against a data cap, again as long as the rules are applied uniformly to all.
It's not all video. With T-Mobile, it was specific sites like YouTube that got the special deal. With Verizon, same but with throttling.
 
I have a t-shirt that says, "If you say 'GULLIBLE' slowly enough, it sounds like ORANGES."
I am no expert in colors, but I believe it would sound like "I'm Peach"

All right, I kid, I kid.

Back on topic.
AT&T's DirecTV ads are constantly lying about how their customer satisfaction rate is good...So, can they be trusted?
 
So the wolf is saying they have no intention of eating the chickens, so no need to build a fence.

Riiighhht....
According to the article, it appears the wolf is saying they have no intention of eating the chickens, but you still need to build a fence cause there are other wolves out there who might not be as friendly.
 
No, it will stay that way, period. All you are describing is a different kind of tyranny of the majority.

Read your Spooner, read your de Tocqueville.

Well, a tyranny of the majority is better than a tyranny of the minority, and I have faith in check and balances in the US to prevent a full-blown tyranny. I guess that I am just shocked that so many people don't vote or do vote, but do not attempt to come to grips with the issues. I do wish there was a 'no confidence' option on US ballots that would trigger another ballot before anybody could be elected, and would preclude all those listed on the original ballot from running again on the second one.
 
So many liars in this society have been afforded a great deal of privacy of their actions in the past due to peoples limited collective memory and not handing down knowledge generation to generation and the internet gives them no place to hide from their history. I look forward to the day where these data miners, public liars and ne'er do wells are held accountable in a public forum for their actions.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.