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?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Pledges Commitment to Open Internet Following FCC Vote to Repeal Net Neutrality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
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.
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.
So the wolf is saying they have no intention of eating the chickens, so no need to build a fence.
Riiighhht....
Riiighhht....
And in other news, I have oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.....really this is just about the same.
[doublepost=1516830723][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1516830723][/doublepost]
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, 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.
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
). 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.
I have a t-shirt that says, "If you say 'GULLIBLE' slowly enough, it sounds like ORANGES."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.