Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,483
16,564


CNET reports that AT&T and other wireless carriers and wireless trade associations are expressing concern over recent comments from U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski regarding his support for "Net neutrality", fearing that the current focus on wired Internet service will be expanded to included wireless networks.

The principles of Net neutrality include the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not be allowed to prevent users from accessing any particular sort of Internet content on their systems, although certain "network management" practices, which must be made public, can be employed. While wired ISPs have agreed to such regulations, wireless ISPs have expressed serious concerns over the effect such regulation could have on the limited spectrum available for wireless data transmission.
"AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. "We were also early supporters of the FCC's current four broadband principles and their case-by-case application to wired networks."

But Cicconi went on to say that the principles and new legislation should not apply to the wireless market.

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," he said.

He argues that wireless networks differ from wireline broadband networks because bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network. And he said that imposing new rules on how carriers operate their wireless networks would stifle investment.
AT&T has in the past expressed concern over the burden certain Internet content could place on its cellular network, and in fact cited those concerns in noting its role in the decision to keep video streaming on the high-profile SlingPlayer Mobile iPhone application limited to Wi-Fi-only. AT&T also received some scrutiny after Apple rejected an official Google Voice iPhone application, although the company has denied in a statement to the FCC that it was even consulted during the approval process for the application.

Article Link: AT&T Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Regulations for Wireless Industry
 

themoonisdown09

macrumors 601
Nov 19, 2007
4,319
15
Georgia, USA
I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.
 

flpatriot

macrumors newbie
Mar 19, 2009
11
0
Fargo, North Dakota
competition, eh?

If, as AT&T claims, wireless services are *so* competitive in the US, then why are mobile broadband prices *exactly the same* on all major carriers? It doesn’t matter if you go to AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or, Verizon; the top-tier data plan is $59.99/month for 5GB of data. IIRC, Sprint *used* to offer 'unlimited' with no fine print, but they went to 'unlimited'/5GB within the past few years. That just seems a little too coincidental.

Let’s just hope these same ridiculous prices don’t affect LTE & WiMAX, too.
 

ouimetnick

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2008
3,321
5,253
Beverly, Massachusetts
Just give is sling player over the cellular network. Also give us skype over the cellular data network. AT&T needs to invest more cash in their network, and so does everybody else. They should be as strong as the wired networks.
 

RangerXML

macrumors regular
Jul 4, 2009
151
30
Screw wireless, this would force them to actually update their networks.

On the other hand, they could be real jerks and let networks slow to a crawl and then just sit on their hands and beg the gov't for money and blame the FCC.
 

DipDog3

macrumors 65816
Sep 20, 2002
1,190
691
I am sure they did.

AT&T just wants to walk the fine line of squeezing every last penny out of customers while providing as little service as possible.
 

zombitronic

macrumors 65816
Feb 9, 2007
1,117
8
How much would it cost the wireless carriers to enhance their infrastructure?

How much do a few execs at these companies make each year?
 

RazHyena

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2009
538
0
USA
What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

What makes you think otherwise?

Enlighten us, oh wise one. :rolleyes:
 

kryptonianjorel

macrumors 6502
Jul 3, 2009
373
0
These rules need to apply to all ISPs regardless of their medium. It is absolutely outrageous the prices that wireless providers charge for their mediocre service.

Without government mandates, whats the point of upgrading the network and actually innovating? The big 4 carriers all charge the same for their data packages, and limit to 5 GB a month for $60! Why improve if your rivals aren't? Sure, LTE and WiMax are coming, but they're years away (a decade or more for "nation-wide" coverage), and the speeds and connections will all be comparable to the competitors, and will cost the same.

No new start-up company can come around them and try to offer something new and better, because it costs billions upon billions to build an infrastructure, let alone buy the wireless airwaves. You can't have a free market in this situation, and therefore free market rules can not apply, and the big 4 must be held to the neutrality standards
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

well given the fact that calls seem to be dropping more often in areas with huge number of iPhones in it seem to give way to that fact. Not areas that have had population growth but just smart phone users gives way to that fact.

Or the fact that if you read though some articles you have AT&T saying some of the things they are being forced to do is take bandwith away from voice to data/Texting then back the other way to keep up with demand.

The next thing is the fact that 4G voice since everything over data like internet is that as well.

I agree with ATT on wireless should not be forced the same way. The current system is already stuggling across the board keep up with data demand much less growth in it.

Best place to see this in effect is go to college campuses. They have largest number of new smart phones with out change in the population. Call drops are becoming an issue there.
 

jbellanca

macrumors 6502
Jul 2, 2007
431
121
Wow, there's a shock. AT&T's against wireless net neutrality. Never saw that coming. (Just a bit of sarcasm there.)
 

jav6454

macrumors P6
Nov 14, 2007
17,199
2,241
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Do any of you know the dynamics of a wireless spectrum to be even talking and saying "screw AT&T's wireless"?

Believe me when I tell you, waves in the wireless sector IS NOT UNLIMITED. You will eventually run out of 850MHz connections by trying to cram as many data or voice transfers as possible. So, even though the infrastructure might support it in theory, in real world, it wouldn't work, plain and simple. (not unless you know how to send super fast data in 1 Hertz frequencies instead of 2-10 KHertz frequencies)

In this case, I have to agree with AT&T. Oh, and if you are wondering, simple, Physics and Electric Engineering goes a long way in these things.
 

infiniteentropy

macrumors regular
Sep 9, 2009
197
434
AT&T has to look after their shareholders' best interests, so this is of course going to be their position. Voip over their data network in something like the iPhone has to be pretty scary, especially given things like voipstunt offering unlimited free calls up to one minute long (accessible via Fring on the iPhone).

They should spend less time and money fretting over the inevitable and lobbying to make congress-critters vote their way, and should be building their networks stronger and expanding them. The problem is that the USA is a very big landmass so covering it completely is going to be prohibitive cost-wise. I live about a half hour outside a major metro area and I'm stuck on EDGE and unable to get any broadband except satellite coverage. They could very quickly blanket semi-metro areas with high-speed wireless (there are towers aplenty where I'm at) and chow down all the low-hanging fruit (money) as people would flock to them in droves.

<troll>But then again, I'm sure the execs have more yachts to buy, and can't be bothered spending money expanding and perfecting the network that brings them so much money...</troll> :rolleyes:
 

Fluffy Bunny

macrumors regular
Jul 15, 2007
109
0
All AT&T needs to do, along with all the other wireless carriers, is stop all flat rate data plans and start charging per MB. It's not rocket science.
 

JAT

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2001
6,473
124
Mpls, MN
What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

Wait, I thought the government was "the system". So, they are the rebels, now?

Wonder what the "truth" will be tomorrow.
 

maxijazz

macrumors newbie
Apr 30, 2009
17
0
"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," he said.

He argues that wireless networks differ from wireline broadband networks because bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network. And he said that imposing new rules on how carriers operate their wireless networks would stifle investment.

I don't see connection between competitiveness and net neutrality.
Perhaps we should allow slavery in competitive markets (i.e automakers industry)?
I don't see how bandwidth limits relate to neutrality too.
I don't remember any censorship in past when internet was dialed-in.

The bandwidth throttling and filtering is supposed to stifle competition as it is easier/cheaper to apply one filter more then upgrade router or tower's appliance.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,847
632
Redondo Beach, California
I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.

You are right. So what they can do is limit the per connection bandwidth and prioritize voice over other protocols. Those things would be allowed if they were made public.

They could rig it so that video streaming packets would go out on the air only after a phone call was allowed to "jump the queue".

But what AT&T really wants to the ability to limit (prohibit) you from using a competive service. They want to be the ONLY ones allowed to sell you content on their network.

Who provides the content is the key here. the concept of nuetrality maens AT&T sells only bandwidth (managed with a public prioritization system). They want more, they want to sell content too and lock outers out from selling it.
 

jav6454

macrumors P6
Nov 14, 2007
17,199
2,241
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
I don't see connection between competitiveness and net neutrality.
Perhaps we should allow slavery in competitive markets (i.e automakers industry)?
I don't see how bandwidth limits relate to neutrality too.
I don't remember any censorship in past when internet was dialed-in.

The bandwidth throttling and filtering is supposed to stifle competition as it is easier/cheaper to apply one filter more then upgrade router or tower's appliance.

Airwaves are not unlimited and can x amount of high bandwidth connections. If they allow any traffic, airwaves would be eaten as if they were M&Ms in a theatre....

You are right. So what they can do is limit the per connection bandwidth and prioritize voice over other protocols. Those things would be allowed if they were made public.

They could rig it so that video streaming packets would go out on the air only after a phone call was allowed to "jump the queue".

But what AT&T really wants to the ability to limit (prohibit) you from using a competive service. They want to be the ONLY ones allowed to sell you content on their network.

Who provides the content is the key here. the concept of nuetrality maens AT&T sells only bandwidth (managed with a public prioritization system). They want more, they want to sell content too and lock outers out from selling it.

This can't be. You are stating:

AT&T says other's services will bug down the network because of x thing (Sling Player). OK
AT&T starts offering what they said was going bug down the network (Sling Player) OK

FCC says, you just said there wasn't enough bandwidth for X, why are you offering X named as Y?. Not OK.

So you see, AT&T isn't being anti-competitive, they are protecting voice and data protocols over their wireless networks.
 

hob

macrumors 68010
Oct 4, 2003
2,004
0
London, UK
What happened to the rumoured plans of Google buying up the old Analogue TV spectrum to use for nationwide wireless internet?
 

jav6454

macrumors P6
Nov 14, 2007
17,199
2,241
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
What happened to the rumoured plans of Google buying up the old Analogue TV spectrum to use for nationwide wireless internet?

Edit

Google tried to bid, but was truncated by Verizon. Google was after Block C

Block Big winner Total spent (approximate, across all blocks)

A
No clear winner

B
AT&T $6,636,658,000

C
Verizon Wireless $9,363,160,000
D
Qualcomm $472,042,000 (did not meet reserve)

E
Frontier Wireless $711,871,000
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.