You need to look up the definition of "net neutrality". Nothing you said has anything to do with it.
Edit: after reading more posts, you aren't the only one.
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 Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Regulations for Wireless Industry
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Edit: after reading more posts, you aren't the only one.
Well..I think more of us would be more willing to accept the tier model if they had more tiers than just 1) almost nothing & 2) "unlimited".
AT&T does this with the text messaging tiers they offer, surely there is another tier they could somehow just manage to squeeze in between 200 & 1500 messages a month? Whats wrong with offering a tier for 1000? Oh thats right, it is better for them to get an extra $5 a month for a limit you can never reach than to offer a nice middle ground which allows your customers to not over pay for the service.
Comcast has their unlimited cable internet downloads capped at 250GB a month, which for me isn't really a big deal as I would be amazed if I got up anywhere near 50GB in any month. But that being said, I am sure some people who do lots of streaming movies via netflix and the like might have more to be concerned about.
If AT&T wanted to argue against net neutrality for phone voice call data on wireless frequencies originally intended for that, I'd understand that position.
http://methoo.com
http://methoo.com
I couldn't agree more. It should be said that all, let me reiterate: ALL job growth is happening in small and medium sized businesses. LOL... The place where there is actual competition, i might add!!
NoExpectations said:
It should never have gotten to this point. The point where it is so damn expensive to have competition. That's one power of money. It spreads, it consolidates. It gains control at your loss.
NoExpectations said:
Let them raise prices. I highly doubt they'd really be able to raise prices if there were real competition in the market. We've mandated competition in the past. We broke up AT&T once. Why not again? LOL. I just realized how funny it is that we let it happen a second time! Besides that, you're really saying that greed and money should be able to control the government... that corporations should be able to control our government.
Ask not what your government can do for you... but what "your" government can do for the corporation.
Just FYI, I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a Republicrat. I am American. I believe in a competitive and well functioning economy and a strong democracy among people [both Democrats, Republicans, and all else] (not corporations). We have neither right now thanks to the Republicrats.
If you get 5GB of data per month, you should be able to do anything you want with it. 5GB of data is 5GB of data.
If they now say they can't really offer 5GB, then they should advertise how much users really can use or charge differently for different sized data packages.
That's how we do it here in Australia.
If they now say they can't really offer 5GB, then they should advertise how much users really can use or charge differently for different sized data packages.
That's how we do it here in Australia.
Just an observation...
People in FAVOR of AT&T's stance: Here are the facts why it makes sense, and some science for you to digest.
People OPPOSED to AT&T's stance: WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (with a couple exceptions).
A couple things that bug me about about the non well-reasoned arguments...
1. AT&T does take in a lot of revenue, but it is not THAT much considering. They made what 6 or 7 billion dollars that year? But that is out of 150-160 billion in actual revenue. That is like 3-4% overhead. That is not much. They are accountable to shareholders, not geek fantasies about the many uses of broadband.
2. Current technology simply is not there to let people go wild (jav6454 does a good job pointing this out with some simple science).
3. A lot of people complaining about AT&T's stance are probably also complaining about AT&T's crappy service. You can't have both. It WOULD be nice, but right now you can't, and just wanting something is not enough to base a well reasoned argument on unfortunately.
4. Don't say "prove it" to someone when you yourself are offering no facts to support your argument that don't start with "I think".
5. Verizon having two bands for voice and data means you can use ONLY ONE at once. You are on the phone, DATA is OFF. This may change in the future, but honestly it will be awhile.
6. If you can't see the difference between a wired and a wireless network, you are an idiot.
When LTE is around I will change my tone, because that is a beast of a new kind. But that is in awhile, when it is out of its infancy...and people are actually connecting at home via router, etc. Right now, I want AT&T to improve their performance, and I understand they don't have an unlimited amount of money to pour into it. They are pouring more into their network over the next year than any other carrier (to my knowledge)...so here is to hoping things get better...and the FCC does not start pooping all over the place...at least not until it is a realistic possiblity.
People in FAVOR of AT&T's stance: Here are the facts why it makes sense, and some science for you to digest.
People OPPOSED to AT&T's stance: WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (with a couple exceptions).
A couple things that bug me about about the non well-reasoned arguments...
1. AT&T does take in a lot of revenue, but it is not THAT much considering. They made what 6 or 7 billion dollars that year? But that is out of 150-160 billion in actual revenue. That is like 3-4% overhead. That is not much. They are accountable to shareholders, not geek fantasies about the many uses of broadband.
2. Current technology simply is not there to let people go wild (jav6454 does a good job pointing this out with some simple science).
3. A lot of people complaining about AT&T's stance are probably also complaining about AT&T's crappy service. You can't have both. It WOULD be nice, but right now you can't, and just wanting something is not enough to base a well reasoned argument on unfortunately.
4. Don't say "prove it" to someone when you yourself are offering no facts to support your argument that don't start with "I think".
5. Verizon having two bands for voice and data means you can use ONLY ONE at once. You are on the phone, DATA is OFF. This may change in the future, but honestly it will be awhile.
6. If you can't see the difference between a wired and a wireless network, you are an idiot.
When LTE is around I will change my tone, because that is a beast of a new kind. But that is in awhile, when it is out of its infancy...and people are actually connecting at home via router, etc. Right now, I want AT&T to improve their performance, and I understand they don't have an unlimited amount of money to pour into it. They are pouring more into their network over the next year than any other carrier (to my knowledge)...so here is to hoping things get better...and the FCC does not start pooping all over the place...at least not until it is a realistic possiblity.
Yup, i'll bet they get CHEAPER.
Im just figuring that between Moores law driving down the price of equipment, and the increased capacity and speeds available, it *might* be possible to get a fair deal.
Sprint is offerring Clearwires WiMAX service plus 5GB of data on their 3G network for only $79.99, which is $20 more than just 3G. From what I understand, LTE is even cheaper to deploy and offers better capacity & speed, so, theres at least a tiny chance.
well i can see AT&T's point. but i still think they need to work on expanding their network and bandwidth
From http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T&fstype=ii
During a quarter (3 year period to you nonfinancials)
Revenue: approx 30b
Net Income: approx 3b
that's more like 10%. also, revenues are 120b and profit is 12b over the course of the year. you're speaking of 'facts', but I don't see where you're getting yours.
EDIT: I'd like to specify that real economic profit is calculated in the difference between the company's profit and regular market return. if you had a billion dollars, would you invest in a market that returns 6% a year, or in a company that returns 10%? So that opportunity cost is calculated by taking the difference. Your economic profit would be 4%. If a company starts returning under market, then there's no reason for people to invest in it. AT&T is doing just fine, and are doing fine by their shareholders, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, many are not "happy" with anything unless they get it for free.
AT&T and Apple are corporations they answer to their stockholders. They cannot possibly make every customer happy with each product and pricing strategy.
I happen to be both a customer and a stockholder of AT&T and Apple so perhaps I have a different perspective.
If each market only has so many blocks of frequency, as mandated by the FCC, there can only be that many local competitors.
In my area, we have the following carriers. As I understand it, no new carrier can enter the area, unless they share the frequency with one of the existing ones.
on the two 850mhz bands:
Verizon
(used to be Alltel, but since they merged with VZW, not sure -- the FCC made Alltel give up some bands in some markets)
on the five 1900mhz bands:
AT&T
T-Mobile
Sprint
nTelos (Frawg)
Nextel
on the future 700mhz bands:
AT&T
Cox
Frontier Wireless
http://www.wirelessadvisor.com/ is a cool website if you want to see for sure which carrier is using which band in your area.
Your's is the argument that is not well-reasoned.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with network and bandwidth management, and you seem to be missing that point.
There is nothing in the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality rules that would keep AT&T from managing the bandwidth on their own network.
Would it would do is keep them from blocking traffic based on the type of traffic, i.e. it can't block access to google while allowing msn. AT&T would remain free to throttle back a user's bandwidth if they have exceeded quota or bandwidth cap.
Why is it , every time I hear ANYTHING about AT&T it is something lame.
These guys just seem to think " any publicity is good publicity "
I REALLY hope Apple chooses another company for that fabled Tablet
These guys just seem to think " any publicity is good publicity "
I REALLY hope Apple chooses another company for that fabled Tablet
Or as much as their profits allow. Funny, Apple didn't falter when their stock price was cut in half last year. They didn't complain that they couldn't produce more Macs and iPhones because the stockholders weren't helping them out.
Richard, you're the one who has no idea what they're talking about by throwing out labels like "socialist." That's been a popular and misinformed term used excessively instead of the term "rules." Have some more GOP-ade. Mmmm. While you're at it, go have a conversation with your friends and family from eastern Europe and then come talk to me about socialism.
Finally someone who understands net neutrality. You are correct that it isn't about bandwidth, but about traffic. For example, it would prevent a powerhouse like Google from paying AT&T for a higher QoS over some other competitor. That's all. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, just that the bandwidth you're allotted you can do anything with.
See, the big ISP providers are all chomping at the bit to force companies like Google to pay twice. When you go to Google they want you to pay for your bandwidth, then Google to pay for YOUR bandwidth, and then Google to pay for the its bandwidth.
You can't be serious?!?! Do you even own any Apple Stock? Do you know how this works?
LOL! You're done. Adios. Get educated on your own nickel my friend.
Interesting how you loons immediately deduce somebody is a Republican when they don't agree with you. I've voted the Dem ticket since '75.
Hope you see this before the mod that's been stalking me deletes it. He/she seems to side with you as nobody else's posts get deleted.
So, how do you know that I don't know a thing about the technology? If you're going to try and insult me, you could at least have some data to prove me wrong.
How about we start with Actors/Actresses and or Professional Athletes first? They make a LOT more money than executives. I mean business executives are only ensuring the production and profitability (for reinvestment and for shareholders) of what have been deemed to be essential services anymore (wired, wireless, or even that evil gas). What are professionals doing between gigs and games doing? What are they doing while at "work"? Most "luck" into their profession versus executives that have the bills to prove all the education and credentials to get to running a business. It can be argued that the games aren't that good and everyone was complaining at the Emmy's that general ratings are down. Give me a break it's "always" the evil executives. Hippie.
You guys are looking at ALL of this all wrong. This was talked about a handful of years ago as a means for ISPs to beef up infrastructure on the backs of taxpayers. Hello...The "Federal" in FCC only means here comes the regulation which will translate into more tax at the front and back end. You've heard the talk......They will be too big to fail and the only reason they will be "failing" is because of all the "regulation" to be "fair".
Sing it with me.....Here comes some more tax hikes...oh yeah....Here they come along with an increase in price points of products and services.....oh yeah.
Net Neutrality and wireless?
I agree with the poster, below, as far as his assertion that wireless bandwidth is fairly limited. A given carrier is only assigned a little sliver of the radio spectrum to broadcast on - so they have to do as much as possible within that limitation.
Really, this is why wi-fi technologies have sprouted up everywhere. If cellular data bandwidth for a carrier was effectively "unlimited", you can be sure people would rather just use it instead. It'd avoid issues like needing a signal booster for a Linksys router at home that "can't send a good signal to the machines in the basement", etc.
I've heard several people in the cellular industry explain, repeatedly, that they view cellular data services as more of an "extender" for your wired Internet connections, which make up the "bread and butter" of connectivity.
I'm not saying this to defend AT&T's poor signal quality or lack of infrastructure. I think we all know that they're "near the bottom of the barrel" in those areas. And yes, it's bad business for them to limit the use of applications on phones that all the other big carriers allow! But the whole "net neutrality" issue really came about to stop big ISPs from playing favorites with packets. It's not (currently, at least) so relevant for wireless providers, except maybe satellite broadband providers, who generally charge based on usage above a pre-paid monthly "cap" or "package" anyway.
I agree with the poster, below, as far as his assertion that wireless bandwidth is fairly limited. A given carrier is only assigned a little sliver of the radio spectrum to broadcast on - so they have to do as much as possible within that limitation.
Really, this is why wi-fi technologies have sprouted up everywhere. If cellular data bandwidth for a carrier was effectively "unlimited", you can be sure people would rather just use it instead. It'd avoid issues like needing a signal booster for a Linksys router at home that "can't send a good signal to the machines in the basement", etc.
I've heard several people in the cellular industry explain, repeatedly, that they view cellular data services as more of an "extender" for your wired Internet connections, which make up the "bread and butter" of connectivity.
I'm not saying this to defend AT&T's poor signal quality or lack of infrastructure. I think we all know that they're "near the bottom of the barrel" in those areas. And yes, it's bad business for them to limit the use of applications on phones that all the other big carriers allow! But the whole "net neutrality" issue really came about to stop big ISPs from playing favorites with packets. It's not (currently, at least) so relevant for wireless providers, except maybe satellite broadband providers, who generally charge based on usage above a pre-paid monthly "cap" or "package" anyway.
As a point of reference, AT&T spent $38 billion dollars in service enhancements in 2007 and 2008, and plans on spending $17-$18 billion dollars in 2009. Billions, with a b. And their network STILL has major issues handling *current* traffic loads (in some areas).
The CEO of the wireless part of AT&T makes $6.1 million a year (total compensation).
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=T.N&officerId=1056809
What's amazing to me is that if you figure the average iPhone customer pays AT&T $100/month, the $18 billion that AT&T is spending for 2009 upgrades represents every penny that they will collect from 15 million iPhone customers (in 2009). I don't even think that they have 15 million iPhone customers?!
I wonder if AT&T knew that when they agreed to the iPhone, that virtually all of the money would be funneled into network upgrades? I don't see at all where they are profiting on this deal, unless they'd be paying out of pocket for these network upgrades that the iPhone customers seem to be bankrolling for them?