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

[eastcoastsurfer]

Please understand what Net Neutrality Is!

Go here and read first before making anymore comments.

Some key quotes:

<blockquote>
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
</blockquote>

Read that over and over until you understand it. It has nothing to do with forcing companies to increase infrastructure or anything else. All it says is that if you pay for a connection and someone else pays for a connection how you interact over that connection is none of the ISPs business.

ISPs are generally against net neutrality because they look at a company like Google and their profits and they want some of it. They think by forcing Google to pay them for a higher QoS they can skim from Google. The problem is that Google can and would pay, and that shuts out any other start up search engines. If Google had entered the world in that environment they would never have become what they were because MSN, Yahoo, etc... would have already been paying the extortion tax to the ISPs to get preferential traffic treatment.

IMHO, anyone who is against net neutrality either doesn't understand what it is (most people in this thread) or has a financial interests in skimming off the likes of Google, Hulu, etc...

 

[CharBroiled20s]

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're foolish to think that this extension applies only to the mobile phone arena.

In fact, this legislation extends the same basic freedom to browse EVERY site at equal speed with equal availability to end users connected by satellite uplinks, WiMAX connections, cellular internet connections and whatever else becomes available 20 years from now. People connected through wireless networks are not afforded the same rights that wired users take for granted.

This legislation is necessary to ensure the continued availability of all websites - not just the sites AT&T deems profitable on their network (or anyone's network for that matter). Internet content ambiguity is of paramount importance here - not the quality (or lack there of) of AT&T's network.

This legislation is broad; just as legislation should be. It does not single out any specific technology and thus protects the whole.

All users are afforded the same level of protection when "fair play" legislation like this is passed. Wireless carriers would be subject to the same fair use and availability laws as wired ISP's. This isn't a matter of the wireless companies being singled out or their networks compromised! It's simply an inclusion of wireless carriers in the existing law.

AT&T seems to fear legislation that prohibits them from limiting the speed or availability of sites that directly compete with their offerings in the wireless arena. HUGE SHOCK! It also prohibits AT&T from playing favorites with companies paying them for the privilege of reaching their user base. This is not a bad thing.

Fair availability of all internet sites is not a privilege, it is an expectation and legislation confirming that expectation is not bad, anti-competitive or network crippling.

You shouldn't limit your view to any one sector of business when the legislation affects all forms of wireless technologies equally for ANY company that employs wireless internet content.

Most reasonable people see this as a step forward... Why do you oppose again?

 

[CharBroiled20s]

Damn Right!

Go here and read first before making anymore comments.

Some key quotes:

<blockquote>
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
</blockquote>

Read that over and over until you understand it. It has nothing to do with forcing companies to increase infrastructure or anything else. All it says is that if you pay for a connection and someone else pays for a connection how you interact over that connection is none of the ISPs business.

ISPs are generally against net neutrality because they look at a company like Google and their profits and they want some of it. They think by forcing Google to pay them for a higher QoS they can skim from Google. The problem is that Google can and would pay, and that shuts out any other start up search engines. If Google had entered the world in that environment they would never have become what they were because MSN, Yahoo, etc... would have already been paying the extortion tax to the ISPs to get preferential traffic treatment.

IMHO, anyone who is against net neutrality either doesn't understand what it is (most people in this thread) or has a financial interests in skimming off the likes of Google, Hulu, etc...

YOU'RE EXACTLY, COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY DEAD ON.

ANYONE ARGUING AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY IS ARGUING SOLELY FOR THEIR PROFIT MARGIN.

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

 

[CharBroiled20s]

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.

AT&T says 5gb is unlimited (I think) because they couldn't offer 5gb to anyone in a billing cycle... So it really is unlimited... because 5gb is a pipe dream... a crack pipe dream...

HEHEHEE....

 

[SeaFox]

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

The cellphone industry doesn't care anything about providing good voice service. The fact most cell phones do a poor job of making phone calls (from a sound quality and reception standpoint) and that AT&T doesn't already prioritize voice packets on their network (otherwise you wouldn't have these issues making calls in high smartphone usage areas) is proof enough of that.

Their revenue plan continues to be one of charging people for stuff that is essentially free for them to provide (texting), charge people for access to stuff that is free on the Net (access to streaming media), and charge people for upgrading their phone (bull**** "activation fees" on GSM handset upgrades, upgrade fees + contract extensions on new phones).