Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Oct 20, 2009.
So AT&T is asking their friends and family to ? I wonder what would happen if they refused?
=http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/1...to_oppose_net_neutralityoppose net neutrality
volunteer editor on duty mr. steve sir.
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10...to_oppose_net_neutralityoppose net neutrality
lol.... oh i am terrible at this job. i quit.
ok, serious. going to stop after this one. i think i got it after 3 attempts though. damn i suck.
the links aren't working, is this the original article?
AT&T has a point though, so long as its not coercion in any way and you think it will be good for the consumer, um wait, oh, bad for your business model then they should be able try and rally them.
I'd refuse, probably quietly
just send notify the organization they are talking about and ask for the opposite. i've done that most times I'm encouraged to do something screwed up by a major telecom company not called at&t.
I would send an email supporting and CC AT&T
I want QOS, I want guaranteed bandwidth for VOIP, business and government traffic.
I also don't want exclusionary practices, stagnation, and niche monopolies to be encouraged.
I lose however the net neutrality situation turns out.
I would be oppose to net neutrality too if i was ATT. without it, I would guarantee bandwidth by having people pay for it and not lay down new pipes, then as more people want guarantee bandwidths (which is for certain), i won't lay more pipes, and just charge more for the same amount of bandwidth. If anyone complains, I'd say it's cause of government regulations that I can't lay more pipes to increase capacity so I am force to increase prices because of supply/demand. of course other companies will do the same thing because if they actually spent money on infrastructure their earnings will go down and stocks will go down and make the share holders cry.
poor share holders, we don't want them to throw a hissy fit.
This just in, a corporation does something underhanded to make profits. More at 11...
I trust the government less then private companies like Comcast to provide my Internet access. (which is sad since Comcast sucks) Plus this current government's number one enemy seems to be any dissenting voices. Nothing like them having control of the Internet.....
YEAH! It's Obama's fault. Wait...........what we talking about?
What the fuck AT&T
That reminds me of this lol
Wellpoint cuts workers health benefits
Yeah this reminds me of some other similar news story where a corp asked employees to oppose legislation that wasn't in their favor. I thought it was illegal to do so somehow? Maybe it's that Wellpoint story posted just above.
It's not legal to coerce with threats or to buy, but it is perfectly legal to express a desire for a certain outcome to an attempt at a legislative act.
It may not be illegal, but hot damn is it asshole-ish.
I think he said Government, let me check, YES HE DID? Why do you bring Obama out? I don't understand. Please explain? Unless you think Obama IS the Government and we don't need anyone else.
Which part of "Plus this current government's number one enemy seems to be any dissenting voices" did you not understand?
Which other current government would he have been referring to?
Hint to bpmurrGT - First, Net Neutrality was being discussed before the "current government" was even an official candidate for office. Second, nothing in Net Neutrality in any way suggests that the "government" will provide internet service.
Some people, instead of knowing what they are talking about, will engage in immediate attacks to score some imaginary points for an imaginary reason.
The problem is the difference between the principle of net neutrality and what lawmakers are doing with it.
I think that one would be hard pressed to find someone here that doesn't want free and open networks without content restriction.
How many of us believe that a government bureaucracy is the way to attain this? Taking control from the private sector and giving it to government who is going to turn access into a mandate and regulate the companies that provide it. What it should do it get out of the way and help foster availability of multiple channels to the internet in more areas. Then let the private competition put pressure on companies to do the right thing. After all, if you have multiple access options and one player restricts you, you can change providers. If the government controls anything, there is no second option when the government decides that fair and open access requires something akin to the broadcast fairness doctrine -- and administration officials have indicated their support for regulations that amount to this.
A local businessman (and I use that term very freakin loosely) who when facing the closing of his business (Dog racing track) forced his employees to stand on overpasses with signs opposing the question on the ballot to ban dog racing.. it was found to be illegal. He in not so many words told them that it was their job to go and represent his opinion. The issue wasn't that he had his employees from the track out there holding signs.. he had his employees from his other ventures (construction, property managment) out there as well.
AT&T can suck a fat one as far as I'm concerned. I do believe that we need some of this government regulation as corporations WILL not have their customers rights and freedoms as a driving force in their decisions. A Verizon employee that I know has already expressed that the company has an interest in creating a "premium"internet where you pay for faster speeds to certain content, metered by them of course.
Verizon owns the pipes to the internet. EVERYBODY leases those lines from them. If there is a company that you should be scared of over net neutrality, it is them.
If Verizon ever tries to take advantage of that monopoly, don't you think the Gov will step in and do something? They sure were quick to protect us from Internet Explorer
In the words of Fielding Mellish,
Net Neutrality 10 to 20 years ago meant "Internet content and expansion outside of government regulation and control" and spawned an international industry of scale and scope unprecedented, and is truly the capitalist system at its finest.
Net Neutrality today is direct government intervention and forcing content standards on providers under the guise of "even playing field" but truly means "one size fits all, mobile, desktop, set-top, etc."
Content delivery on mobile devices is largely cached, to provide a better experience, and reduce bandwidth requirements. Requiring them to cache every website and all content or none will only cost money.
And (by coinsodence) I am canceling my AT&T uverse account. Here we go Fios and 25Mb/s down! (3.1MB/s actual)
Just ask Bell Telephone what happens if you take advantage of a monopoly . . . oh wait, you'd have to ask the baby Bells now .
Shit don't give them any ideas! We'll end up with regional internet explorers so you'll never know if you have the security whole or if that is only in Oklahoma.
oppose net neutrality
All because of a missing "]"
No I don't think they would. In fact I don't think they can which is why I believe so many telcos are opposing net neutrality.
How in the world would the Feds possibly "foster availability of multiple channels to the internet in more areas" without "taking control from the private sector and giving it to the government"? The private sector owns all of the channels to the internet. Are you suggesting that the federal government build more backbones and then sell them to private telcos?
What I think really needs to happen is that we the people need to recognize that bandwidth providers are a monopoly and make our government break it up. We already have laws and tort against anti competitive behavior and if they were enforced when they should be instead of used as a threat we wouldn't even be discussing net neutrality regulations.
There are already enough examples of anti competitive behavior out there that the people should have taken action on already.
Just a few that I can remember with a quick search:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4385/big_cables_internet_rip-off/ - See Anti-Competitive Behavior
Exactly. 20 years ago when the internet started, there wasn't as much corporatism. Hell, there wasn't as much corporatism in any field 20-30 years ago to the extent that there is now.
We need net neutrality to make sure America doesn't fall behind the rest of the world just to suit a few greedy fat cats.
Are there any more Baby Bells or did they all re-merge to get more powerful than ever?
I think they got gobbled up by Verizon (now owns what used to be Bell Atlantic) or AT&T (owns what used to be Pacific Bell)
I'm not sure about the other Bells
Reminds me of the conservative protest against the coalition in front of the governor generals office. I had a fun game of count the tory staffers in the crowd.