AT&T CEO Warns FCC Over Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Feb 16, 2015.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    The net neutrality issue aside, I personally enjoy the sweet, sweet sound of falling tears.

     
  2. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,694
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    I see what he did there "We support net neutrality.... but we don't want it regulated"

    says one of the big 3 who actively fought against net neutrality arguing the FCC didn't have right to regulate due to it not being ...
     
  3. toast0

    toast0 Gawd

    Messages:
    914
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Gasp, I am surprised at&t doesn't like a proposal from the FCC. With no comment on the current proposal, when was the last time at&t liked a proposal? Maybe in 2004 when local loop unbundling was no longer required (although they probably wanted more then)
     
  4. /usr/sbin

    /usr/sbin Successfully Trolled by Megalith

    Messages:
    3,927
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Good, Fhk Stephenson. AT&T was against net neutrality all along, right up until something much stricter on them is about to be put in place, now all of the sudden they are for net neutrality. Funny how that works isn't it? Fighting against fair net neutrality as a Title I? Wish granted, here's a full dose of Title II instead, be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.
     
  5. ICOM

    ICOM 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,194
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    I demand the right to provide the least acceptable product, for the highest acceptable price, for the lowest cost to me which will provide the highest level of profitability...to me.
     
  6. Spidey329

    Spidey329 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,676
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Someone should send him a Whambulance.
     
  7. Seluryar

    Seluryar Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    167
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Does anyone have the heart to tell ATT that they are already stifling growth and innovation by putting usage caps on their customers?
     
  8. LOCO LAPTOP

    LOCO LAPTOP [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,304
    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    I did. The day I quit ATT. F that place.
     
  9. viscountalpha

    viscountalpha 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,545
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    I wonder how this whole title II is going to work out. Comcast and AT&T must be unhappy with all of this. I just worry it will mess up google fiber rolling out.
     
  10. Ashbringer

    Ashbringer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,522
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
  11. Arbit3r

    Arbit3r Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2013
    Been comercials already airing on TV claiming that the title II that ISP's are lookin at getting labeled to is gonna increase prices cause new regulations and tax's, but nothing about how it will prevent fast lanes.
     
  12. mzs_biteme

    mzs_biteme [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,595
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    ATT, let us remind you what COMPETITION, and not monopoly or duopoly does: https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/t-google-fiber-rival-goes-live-kansas-city-215008006.html

    You (ATT) would of NEVER rolled out you fancy GigaPower in Kansas City if not for Google Fiber stealing all your customers.....

    Same goes for Time Warner there. Within a month of Google's announcement for Giggle Fiber in KC, Time Warner almost doubled their speeds (to 50mbps) without price hikes. Just so they could tell customers who'd call in to cancel for Google, "Hey, we worked hard on improving our network, and now you have double the speed for the same money"....:rolleyes:

    I'm all for open market as long as there is competition... Unfortunately, all the major ISP's today didn't get where they are buy providing better service at the lowest price possible, therefore eliminating weaker players (what true competition does). They got there by stripping existing (at the time) regulations with millions of dollars spent on lobbying in Washington...

    So now, supposedly with possible reclassification of what Internet access is, they're all shitting their pants....

    But then again, it's Wheeler's FCC now, so it's probably gonna be some "reach-around" deal that will look great on paper (and to public) but in the end wont change a damn thing ...

    :mad:
     
  13. Despotes

    Despotes Gawd

    Messages:
    787
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    It's not about net "neutrality".
    "Hi, we're from the gov't and we're here to help you." LOL
     
  14. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,490
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    AT&T is the closest thing to actual competition that cable gets as lack luster as DSL is. I'm not surprised that the Cable Controlled FCC board and AT&T are at difference
     
  15. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Wow I watched the whole interview and he was lying there was not a single truth among the words spoken.


    Yeah good luck in the courts when your case is not winnable but when the FCC shows how careless the industry treats customers and does not roll out the promised infrastructure you been paid for by the American tax payers how are you ever going to win this from the FCC.

    If they prove that even a minority of the money you got for rolling out infrastructure was not spend correctly they made their case in court.
     
  16. ViperGrendal

    ViperGrendal Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    403
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Not that I have any sympathy for big carriers here, but I can't shake the feeling that this title II stuff is a just a big hoodwink for the government to grab more money out of our pockets. Then in the end nothing really changes? I can see it now, "no fast lanes...", "here have a some campaign cpmtributions...", "we've approved fast lanes under these conditions..."

    Maybe I'm too cynical, and I know it's more complicated that that. And, no I'm not really up on what's going on with all this, other than what I'm reading here and there. I just have the feeling we're gonna get screwed either way. :mad:
     
  17. Ultima99

    Ultima99 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,890
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Boo hoo, you won't be able to exploit your customers quite as much as you do now.
     
  18. tikiman2012

    tikiman2012 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,228
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    They need to arrest all of the upper management at these companies. I bet those douche bags would rather have Title II rather than sitting in prison.
     
  19. Sprtfan

    Sprtfan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    313
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    What I have read at least seems to indicate that it could help Google fiber rolling out due to access to existing infrastructure that the did not have access to before. Probably another reason that Comcast and AT&T would be unhappy.
     
  20. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,490
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    I bet you would rather have a dictatorship than self-governance?
     
  21. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    13,677
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    It's bad enough the Net turned into a Money making Machine rather then a fun place to hang out.
     
  22. maverikv

    maverikv [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,992
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    As opposed to:

    "Hi, we're from a large corporation and we're here to help you"?
     
  23. tikiman2012

    tikiman2012 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,228
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    I bet you wish this was the wild west where you can get away with robbing, raping, & pillaging.

    By the way, this is self governance. It's we the people, not we the corporations.
     
  24. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    It'll be more about the government forcing tier 1 ISPs to accept settlement-free peering from large providers (such as Google), who will now have direct access to the backbone - reducing their transit costs and enabling datamining on vast amounts of information. It'll be corporations like T-Mobile (which doesn't have a wireline component) being able to complain to the government about the other providers (who have invested tens of billions in wireline backhaul) and force them into providing transit at uneconomical prices, or force them to maintain services that are no longer economically viable. In some cases it will be about the government forcing companies to build out in areas they wouldn't have as rapidly before - but don't fret about that, because those companies will have access to the Universal Service Fund (read: taxpayer money).

    It will definitely slow the rate of growth - why spend a lot of time and money rolling all these advanced network capabilities when some paper-pusher in DC will have a veto on your network management practices? It'll kill ROI, which means less will get invested. Hope you're happy with the internet as it stands now, because that's the best you're gonna get if this proceeds. By forcing changes to the fundamental architectures, time and compute resource requirements in the backbone are going to increase, not decrease - and they'll increase greater than the rate of expansion.

    But the fact that Google (GOOG, Market Cap: 370.25B) and others helped bankroll these "grassroots" organizations and spent tens of millions more on lobbying probably means nothing though, right? They're just looking out for you, the produc... I meant consumer. Totally.
     
  25. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,490
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    We isn't a subset of people who managed to get the megaphone. Congress is serves the function of 'We'.

    The irony here is that you quite probably are serving corporate interests. Just like ACA. We're going to put to the screws to the evil insurance companies by...

    ... requiring everyone to buy insurance! wtf?


    I bet you would have at least hurt their feelings if they weren't busy laughing all the way to the bank.


    Easy prediction here is by 5 years at the latest from the implementation, shareholders will have made out and the only ones screwed are current consumers. And you'll be too busy trying to grow government into some other area of our lives to account for being a dupe.
     
  26. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,920
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    We are getting to the commoditization of broadband. I said it in a thread a while back. With the more strict controls on what can or can not be billed for and how it can be billed and so on we will soon be selling broadband like we do power and everyone will be paying by the gigabyte with no cap on what they can or can not use. THEN companies like Netflix and Amazon and HULU will be celebrated and MAKE MONEY for transmitting more data in kickbacks from the "data providers".

    For a comparison here is an article on how power is a commodity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_market

    I worked for a company who was all about tracking and enabling trading of these energy commodities. Is aid it back in 2013 we are on our way to commoditization of the internet. Just wait.
     
  27. XvMMvX

    XvMMvX [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,663
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    More Government is not the answer.

    This is the most looney thing I have seen on here in a while. Let me guess you think we should give Obama more power so he can skirt that pesky annoying congress the we the people flipped to the opposing party.[/quote]

    All that needs to be done is CLARIFY the product you sell. If you sell "access to the internet" then that is what you get. The problem is the content and ISP's all being one company.

    The problem is Comcast/AT&T selling things they don't have and then trying to go gouge the likes of Netflix when their customers what to use the bandwidth they supposedly already paid for.

    Title II will fix none of this and just give the government regulation over the internet.
     
  28. tikiman2012

    tikiman2012 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,228
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    "The problem is Comcast/AT&T selling things they don't have and then trying to go gouge the likes of Netflix when their customers what to use the bandwidth they supposedly already paid for."

    This is what my statement was about. We have laws in place to cover this type of thing. If they would get off their asses & indict the management at these companies we would all be better off. Sadly I don't think it will ever happen though.
     
  29. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Like they are going to bite the hand that feeds them (money)...... Which goes back to removing money from politics, which won't happen for the exact same reason....
     
  30. tikiman2012

    tikiman2012 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,228
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    I'm all for removing money from politics. Lobbyists are nothing more than legalized bribery agents. They all belong in prison in my opinion, bribers & bribees alike. Like you said though, won't happen.
     
  31. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Like I said, it's all about certain companies wanting to use the government to lower their cost of doing business. I thought you guys were typically against that sort of thing? Except when it's Google and Netflix apparently.

    Oh, and that Netflix slowdown? Turns out it was Cogent all along.

    http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...ixs-traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html

    Original article:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/
     
  32. DocSavage

    DocSavage 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,409
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    From the Forbes article you linked:
    "Cogent also did not respond to a request for comment for this story, but told a reporter for Ars Technica earlier this month that its decision to intentionally disfavor wholesale customers during times of congestion on its network was “put in place only because Internet service providers refused to upgrade connections to Cogent to meet new capacity needs.”"

    How is Cogent supposed to make Comcast upgrade their connections?
     
  33. c@Nc3r

    c@Nc3r Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    299
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    I think this video should be placed in everyone of these threads until the FUD about how net neutrality and title II reclassification won't help anything disappears. A lot of the things that people think would fix things is dependent on title classification. Right now no one can tell them they can't be a service provider and a content provider. Right now no one can tell them that there can't be fast lanes or that they have to treat all data equally even if it competes with your their own product. The courts told the FCC that if they want to make the ISPs follow these rules they should reclassify the ISPs under title II. Now after that is done whether they actually do anything or not is a whole different thing but that does not change the fact that the only way to move forward is to reclassify as title II.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dBMG3J8GVM
     
  34. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009


    These certain companies have already been paid for with tax dollars for their infrastructure.... So that's nothing new. The issue is that no one else can use/lease these lines to get some actual competition, which is the only solution that will do anything.

    And I laughed the last time I read that forbes article. Only thing worse than that 1 side junk is the anti-title II video that was just released.
     
  35. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Citation, please. You keep stating that the infrastructure was paid for by taxpayer dollars, and that's not entirely true. Tax incentives were involved in many things, sure, but we incentivize people to buy houses (and health insurance) through the tax code and I doubt you'd make the argument that "all your houses are belong to us".
     
  36. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Go read the source article for Cogent's admission. They prioritized retail customers over wholesale customers without telling anyone.

    https://groups.google.com/a/measurementlab.net/forum/#!topic/discuss/vcQnaZJO6nQ

    Why they did it is tangential. They were dumping tons of traffic into someone else's network and demanded that additional ports be opened, free of charge. Cogent did this so they didn't have to raise rates to Netflix, because they didn't want Netflix to go and do what Netflix eventually did (and should have done before) - which is build their own CDN.
     
  37. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009

    They weren't dumping random data onto their network, they were replying to requests made by the subscribers of that network, who are already paying them for that service... It's a bullshit money grab from greedy corporations.
     
  38. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009

    Off the top of my head? How about verizon getting paid to roll out fiber (NJ I believe), who stopped the rollout and said wireless 4g should be enough and kept the tax payer money....
     
  39. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    So New Jersey should go after Verizon if a material breach of contract occured.

    How does this equate to the rest of the Internet backbone?
     
  40. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009

    Yes they should, but it's obviously not going to happen. And where did we limit the discussion to just the backbone? That is a small part of the problem and should be easily fixable. Instead of giving these greedy asshole corporations money to spend only a small portion of it for infrastructure upgrades, they should roll out a public owned backbone to use without these money grabbing peering agreements.