AT&T Just Declared War On An Open Internet

[illli]

None of this will matter in a few weeks, we might as well say goodbye to any semblance of net neutrality http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...other-net-neutrality-opponent-to-oversee-fcc/
btw this will only get worse if at&t is allowed to buy time warner. you want hbo? it will only cost you $5 with at&t and won't count against your data usage. If you try to get it elsewhere it will cost you $15. this is already happening with direct tv now (i guess they are banking on the buyout being approved)

 

[serpretetsky]

None of this will matter in a few weeks, we might as well say goodbye to any semblance of net neutrality http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...other-net-neutrality-opponent-to-oversee-fcc/
btw this will only get worse if at&t is allowed to buy time warner. you want hbo? it will only cost you $5 with at&t and won't count against your data usage. If you try to get it elsewhere it will cost you $15. this is already happening with direct tv now (i guess they are banking on the buyout being approved)

I was about to point out that Trump has said he wouldn't allow the att time warner merger but im googling it and now it seems he's fine with it? :/

 

[DocSavage]

I was about to point out that Trump has said he wouldn't allow the att time warner merger but im googling it and now it seems he's fine with it? :/

He's a flipflopper!!! Just like John Kerry!!!

 

[Ryokurin]

I wonder just how many of you guys have ATT/Verizon service and you are here complaining about this.... DOES NOT COMPUTE.

So let's say it's 2020. AT&T got to purchase Time Warner, and Verizon decides to buy Viacom. So almost every major US media outlet is owned by a media provider. Over the last 4 years the push for subscribers have leveled off, similar to mobile subscribers now. Comcast being #3 in this world for subscribers decide to pull all it's content from AT&T and V networks and make it all exclusive for their customers. Want to watch "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy TNG" you gotta pay Bravo per episode if you don't have Xfinity. AT&T and V soon follows suit. We finally have alacarte programming, but it's priced per show, not per channel.

Content is leverage and just like networks are forcing cable companies to raise prices or risk losing it, I can see content used as leverage between media providers in a similar way or it becoming very silo'd. We already know Trump is probably going to gut the FCC so their really isn't anything to stop it from happening.

 

[Ryokurin]

If cellular streaming is limited by the technology involved, then why is streaming DirectTV over it ok and free?

AT&T can use the same argument that Comcast uses now. It's over their internally managed network so it isn't a burden.

 

[DocSavage]

AT&T can use the same argument that Comcast uses now. It's over their internally managed network so it isn't a burden.

Well comcast has a lot more bandwidth without contention over cable lines than AT&T has over cell-phone usable airwaves.

 

[Ryokurin]

Well comcast has a lot more bandwidth without contention over cable lines than AT&T has over cell-phone usable airwaves.

And AT&T can use fentocells and other various ways to send it through the internet instead of the cellular network, a lot probably being DSL/Fiber subscribers too. Also, if you consider that even if all 23 million DirectTV users took advantage, that's only around 30% of AT&T Mobility subscribers. They have some time to figure it out.

 

[DocSavage]

And AT&T can use fentocells and other various ways to send it through the internet instead of the cellular network, a lot probably being DSL/Fiber subscribers too. Also, if you consider that even if all 23 million DirectTV users took advantage, that's only around 30% of AT&T Mobility subscribers. They have some time to figure it out.

If they have that much excess capacity, then they can just remove all the quotas all together. Also Netflix probably already has local distribution servers within AT&Ts network (I know they do with google fiber), so they wouldn't add any external burden either.

 

[lcpiper]

...........................Internet providers shouldn't be allowed to grant their own streaming services preferential treatment on their network as it creates an uncompetitive environment.

Wit up a sec, I am not sure I agree. Competition isn't about making everything even for every one. It's about companies being able to do better, offer cheaper, out do the competition. It's the heart of competition. As long as people still have a reasonable choice as an alternative.

I live close to Tucson, I have Cox Cable Internet Service, Cox offers Contour TV service online.
If I can also get AT&T, with DirectTV, and it's cheaper than Cox with Contour, this is competition.

But if I can only get Cox Internet service and AT&T isn't available, then there is no competition going on, there is just ISPs essentially using their control of a region to create an additional monopoly for TV internet streaming video service.

By Shotglass01;
This lack of ISP competition in the US absolutely sucks.

So you gota give this guy props for getting things right.

 

[NeoNemesis]

Wit up a sec, I am not sure I agree. Competition isn't about making everything even for every one. It's about companies being able to do better, offer cheaper, out do the competition. It's the heart of competition. As long as people still have a reasonable choice as an alternative.

I live close to Tucson, I have Cox Cable Internet Service, Cox offers Contour TV service online.
If I can also get AT&T, with DirectTV, and it's cheaper than Cox with Contour, this is competition.

But if I can only get Cox Internet service and AT&T isn't available, then there is no competition going on, there is just ISPs essentially using their control of a region to create an additional monopoly for TV internet streaming video service.



So you gota give this guy props for getting things right.

Except that they control the distribution and are giving preferential treatment to their own content.

It would be like an electric company selling an appliance, and if you use that appliance, it doesn't count towards your electric bill.

Of course everyone will go out and buy those appliances and the other appliance companies that don't also happen to be utilities will go out of business.

 

[lcpiper]

Except that they control the distribution and are giving preferential treatment to their own content.

It would be like an electric company selling an appliance, and if you use that appliance, it doesn't count towards your electric bill.

Of course everyone will go out and buy those appliances and the other appliance companies that don't also happen to be utilities will go out of business.

And I am fine with buying my toaster from the electric company as long as I can change my electric company and then get to use my microwave for free instead.

It's when I can't change my electric company and I can only use G&E toasters that I start feeling the anti-competitive sting.

If I have three electric companies to choose from and they all offer some special deals along with their pricing I see competition at work. But one electric company as a choice dictating who I will buy my appliances from, that's another entirely.

 

[lcpiper]

On an aside, point of view is everything. Even in my example, if I am competing against G&E selling toasters, I'm not going to be happy that the electric company is giving G&E the fast lane.

Same when I was in the Army. Some leaders would harp on Soldiers about keeping their boots highly shined. The regulations said that the boots didn't have to be highly shined, but the "rule" was, that these Leaders could "add" to a regulation, but that they couldn't "take away" from it.

Well these Leaders point of view was that by requiring highly shined boots that they were "adding" to the regulation and that they were correct asking for more.

But from a soldier's point of view, the regulation was meant to protect them from unreasonably onerous requirements and that asking more was in fact, "taking away" because it was denying them that protection.

Point of view, who benefits. You can't always give without taking away from somewhere. Someone is getting the short end of the stick so who is it going to be. I lean toward protecting those who have the least say so in the matter but I try and keep an open eye to the big picture.

 

[Gavv]

The only way things are going to change is when people get tired of paying and refuse to use the service. No cash flow to a business is an indication they suck donkey dick.

If the FCC is gutted and the leanings to the corporate side then there isn't much you can do. Pay it and bitch or don't pay it and still bitch.

Cable and TV been screwing us for awhile. That doesn't look to change anytime soon.

 

[evilwon]

Want more ISP competition? Tell the FCC to open up the lines so that utilities can be ISPs as well. Electric companies have the capability to but Washington has sufficiently shuttered that avenue.

 

[Exavior]

Want more ISP competition? Tell the FCC to open up the lines so that utilities can be ISPs as well. Electric companies have the capability to but Washington has sufficiently shuttered that avenue.

One, that already happens. Two that won't fix the issue.

If you want more competition we need to take our world and pull it into a dream world full of unicorns and clouds made of cotton candy.

There are thousands of electric companies that offer internet services, so you have zero knowledge about that area. In a large percentage of the USA (land wise not population wise) you will find electric companies either offer internet service on their own via fixed wireless, satellite or fiber. Or they partner with a some other ISP to do this. Either way, this is a very common thing for electric companies to offer internet service.

 

[evilwon]

One, that already happens. Two that won't fix the issue.

If you want more competition we need to take our world and pull it into a dream world full of unicorns and clouds made of cotton candy.

There are thousands of electric companies that offer internet services, so you have zero knowledge about that area. In a large percentage of the USA (land wise not population wise) you will find electric companies either offer internet service on their own via fixed wireless, satellite or fiber. Or they partner with a some other ISP to do this. Either way, this is a very common thing for electric companies to offer internet service.

It is not common place at all. Not common in the fact that none of what you mentioned is a utility offering it over already laid infrastructure. Offering it with the methods you mentioned does not promote competition. Electric companies do not have to run anything additional, nor partner with, anyone to offer Internet services. The problem is that almost all of the big ISPs pay for legislation to keep them from doing it over the power lines. So I will stand by my statement, but I am sure someone who is willing to attack someone else without full knowledge will just keep comments. Why would electric companies need to run fiber to offer competition when I have seen (at least) 300 Mbps from power lines?

The fact that I worked for several and had the same exact thing happen to each one when prepping to offer it to the public over power lines implies I know nothing. Competition drives prices lower but with the ISPs greasing the politicians to keep them out of the real race, electric utilities are a small player that is not competing on a level playing field if they only offer what you mentioned. That is not competition. Let them freely enter the market over their power lines, not with restrictions. That's competition - not the Bigfoot pipe dreams of having to add infrastructure as competition.

Hell, the only reason Google Fiber works is that they could use the utility poles. Without that it would have been a pipe dream. That's competition - too bad the cost is still eating them up.

Anyone can be a snarky asshat but I'm trying not to resort to your levels of calling you stupid and/or ignorant to what happens behind the scenes when competition crops up.

 

[Exavior]

It is not common place at all. Not common in the fact that none of what you mentioned is a utility offering it over already laid infrastructure. Offering it with the methods you mentioned does not promote competition. Electric companies do not have to run anything additional, nor partner with, anyone to offer Internet services. The problem is that almost all of the big ISPs pay for legislation to keep them from doing it over the power lines. So I will stand by my statement, but I am sure someone who is willing to attack someone else without full knowledge will just keep comments. Why would electric companies need to run fiber to offer competition when I have seen (at least) 300 Mbps from power lines?

The fact that I worked for several and had the same exact thing happen to each one when prepping to offer it to the public over power lines implies I know nothing. Competition drives prices lower but with the ISPs greasing the politicians to keep them out of the real race, electric utilities are a small player that is not competing on a level playing field if they only offer what you mentioned. That is not competition. Let them freely enter the market over their power lines, not with restrictions. That's competition - not the Bigfoot pipe dreams of having to add infrastructure as competition.

Hell, the only reason Google Fiber works is that they could use the utility poles. Without that it would have been a pipe dream. That's competition - too bad the cost is still eating them up.

Anyone can be a snarky asshat but I'm trying not to resort to your levels of calling you stupid and/or ignorant to what happens behind the scenes when competition crops up.

You must work in the area not doing this then. I do not work in the power industry, but work in the telecommunication industry. I sat through a session at a software user group talking about how this is the new norm as more and more companies are realizing that selling power by itself isn't the way to keep their company going in the future and that they need to become multiservice. The company sells their OSS/BSS software to both telecom and power companies. During a session it was talking about how the new trend for co-ops is to offer internet service. I talked with many such companies trying to get people's opinion about the software and I did not talk to a single person from a power company there that did not also sell internet service. And this one company had between 500 to 1000 power companies as customers at the very least. I also know that we are working with a few companies that decided they would rather partner with us than do it on their own. And the guy that is working on our contracts has done many of these all to different degrees. In some cases a power company hires somebody to build the network for them then hand it over, some are just some ISP being the upstream provider for the power company, some are 50/50 splits where both sides pay for this to be done and both split the money made from customers. But I also know that the larger power company here just ran fiber between ever single sub station that they have. Which everyone I have talked to on this subject is going the fiber route, don't know why and honestly I didn't care as my talks with them was about how software functions and what issues they have, it wasn't to find out how a different industry was offering their services. Maybe fiber is easier and cheaper to work with, plus that is something that more people would know about so it might be easier to hire techs to do installs and manage the network.

My comment about this being a dream is because there is no single "fix" for this like everyone wants to think. There is never going to be a day where you have 1000 choices for internet service. Because it is far too expensive and after you get a few in an area it is not profitable. Especially because as you said the more companies you have the lower prices get. Which means that new people can't afford to come into the area since they can't make a profit to recover what they spent to get into the area. If you are selling services at cost of keeping your doors open that doesn't help you stay in business very long. Municipal owned networks don't make things any better as they aren't always geared towards residential. The 10 that I am looking at now only care about making sure they have a line that connects the top 10 - 15 businesses in the city. Everyone else means nothing to them and will never be connected unless somebody builds out to their area. From an ISP standpoint, it is far more expensive to lease fiber from these networks than it is to put in my own. To a point where the cost to put in the fiber for the area would be 6 - 10 months worth of lease. So why would I pay 1/2 million or more a month to rent fiber when I could put in my own? $3k per month for every 2 fibers leased, vs $10-$15 per foot to put in myself. Which I can work on my fiber, can't work on city fiber. The ones that are ran by a single ISP though and not a entire dark fiber are a little different by not much. Same issues, you can rent fiber from them but still not cost effective as now you have the ISP running it trying to make money off of you, and you still have limited access. So there is no fool proof way to have dozens of options to every home in every area.

As for poles, that is the same in most places. We use electric poles to get stuff through some areas, and on the reverse power companies use our poles at times to get to houses. In some areas were we are not the local company we use poles from the local telephone company. In these areas Comcast or Mediacom uses everyone's poles to get around. Some new company is going to provide cell based internet service and is talking to everyone with utility poles to get onto them to get their fiber ran and units turned up. When looking at cities, towns, in general and not just what happens in the largest few cities this is normally how it goes. There are options for everyone that wants to offer service to offer service. We expand into new cities without issues. We have others come in and offer WISP services as that is the cheapest way to deploy a internet company, and do so with no issues. other than not being able to make a profit and going under, but that is a different type of issue. Detroit had a company come in and offer now 10Gbps server through the city, which may or may not be a sign that AT&T forget that Detroit was still a city, but it happen. I know people from various small telephone companies that in order to stay afloat have moved into areas of the larger cities around then and started to deploy fiber. When I say larger I mean cities of 50,000 - 200,000. All with little to no trouble doing so. I know that the issue that we have is trying to find places to put fiber. As you already have power, telephone, cable, fiber from 2 or 3 people that run through the area for backhaul. Can't exactly add more to that area so have to find the best route since it is crowded. Then when looking at some of the large cities, lets use Chicago for example. You have a carrier hotel which means that everyone is running fiber there to get to these buildings. Right now in down town Chicago you have dozens of companies with fiber all going into 1 building where multiple floors are covered in cages. Yet we are trying to argue that it is impossible for anyone that isn't AT&T to string a single fiber. These people got here somehow. They just don't care to try to go anywhere else.

 

[elm669]

Thats fine, I stopped watching and paying for TV 10 years ago. These Media companies keep this stupid shit up and I'll Leave Computers and Gaming behind all together. I would rather them lose money and starve than get my money.