AT&T: Kill Net Neutrality For Cheaper Internet

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Dear AT&T, you are full of crap. Raise your hand of you think killing net neutrality is in our best interest.

Reminder, this is the same company that claims forced arbitration is in consumers' best interest (it's not), and which failed to convince regulators that a merger with T-Mobile would have been good for consumers (it wouldn't have been), so take the following quote from the FCC filing with a sizable grain of salt.
Click to expand...
 
Net Neutrality = Government Regulation = Bad.

The problem, though, is all the other crap these big companies have gotten into the law books. So it's not even remotely a free market where idiotic practices can be corrected through market forces.
 
When the government gets involved they tend to over regulate and stifle competition.

If IP's are allowed to compete whoever has the best price/speed will win and make other IP's compete.

What really needs done is not allowing a IP to hold a town or region hostage as the only provider.
 
ep0x73 said:
When the government gets involved they tend to over regulate and stifle competition.

[...]

What really needs done is not allowing a IP to hold a town or region hostage as the only provider.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that regulation stifles competition, and then you are saying that the free market stifles competition. Which is it?

There are many areas in the US where a single entity owns all of the infrastructure and no competition will ever come in because the cost of laying new cable is simply too high these days. Without net neutrality many consumers will become hostages of the providers.

"Here's your data capped basic Internet access."
"What was that, you also want Netflix? No problem, that will be $19.99/mo for Netflix traffic."
"Oh, you want Amazon Prime Video? No problem, that will be $19.99/mo for Amazon Prime traffic."
"Oh you say you are already paying for Netflix? Then why don't you ask Netflix to come out here and lay fiber. Till then you pay us or you get none of it."
 
PensFault said:
Net Neutrality = Government Regulation = Bad.

The problem, though, is all the other crap these big companies have gotten into the law books. So it's not even remotely a free market where idiotic practices can be corrected through market forces.
Click to expand...

I guess that's the truth of it. A lack of regulation makes the assumption that everyone will play fair. We know that the larger companies become the less likely they are to play fair. Without regulation (real, functional regulation, not bribe based pseudo regulation like we have in Canada) monopolies are the inevitable evolution of any market, abuse of market position follows very quickly.

In the ideal world of ISPs you need to subscribe to their service to access their partner sites. It would be like a thousand different artificially created, baby internets, each one requiring a subscription to the ISP that controls it.

How's that for some tinfoil hat shit?
 
Burning_Monk said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because he doesn't understand a lick of free market economics in which government regulation and enforcement is the only kind of government needed. As to keep bigger organizations in check so that they do not impeded a competitive environment which a free market will eventually arrive at over time. Currently ISPs don't play by market ideas they coerce cities into signing franchement to keep other out and help set laws that further force cities to keep them.
 
I have this image in my head of a team of AT&T's technical writers typing that FCC filing, laughing the whole time. I do not think that it is possible that person or persons could believe it.
 
ep0x73 said:
When the government gets involved they tend to over regulate and stifle competition.

If IP's are allowed to compete whoever has the best price/speed will win and make other IP's compete.

What really needs done is not allowing a IP to hold a town or region hostage as the only provider.
Click to expand...

Strange because of the government involvement other carriers are allowed to lease AT&T's lines, it's due to that involvement other carriers can run an ISP and charge what rates they do, and strangely one particular ISP charges less than AT&T for more services and doesn't have any of that tiered crap.
 
Thuleman said:
So you are saying that regulation stifles competition, and then you are saying that the free market stifles competition. Which is it?

There are many areas in the US where a single entity owns all of the infrastructure and no competition will ever come in because the cost of laying new cable is simply too high these days. Without net neutrality many consumers will become hostages of the providers.

"Here's your data capped basic Internet access."
"What was that, you also want Netflix? No problem, that will be $19.99/mo for Netflix traffic."
"Oh, you want Amazon Prime Video? No problem, that will be $19.99/mo for Amazon Prime traffic."
"Oh you say you are already paying for Netflix? Then why don't you ask Netflix to come out here and lay fiber. Till then you pay us or you get none of it."
Click to expand...

Of course there has to be rules but many IP's don't follow the rules and the government getting involved usually makes things worse.

Why don't the feds break up Comcast and COX into smaller regional suppliers if they feel they are too large?
I can only imagine the hush money that is forked out under the table to set up strangleholds in certain areas.

I live in the country and have one IP for wireless [had 3 but two have since failed].
The canopy dish can handle over 100Mbit but the FCC won't allow that so as of now 5Mbit is the fastest speed they provide and I have to be happy with that.

I could go with dish for 3x the price and have a data cap as my alternative, no thanks.
 
I promise. AT&T selling all their assets to me for a buck a city will make them RICH! They should listen to me. My logic is just as good as theirs.
 
PensFault said:
The problem, though, is all the other crap these big companies have gotten into the law books. So it's not even remotely a free market where idiotic practices can be corrected through market forces.
Click to expand...
Consolidation would converge towards monopolistic pricing anyways. We went through that a century ago, in the good old "free market".

Trying to shoehorn reality into absolutist buckets doesn't really work. I might agree more with a "light touch" to ensure competition than "gub'mint is bad, derp".
 
Gweenz said:
I have this image in my head of a team of AT&T's technical writers typing that FCC filing, laughing the whole time. I do not think that it is possible that person or persons could believe it.
Click to expand...

yeah, no way they were able to keep a straight face through that ...its pretty insulting just to read it.
 
Dear AT&T,

We will relax restrictions on Net Neutrality and let you run your business as you see fit, not treating the internet infrastructure as national resource like electricity, telephone service, and water if you forever give up your write to lobby or donate money to any politicians for any reason.

The undersigned
 
pxc said:
Consolidation would converge towards monopolistic pricing anyways. We went through that a century ago, in the good old "free market".

Trying to shoehorn reality into absolutist buckets doesn't really work. I might agree more with a "light touch" to ensure competition than "gub'mint is bad, derp".
Click to expand...

The government kills kittens
 
PensFault said:
Net Neutrality = Government Regulation = Bad.

The problem, though, is all the other crap these big companies have gotten into the law books. So it's not even remotely a free market where idiotic practices can be corrected through market forces.
Click to expand...

Not all government regulation is bad. A truly free market as many so badly want is one that is corrupt and anti-consumer. Want some precedence? Research Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and JP Morgan. Or heck, Enron abused certain non-regulated markets.

Those guys built empires based on the free market. They stifled competition because they bought or destroyed it. Had henchmen that committed serious crimes and were otherwise not very nice people.

If you actually want to live in a society that has that form of capitalism, then I hope you are rich, or enjoy being abused.
 
Spidey329 said:
...
Click to expand...
Hit enter, no edit.

Also worth noting that these men operated during the times of very little regulation. Or as the misinformed put it, a "free market". Many of the regulations we have on our books are a direct result from their practices.

For a truly free market to work it must be ran by people who do not subscribe to greed. However, greed is a principle component of capitalism. So by nature, you can't have one without the other.
 
Spidey329 said:
For a truly free market to work it must be ran by people who do not subscribe to greed. However, greed is a principle component of capitalism. So by nature, you can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...

This!!!

This magical "market" that many of you hold so dear NEVER factors in human greed. Ever. Yeah, lets deregulate everything and be completely devoured by corporate power and greed. Corporations are the most sociopathic entities on the planet.
 
Reus said:
This!!!

This magical "market" that many of you hold so dear NEVER factors in human greed. Ever. Yeah, lets deregulate everything and be completely devoured by corporate power and greed. Corporations are the most sociopathic entities on the planet.
Click to expand...

You've clearly never met my brother in law.
 
Whenever I talk to someone that isn't familiar with net neutrality, I usually send this link:
http://www.theopeninter.net/

As effective of a graphic I think it is, I once got an instant "government regulation = bad" response from a family member and so they don't support net neutrality. Kind of scares me.
 
ep0x73 said:
When the government gets involved they tend to over regulate and stifle competition.
Click to expand...
I know some people say this, but when has this ever happened? The only bad government regulation is the ones that came about from lobbying.
What really needs done is not allowing a IP to hold a town or region hostage as the only provider.
Click to expand...

That needs to be done first before anything else can be said or done. Including killing off net-neutrality. Cause right now if net neutrality was removed, it would be an all you can eat anal buffet for ISP's.

If companies can lobby and use our government against us, then they know something we don't. Get the government to regulate ISP's before the ISP's get the government to regulate us.
 
I don't buy it knowing AT&T's mission statement is to screw over the consumers whenever and wherever possible.
 
It's easy to reduce the cost of my internet bill when you're not offering the full internet. I know a way my water company charge a cheaper per gallon rate by charging me a dollar every time i take a duce.
 
net neutrality or not, you'll be paying the same price at ATT.
at best, it will be a temporary price decrease before they come up with a bullshit excuse like 'exhausted resources'
 
Burning_Monk said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Normally this would take no explanation. The cliche "We're with the government, we're here to help." needs no explanation to anyone that looks around with their own eyes instead of drinking the cool-aid. But in short, the Net Neutrality situation was 'regulated' and the Regulators decided to let the monopoly have its way. This allowed Congress to pass the buck.

But the disaster that is usually government intervention can be trumped by the disaster that are monopolies. The problem is when those are joined at the hip like with the FTC and Net Neutrality.
 
Ashbringer said:
I know some people say this, but when has this ever happened? The only bad government regulation is the ones that came about from lobbying.


That needs to be done first before anything else can be said or done. Including killing off net-neutrality. Cause right now if net neutrality was removed, it would be an all you can eat anal buffet for ISP's.

If companies can lobby and use our government against us, then they know something we don't. Get the government to regulate ISP's before the ISP's get the government to regulate us.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you've been but net neutrality is dead. And the problem is rooted from monopolies which are the product of local municipalities selling exclusive contracts, killing competition to keep the companies in check. The companies became money rich from no competition and now can buy all of Washington. If 'Government' was so great how can they be so easily bought. Yeah, government is good. Right...
 
Steve.

Now you're insulting people who are full of crap.

AT&T isn't full of crap. It's spewing its infinite supply at a rate of several billion cubic gigatons per nanosecond.
 
And remember, this is AT&T that took government subsidies to build out a more advanced broadband network.

What'd they do?

Basically voted their officers giant bonuses and raises with the money and kept shilling their asstastic DSL network.
 
PensFault said:
Net Neutrality = Government Regulation = Bad.

The problem, though, is all the other crap these big companies have gotten into the law books. So it's not even remotely a free market where idiotic practices can be corrected through market forces.
Click to expand...


"Government regulation = Bad".

Hmm, where have I heard that before?

Watch:"Casino Jack and the United States of Money"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOOUjnGDqso
 
Ashbringer said:
I know some people say this, but when has this ever happened? The only bad government regulation is the ones that came about from lobbying.
Click to expand...

I'm not anti-regulation by any stretch, but I will play devil's advocate. I'm Canadian and here in Canada the cellular market place is incredibly heavily regulated by the CRTC and other ministries, in fact it's so strictly regulated that new start ups have no potential to establish their own infrastructure. They're forced to buy their time from the big three in this country, Bell, Rogers, and Telus. It's a hard cap on their potential for growth.

Regulation of markets is important in all economies, it's naiveté to think that a pure, unregulated capitalist market could ever function. That would be about as functional as pure socialism. On the other hand Regulation has to be set up to protect consumers while at the same time keeping in mind to avoid hindering commercial activity so harshly that it cripples development of the marketplace.
 
AT&T is not making any sense...there are *no* so-called "net neutrality" laws on the books at the moment...none at all. Without a doubt, this subject is the worst-reported, worst-investigated subject in the tech domain. Net neutrality only ever "existed" for a few months as a very weak, FCC *rule* (not "regulation") that had all of the teeth of a Congressional resolution--which is to say, no teeth at all...;) Even that resolution-class rule was recently defeated in court a final time--the FCC has no authority to enact such rules even if they are so weak they don't affect the status-quo at all--so say the courts.

So wtf is AT&T talking about? This is one double-dealing company, imo. Nobody's stopping AT&T from selling Internet access as cheaply as it wishes, any time it wishes. There are no roadblocks at all, especially "net neutrality" roadblocks.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I'm not anti-regulation by any stretch, but I will play devil's advocate. I'm Canadian and here in Canada the cellular market place is incredibly heavily regulated by the CRTC and other ministries, in fact it's so strictly regulated that new start ups have no potential to establish their own infrastructure. They're forced to buy their time from the big three in this country, Bell, Rogers, and Telus. It's a hard cap on their potential for growth.

Regulation of markets is important in all economies, it's naiveté to think that a pure, unregulated capitalist market could ever function. That would be about as functional as pure socialism. On the other hand Regulation has to be set up to protect consumers while at the same time keeping in mind to avoid hindering commercial activity so harshly that it cripples development of the marketplace.
Click to expand...

I believe there is a place and need to some degree of policing of business practices. Anti-monopoly, anti-price fixing, etc. But when people speak of 'regulation' as a cure all, they intend to go far beyond a policing roll. They want to get a stranglehold of companies to make them beholding to the government for survival. Often under the goal of some social engineering inspired policy but really looking to reward friends and make rich new ones. I believe a market is like a Bonsai Tree Cultivation. The art is to know when not to interfere too much and let it go its own way. When you can rationalize taking people from deep in an industry and make them head of your regulating body. Good chance, you ain't policing.
 
jpm100 said:
I don't know where you've been but net neutrality is dead. And the problem is rooted from monopolies which are the product of local municipalities selling exclusive contracts, killing competition to keep the companies in check. The companies became money rich from no competition and now can buy all of Washington. If 'Government' was so great how can they be so easily bought. Yeah, government is good. Right...
Click to expand...

The problem with government is that we need to separate money from them. They really have no incentive to think for the people. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. The solution isn't to avoid government intervention, but to get it in the right direction. That's what companies are doing with local governments, and that's how they killed net neutrality. They lobbied and got their way, while we fight over the idea to keep government out of our business.
 
It's always nice to see statists getting butt hurt by my comments.

The free market will always be better than any sort of government manipulated (with the smiley face aid of corporations) illusion of a free market. Free markets have built in regulation and just because none of the statists can imagine up such a scenario doesn't make it untrue. Fascism doesn't beget freedom, it actually destroys it. Freedom sucks though, it's too much responsibility, right? ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top