AT&T will stop investing in high-speed fiber internet until net neutrality rules decided

[holytoledo]

Things that would be possible with stronger local governments and stronger people-led initiatives. The need for regulation is necessary, but regulations can (And in the case of the US, has) become excessive. And the worst part is that this does not harm or even affect the big corporations at all. Those guys can simply pay off the regulators or just pay whatever the regulations require. On the contrary, it harms the potential for competition, as the regulations the work of creating a monopoly/oligopoly/oligarchy for the corporations, with only small amounts of action needed by them in order to maintain their preferred status quo.

I too love smaller government but know that if all regulations were localized there would eventually business zones where some or all regulations no longer apply. Sure there are regulations that can be localized, I dont know which those may be. But I do not want water and air anywhere near the local level.

[The_Strict_Nein]

They can only force this in America, right?

 

If so, expect America's economy to crash hard.

 

Maybe not in a year, but within a few, start ups will be non-existent, big business will stagnate, and the internet in America will become barren.

 

If this affects the internet access of countries outside America, for instance in Countries that view Internet access and freedom a basic human right, they can expect International lawsuits from countries, not just companies.

[dlf]

Bring on Google Fiber please.

Anyone in Dallas want to try to bring (or get) google fiber here?

[NAP51DMustang]

I would fully expect ATT to do this, or any ISP for that matter. Its practical on their end so that if, for instance, a new ordinace/law comes into play with any new FCC rules any infastructure they build out isn't in violation of that law nad they are then required, by law, to rip that infastructure up and redo it.

[patrickjp93]

Walmart does employ hundreds of thousands of people. What gives you, or anyone, the right to determine how they treat their employees? Not everyone can make 100k a year from doing scut work, that's why people get better jobs and allow Walmart to hire some other teenager for a part time job. The difference is that Comcast isn't Walmart, completely different industry and market. Not only that, but Walmart has better customer service than Comcast (hard to say that and not laugh)

The problem with a lot of government regulations is that they don't work, for instance, I worked at a state run liquor store, and was not allowed to work more than 29 hours a week because then they would have to have provided health insurance. I'd have rather had a 40 hour a week job and no health insurance than a 29 hour a week job with no insurance, because I'd have made a hell of a lot more money than I did, partly because of the increase of hours, and partly because they'd have had to employ less people at that store, thus allowing me to max out my hours. I ended up only getting about 25-28 hours a week AT MOST. All because the federal government decided to redefine a "full time" position as 30 hours a week.

1 large entity such as the federal government cannot always know what is right for each and every locality. In fact they often don't and just go with assumptions. And more often than not, their regulations do more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, I am for some regulation, but not anywhere near as much as what they currently regulate. It's a situational issue, situational to the industry, the market, what's actually going on, etc. For instance, we have comcast, TWC, and AT&T acting like brazzen jackasses, openly lying about what they do despite having been proved wrong (throttling), and basically displaying a desire to abuse their customers as much as possible, so something DOES actually need to be done about it.

If Walmart can run slave labor (it effectively does) without impedance due to a free market, then the cable companies can screw you over and charge whatever they want. Free market. Build the infrastructure yourself. Political hacks like you are so easy to rile up.

[Trik'Stari]

If Walmart can run slave labor (it effectively does) without impedance due to a free market, then the cable companies can screw you over and charge whatever they want. Free market. Build the infrastructure yourself. Political hacks like you are so easy to rile up.

Again, tell me. Who is going to pay for the salary for entry level workers, you? Also, insulting your opponent is the quickest way to undermine your own opinion.

 

If everyone makes the exact same amount of money, then what reason is there for innovation? what reason is there for people to try to do a better job? Walmart doesn't run slave labor, and to say so is highly insulting to those who actually know what slavery means. Walmart pays minimum wage like a hell of a lot of other companies do. Just because you think they don't pay enough doesn't make it slavery.

 

It amuses me when those who don't own a business or know a single fucking thing about running a business, try to tell society how businesses should be run. The difference here is that Walmart is an outlet that provides goods and services, whereas the internet is a medium of communication of knowledge as well as means for commerce, meaning there is a damned good reason for it to be regulated. Whereas with Walmart it's just people who want to make more money without having to actually work harder or do a better job.

 

I'd use Soviet Russia as an example of how socialist economic policies don't work, but you wouldn't listen anyways. Why don't you go tell Linus that each of his employees is entitled to the exact same amount of money he gets, and see what response you get.

[patrickjp93]

Again, tell me. Who is going to pay for the salary for entry level workers, you? Also, insulting your opponent is the quickest way to undermine your own opinion.

If everyone makes the exact same amount of money, then what reason is there for innovation? what reason is there for people to try to do a better job? Walmart doesn't run slave labor, and to say so is highly insulting to those who actually know what slavery means. Walmart pays minimum wage like a hell of a lot of other companies do. Just because you think they don't pay enough doesn't make it slavery.

It amuses me when those who don't own a business or know a single fucking thing about running a business, try to tell society how businesses should be run. The difference here is that Walmart is an outlet that provides goods and services, whereas the internet is a medium of communication of knowledge as well as means for commerce, meaning there is a damned good reason for it to be regulated. Whereas with Walmart it's just people who want to make more money without having to actually work harder or do a better job.

I'd use Soviet Russia as an example of how socialist economic policies don't work, but you wouldn't listen anyways. Why don't you go tell Linus that each of his employees is entitled to the exact same amount of money he gets, and see what response you get.

Put another way, Walmart is only a medium of sales. It doesn't actually provide a service, only a location. Internet providers provide a service, an ability to connect yourself to computers around the world on their infrastructure which they built. They have every to tell you to go screw yourself.

[Trik'Stari]

Put another way, Walmart is only a medium of sales. It doesn't actually provide a service, only a location. Internet providers provide a service, an ability to connect yourself to computers around the world on their infrastructure which they built. They have every to tell you to go screw yourself.

Actually Walmart does provide services, such as Pharmacies, eye doctors, barber's, etc. The difference is that the ISP's have the ability to control the flow of information between people, which is a different moral implication than simply selling a product. Not to mention that we are a democracy (supposedly) and majority rules, so if the majority of people want to tell the ISP's to go fuck themselves, then guess what? they can go fuck themselves.

 

Not to mention when another company comes along and does it right, and takes all their business away from them. Which is what is supposed to happen (but rarely does for bullshit reasons)

[patrickjp93]

Actually Walmart does provide services, such as Pharmacies, eye doctors, barber's, etc. The difference is that the ISP's have the ability to control the flow of information between people, which is a different moral implication than simply selling a product. Not to mention that we are a democracy (supposedly) and majority rules, so if the majority of people want to tell the ISP's to go fuck themselves, then guess what? they can go fuck themselves.

Not to mention when another company comes along and does it right, and takes all their business away from them. Which is what is supposed to happen (but rarely does for bullshit reasons)

It doesn't happen with ISPs because someone has to toss billions of dollars at the problem to build infrastructure and hook it up to all those buildings all over the world, and they have to get a contract with other ISPs to allow data to enter their networks. There is no moral implication. You have mail, you have phones, and you can always get in touch with someone. The Internet is not a right in this country or anywhere. It's a business, so live with the consequences of that.

Also, the people can't actually say that. It's in the constitution, right to property and usage thereof and all that.

[Trik'Stari]

It doesn't happen with ISPs because someone has to toss billions of dollars at the problem to build infrastructure and hook it up to all those buildings all over the world, and they have to get a contract with other ISPs to allow data to enter their networks. There is no moral implication. You have mail, you have phones, and you can always get in touch with someone. The Internet is not a right in this country or anywhere. It's a business, so live with the consequences of that.

Except that the EU has already made Net Neutrality outright law.

 

It is a moral implication, if you make it so expensive to access, you are essentially using financial means to withhold the ability to access knowledge from people. That's the freaking point here, the internet isn't just a means of commerce or a means of gaming, it is a means to access the whole of human knowledge, which is something that should not be censored.

[Fetzie]

It doesn't happen with ISPs because someone has to toss billions of dollars at the problem to build infrastructure and hook it up to all those buildings all over the world, and they have to get a contract with other ISPs to allow data to enter their networks. There is no moral implication. You have mail, you have phones, and you can always get in touch with someone. The Internet is not a right in this country or anywhere. It's a business, so live with the consequences of that.

Also, the people can't actually say that. It's in the constitution, right to property and usage thereof and all that.

The telephone providers had to put money into the infrastructure. As did the electricity companies and the water companies. They are all common carrier utilities and they couldn't make more money if they printed it themselves.

Also, internet access is defined as a basic human right by the EU, and out ISPs are doing great.

[thorpj]

So basically, he's making a threat to show what he'll do if the ISPs don't get their way when it comes to net neutrality. Nice one!!!

 

 

ISPs Keep on Diggin'

http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-net-neutrality-uncertainty-puts-a-pause-in-investing

[Syntaxvgm]

Pretty sure this has been posted

[thorpj]

Pretty sure this has been posted

Argh no doubt, if you post the link then i'll close my thread.

[Semper]

Right.

 

Another reason to add to the already incredibly long list of why I would rather live without (insert service here), than pay AT&T for it.

Perhaps Ubisoft and AT&T share a parent company somewhere in the not-so-elusive world that is stupidity.

[thorpj]

Right.

 

Another reason to add to the already incredibly long list of why I would rather live without (insert service here), than pay AT&T for it.

Perhaps Ubisoft and AT&T share a parent company somewhere in the not-so-elusive world that is stupidity.

AT&T and every other ISP in existance...

 

ISP's Keep on Diggin'

[Semper]

AT&T and every other ISP in existance...

 

ISP's Keep on Diggin'

Ehh... Google seems to be fairly solid.

I've heard horror stories of TWC, but they've treated me very well, and I actually reliably get slightly faster speeds than I'm rated for. (I'm rated for 50/5 - http://www.speedtest.net/result/3911057690.png Dspite the fact that speedtest think LA is 50 miles from me, it's closer to 90 )

Ping isn't stellar, but that's to be expected with cable.

[thorpj]

Ehh... Google seems to be fairly solid.

I've heard horror stories of TWC, but they've treated me very well, and I actually reliably get slightly faster speeds than I'm rated for. (I'm rated for 50/5 - http://www.speedtest.net/result/3911057690.png)

Ping isn't stellar, but that's to be expected with cable.

Eh i don't really think of Google as an ISP, because i'm Australian, and Google Fibre is relatively new to the scene anyway.

 

And you said your ping isn't stellar?

 

http://www.speedtest.net/result/3911062051.png

 

The ping result is false, since zero servers exist in WA. They're all over east.

[Semper]

Eh i don't really think of Google as an ISP, because i'm Australian, and Google Fibre is relatively new to the scene anyway.

 

And you said your ping isn't stellar?

 

http://www.speedtest.net/result/3911062051.png

 

The ping result is false, since zero servers exist in WA. They're all over east.

I can see where you're coming from... but they are a company, and they do provide internet service...

Granted, they do have some shady/bad information/privacy policies, but they've always been a company that strives to provide the best at a good price, while still providing solid customer support. I don't see that changing with the introduction of Fiber.

 

In a real world situation, our ping is going to provide nearly identical results... but as I said, I expected my ping to double or even triple going from DSL to Cable. It doubled, but it's actually been reliably lower than I expected. Aussies have it pretty bad, I won't ever dispute that...

[thorpj]

I can see where you're coming from... but they are a company, and they do provide internet service...

Granted, they do have some shady/bad information/privacy policies, but they've always been a company that strives to provide the best at a good price, while still providing solid customer support. I don't see that changing with the introduction of Fiber.

 

In a real world situation, our ping is going to provide nearly identical results... but as I said, I expected my ping to double or even triple going from DSL to Cable. It doubled, but it's actually been reliably lower than I expected. Aussies have it pretty bad, I won't ever dispute that...

Yeh i would agree, Google is definitely not a Ubishaft

 

Whenever i buy a game, i always go through the chore of doing some travelling and getting the files off someone i know, because it would be quicker than downloading it.

 

That put a terrible thought in my head. I care about net neutrality a lot, but could my internet get any worse.....

[Semper]

It can always get worse, unfortunately

Just think of the 768k modem days with today's internet.

[thorpj]

It can always get worse, unfortunately

Just think of the 768k modem days with today's internet.

Oh god the pain.

 

I can't believe Tom Wheeler is willing to yield (even slightly) to money hungry idiots like Randall Stephenson. Otherwise we will be heading backwards towards those 768k speeds

[Semper]

Oh god the pain.

 

I can't believe Tom Wheeler is willing to yield (even slightly) to money hungry idiots like Randall Stephenson. Otherwise we will be heading backwards towards those 768k speeds

Indeed... indeed

 

Sadly, I can't say it surprises me.

 

The thing that finally pushed me over the edge, and made me venture out to TWC (despite all the horror stories I had heard) was the data cap that AT&T put on their DSL subscribers.

They soft capped us to 100GB/month with both a decrease in speed, and $20/gb overage charge. They failed to notify of this, however, which I still can't figure out the legality of... so i was a bit blindsided by a bill that was normally $60, showing up at my house at over $400.

I got the customer retention team to waive the overages, and cancelled my service about 15 minutes later.

The retention team told me that the soft data cap was put in place to encourage users to switch to uverse, however, it's not available in my area, and the retention rep also told me that they have no plans to expand into my area at the current time (parts of my town have uverse access, parts of it don't). There is absolutely no logic in there that I can find... anywhere.

The people that I've talked to that switched to uverse have been very unhappy. I'm yet to hear anything positive about it, to be quite honest.

I will, on a very literal level, live without internet, TV, and/or Phone if AT&T is the only provider of it in that area.

[thorpj]

Indeed... indeed

 

Sadly, I can't say it surprises me.

 

The thing that finally pushed me over the edge, and made me venture out to TWC (despite all the horror stories I had heard) was the data cap that AT&T put on their DSL subscribers.

They soft capped us to 100GB/month with both a decrease in speed, and $20/gb overage charge. They failed to notify of this, however, which I still can't figure out the legality of... so i was a bit blindsided by a bill that was normally $60, showing up at my house at over $400.

I got the customer retention team to waive the overages, and cancelled my service about 15 minutes later.

The retention team told me that the soft data cap was put in place to encourage users to switch to uverse, however, it's not available in my area, and the retention rep also told me that they have no plans to expand into my area at the current time (parts of my town have uverse access, parts of it don't). There is absolutely no logic in there that I can find... anywhere.

I will, on a very literal level, live without internet, TV, and/or Phone if AT&T is the only provider of it in that area.

Holy Crap. That really should be illegal... That is just disgusting.

 

One of the ISPs over here (Iinet) has a usage system where you get half your "total usage" on peak (so 8am-8pm) and half off peak (the rest). But that's nothing compared to what AT&T did to you.

[Semper]

Holy Crap. That really should be illegal... That is just disgusting.

 

One of the ISPs over here (Iinet) has a usage system where you get half your "total usage" on peak (so 8am-8pm) and half off peak (the rest). But that's nothing compared to what AT&T did to you.

I've not looked into it, it's entirely possible that it is. I just don't have the time, nor the financial stability to pursue any potential case that I might have at the present time.

Is why I say that I'll live without service if I have to get it from them... AT&T will never see another penny from me. As horrible as it would be for all the people that AT&T employs, part of me would be incredibly happy if they went under.

 

There was a small-time ISP that did that in my area way back when... was something I didn't understand either. My usage is so asymmetrical, with a data cap like that, it simply wouldn't work. 90%+ of my home internet usage is off peak hours. A good chunk of that is spent at work, and most of the rest of the time is spent with the family, or doing something, like eating dinner. seemed like a bizarre way to soft-cap data usage to me. It doesn't really solve any traffic issues.