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

[thorpj]

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.

AT&T really are pathetic.

 

But as that Google Fishing survey showed (mentioned on Wan Show) there are plenty of idiots/gullible people that will continue to give their money to AT&T.

[Semper]

AT&T really are pathetic.

 

But as that Google Fishing survey showed (mentioned on Wan Show) there are plenty of idiots/gullible people that will continue to give their money to AT&T.

it's not even so much that people are gullible or idiots. Most of the people in my home town (another area that is monopolized by AT&T) are about as far as you can get from power users. I can confidently say that 90-95% of it's residents don't even know what a GB is, what a soft data cap is, or what bandwidth is. They just know that they push a power button, click on internet explorer (yes... it makes me shudder as well), and away they go. They'd get no benefit from the speed boost that TWC would offer at the same price they're paying now, but they wouldn't be paying such a price for sub-par service and customer support/customer loyalty.

[thorpj]

it's not even so much that people are gullible or idiots. Most of the people in my home town (another area that is monopolized by AT&T) are about as far as you can get from power users. I can confidently say that 90-95% of it's residents don't even know what a GB is, what a soft data cap is, or what bandwidth is. They just know that they push a power button, click on internet explorer (yes... it makes me shudder as well), and away they go. They'd get no benefit from the speed boost that TWC would offer at the same price they're paying now, but they wouldn't be paying such a price for sub-par service and customer support/customer loyalty.

Ah, it's a similar story in Australia, particularly WA, where things are years behind the US and UK.

[patrickjp93]

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.

Yes, but those companies had most of it in place decades ago before we had such intricate construction. Now you have bust up a road to lay a fiber line into/out of a city. It's expensive work.

 

In the EU that may be. In the U.S. the citizenry have not decided that, and thus it's a moot argument for now.

[holytoledo]

LOL @ the dude who said he would give us socialist examples of Soviet Russia.

 

That just cracked me up. Because the only known references to socialism are tyrannical to high hell and if the US ever did socialism that's exactly how it would end up. Please.

 

I'm not even a huge proponent of this system, I'm just tired of broken (does not care for it's economy but for the elite) systems. We're pushed under the bus and it's all guided by misguided fucks like that one who still live in Red fear and prop up proponents of decreased regulation without bothering to see what they stand for or value.

 

I'll vote in any politician who is willing to decrease the national debt by decreasing tax breaks to the super wealthy and by decreasing the military industrial complex.

 

These are the issues of the day that we should all be discussing and trying to serve our own interest (namely work and have some kind of safety net for the day that something horrible happens (my grandma had an accident and now lives off of SSI, I know how beneficial Social Security is especially if you're like most Americans and don't save much.)

 

That's a whole 'nother argument though, should we take care of people who don't save for themselves once they are old. How about disabled?

 

The pragmatic thing is to realize that most don't save, no matter what you do, and a different approach is required if you want a humane society without your old dying of starvation or living in poverty because they didn't save.

 

Anyone who argues otherwise in my mind is just an asshole who isn't thinking up of a way to care for our elderly and disabled. They have to be taken care of. And the old argument of (they will be provided for with goodwill) when was the last time you gave an elderly or disabled person a chunk of change for them to live off of? 

 

Anyway, once you understand that most "socialist" tendencies are just populist interests making sure there is a better standard of living (because don't assume it's really for everyone) socialist standards only serve to push the living standards of the least or lowest among us (the poor).

 

It's when I see the red team going arguing against all of this that I wonder if they even care about their neighbors. I just assume they care about their mothers but even then I don't know.

 

Life requires that you have a heart. Some politicians try to strip this element out entirely.