AT&T already ditching net neutrality

[Prutfis]

This does not look good for american consumers.

The body isn’t even cold yet, but AT&T is wasting no time in rolling out new “features” that fly in the face of net neutrality. The company has expanded its “sponsored data” program to prepaid wireless customers, offering content companies the option to “sponsor” their data so that it doesn’t count against users’ caps.

This, in case you’re wondering, is what you find under the definition of “paid fast lanes” in the net neutrality false promises hall of fame.

More here:

http://bgr.com/2018/02/23/att-net-neutrality-wireless-plans-ugh/

 

[Falsedawn]

Looks like it's time for the "I told you so" tour.

 

[Prutfis]

Looks like it's time for the "I told you so" tour.

Ajit Pai should be dipped in honey and fed to fireants

 

[thechoice2]

How exactly is this bad for consumers?

 

[cottagecheesefan]

As long as I can still play heroes of the storm without much lag.

 

[method115]

I've read this article like three times. How is this paid fast lanes? No where in that statement by ATT did they mention slowing down or speeding up the data connection at all.

In fact the person who wrote this article is fucking stupid.

 

[jamel]

So wait...

At&t wasnt fucking with your bandwidth before NN?

Anybody thats still with them in 2018 is doing so out of tradition and deserves whats coming.

 

[Makani]

Seems like a good idea from the consumers standpoint, but of course it's rough in startups and smaller media companies. If this is the worst of it we'd be blessed, but I'm more willing to bet that this is just the experimental finger.

 

[Prutfis]

I've read this article like three times. How is this paid fast lanes? No where in that statement by ATT did they mention slowing down or speeding up the data connection at all.

In fact the person who wrote this article is fucking stupid.

You don´t think "no caps" services will be taking more bandwidth? Or that it´s a coincidence that the first services to utilize this are AT&T services?

Now lets say that AT&T services or partners get this for free, while others have to pay 100 million? Still don´t see a problem in the distant future?

 

[Prutfis]

So wait...

At&t wasnt fucking with your bandwidth before NN?

Anybody thats still with them in 2018 is doing so out of tradition and deserves whats coming.

My impression is that many places in the US you have a very limited number of providers. Having comcast or AT&T is like choosing between bubonic plague or ebola

 

[method115]

You don´t think "no caps" services will be taking more bandwidth? Or that it´s a coincidence that the first services to utilize this are AT&T services?

Now lets say that AT&T services or partners get this for free, while others have to pay 100 million? Still don´t see a problem in the distant future?

None of this has to do with ATT slowing down your services. ATT has the bandwidth to give everyone the speeds they paid for. You act like everyone is going to go running to their streaming services now.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

The article does not go into deep explanation besides stating their services won't be counted against a user's data cap. Basically if you buy into a service right now you will have a fine print data cap. It's usually like 500 GB- 1TB. Using their sponsor services means it won't be counted towards your standard cap which is good in theory.

The real issue people are afraid of is paid prioritization which it is heading towards. Basically they will prioritize their services first and throttle all other competitors services unless A) User pays for it or B) Streaming services pay or subsidize the cost to users. Also C) They are *Encouraging* users to use their service over others. That's a big problem if you want the internet to be open and free as possible.

I don't know what you guys are talking about or why... regarding available bandwidth but ISP's for consumer services are ran on shared internet access model that is usually asymmetrical. It's done because it's more practical. However the downside is that if all your neighbors around your block start to use heavy downstream bandwidth, everyones service will be degraded due to sharing the same stream. But that's a completely different topic all together.

 

[S-dot]

How exactly is this bad for consumers?

The only way it can be, as explained to me, is that services who have to pay for bandwidth/ speed will have to increase their fees. But to me, that’s not bad it’s just the way service works. Otherwise, if ISPs has to increase bandwidth they’d have had to pass on their extra costs directly to all consumers vs the consumers who only use a specific service like Netflix.

 

[Falsedawn]

The only way it can be, as explained to me, is that services who have to pay for bandwidth/ speed will have to increase their fees. But to me, that’s not bad it’s just the way service works. Otherwise, if ISPs has to increase bandwidth they’d have had to pass on their extra costs directly to all consumers vs the consumers who only use a specific service like Netflix.

Or, big or, they can upgrade their infrastructure like we paid them to. Fuck crying poor, regulate them into the ground. Gigabit fiber as a baseline or your lines are opened up for competition. Bandwidth isn't a finite resource.

 

[SammyPops]

Glad my govt still holding out against big telecoms. We'll see how long bitch Justin lasts.

Best not fuck with my p0rnhub

 

[luckyshot]

How exactly is this bad for consumers?

Because if big content providers (like Netflix or Youtube) pay to be "sponsored data" it makes it harder for any new startup to compete in a meaningful way.

Think of it this way: over the last 25 years, the web has been an even playing ground, that anyone who buys a url can compete on. So we've seen insane progress in a short time. As a result, some companies that ruled the world 20 years ago, like AOL don't even exist anymore.

The "googles" and "youtubes" or the world today want to make sure this doesn't even happen to them. They want to win the internet forever, and one way of doing this is paying off providers to make their sites more attractive than potential competitors... which will stifle competition... which, in time, will stifle progress.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

...and here! We! Go!

 

[S-dot]

Or, big or, they can upgrade their infrastructure like we paid them to. Fuck crying poor, regulate them into the ground. Gigabit fiber as a baseline or your lines are opened up for competition. Bandwidth isn't a finite resource.

Ya I don’t know enough about the inner workings of ISPs to know what their costs/profits, but as it was explained to me by someone with a lot more knowledge is that the ISPs will have to pass on costs for new infrastructure that’s needed so they can either pass it on to everyone or pass it onto services like Netflix who will in turn have to pass their costs on to their subscribers.

He also said that if the govt forced them to build the infrastructure and forced them not to raise their prices, then they’d either go out of business or they’d more likely have to be subsidized via taxes so one way or another someone is paying.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Ya I don’t know enough about the inner workings of ISPs to know what their costs/profits, but as it was explained to me by someone with a lot more knowledge is that the ISPs will have to pass on costs for new infrastructure that’s needed so they can either pass it on to everyone or pass it onto services like Netflix who will in turn have to pass their costs on to their subscribers.

He also said that if the govt forced them to build the infrastructure and forced them not to raise their prices, then they’d either go out of business or they’d more likely have to be subsidized via taxes so one way or another someone is paying.

Although it may be true the infrastructure cannot handle the influx of new users streaming everyday; My question is why would they offer a no data usage towards their own services only? If quality of service is an issue here because of bandwidth, wouldn't they want to reduce usage? This is just encouraging people to use their services over another which is exactly what people said they would do after net neutrality is repealed. It was never about bandwidth or more so quality of service, but rather competition against their own services ie.. Cable tv..

 

[Prutfis]

None of this has to do with ATT slowing down your services. ATT has the bandwidth to give everyone the speeds they paid for. You act like everyone is going to go running to their streaming services now.

Except those "services" are going to get worse for anyone not paying to be a "premium" service. This pretty much lets ISP´s postpone infrastructure upgrades for as long as possible.