AT&T already ditching net neutrality

[method115]

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.

That's an assumption your making and one that may be correct but has nothing to do with your article. This article claims this is ATT's fast lanes BS and it's not. Right now all this does is make it so that any "premium" service isn't counted towards your data usage it's that simple.

 

[*Z*]

AT&T service is garbage anyway.

 

[Prutfis]

That's an assumption your making and one that may be correct but has nothing to do with your article. This article claims this is ATT's fast lanes BS and it's not. Right now all this does is make it so that any "premium" service isn't counted towards your data usage it's that simple.

And the consequence of that will beeeeeeeeee. Come on man, at least think more than 5 min ahead. It´s really not that hard to see where this will end.

"we are not throtteling bandwidth. We are only making it 1000 times better to use services who pay us millions"... Yeah.

 

[Falsedawn]

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.

We already paid for it in the 90s, and they balked because it was "too expensive". Meanwhile profits and market share continue to go up.

Fuck ISPs, if they can't hang, then they need to go out of business. Build the infrastructure or fuck off. I'd burn them down and salt the earth if they don't wanna live up to their end of the bargain.

 

[method115]

And the consequence of that will beeeeeeeeee. Come on man, at least think more than 5 min ahead. It´s really not that hard to see where this will end.

"we are not throtteling bandwidth. We are only making it 1000 times better to use services who pay us millions"... Yeah.

If you wanted to have a conversation about what this could mean that's fine. I'm not thinking 5 mins ahead because my whole point was that this is a shitty article that is just out right lying. You keep trying to steer me into a conversation about what this could mean for the future and I have no interest in trying to predict what ISP's will do. It's out of my hands at this point and all I can do is sit back see what they do and adjust accordingly.

 

[thechoice2]

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..

What does that have to do with net neutrality though? They were allowing steaming of DirectTV without it counting against your data usage last year when there was Net Neutrality. (although steaming is limited to 480p video)

 

[S-dot]

We already paid for it in the 90s, and they balked because it was "too expensive". Meanwhile profits and market share continue to go up.

Fuck ISPs, if they can't hang, then they need to go out of business. Build the infrastructure or fuck off. I'd burn them down and salt the earth if they don't wanna live up to their end of the bargain.

Lol Again i don’t know much about it, just relaying info. What’s the ideal solution? Or do you think there isn’t a problem and it’s just a money grab on the part of the ISPs?

 

[Prefect]

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.

It would be analogous to if our entire public road system was turned into a series of toll roads owned and operate by three or four companies. Those toll road companies are not going to charge the upkeep of their roads and a little for profit. They are going to charge some fraction of the value of the goods and people traveling on their roads. They basically are regional monpolies, remember. They are also going to steer people into gas stations and cities that have businesses they own because they own the roads and set the prices. So, now joe schmoe gets gouged if he doesn't go where they want him to go and he will pay heavy tolls on anything he badly wants or needs.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

What does that have to do with net neutrality though? They were allowing steaming of DirectTV without it counting against your data usage last year when there was Net Neutrality. (although steaming is limited to 480p video)

Well it means that the quality of service was never the real issue here but rather them wanting to screw with competition. They aren't penalizing current outside services right now, but they will.

I'll be sure to bump up this thread when it happens.

 

[Prutfis]

If you wanted to have a conversation about what this could mean that's fine. I'm not thinking 5 mins ahead because my whole point was that this is a shitty article that is just out right lying. You keep trying to steer me into a conversation about what this could mean for the future and I have no interest in trying to predict what ISP's will do. It's out of my hands at this point and all I can do is sit back see what they do and adjust accordingly.

The article isn´t lying. This is exactly one of the points of NN. Is it a problem now that there are 2 services ofc not. However the solution itself will result in the very problem many people were warning about.

 

[thechoice2]

Well it means that the quality of service was never the real issue here but rather them wanting to screw with competition.

Allowing customers the ability to steam their service for free is just smart business, that gives customers a reason to subscribe to a bundled package service offered by ATT.

 

[Falsedawn]

Lol Again i don’t know much about it, just relaying info. What’s the ideal solution? Or do you think there isn’t a problem and it’s just a money grab on the part of the ISPs?

The solution is mandating increased standards for fixed line broadband and holding them to the fire until they build out. If that fails, then deregulate middle mile and last mile lines to break up their legalized monopoly.

This is in lieu of telling them they already shit the bed and outright nationalizing public internet infrastructure. That's my preferred solution. Fiber or else.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Allowing customers the ability to steam their service for free is just smart business, that gives customers a reason to subscribe to a bundled package service offered by ATT.

You are confused here. The argument against net neutrality was that it has caused the quality of service over time to degrade because each respective ISP network was never designed to handle all these high bandwidth hogging outside streaming services. But now they are offering and encouraging users to use their service because of an uncapped incentive. If the network is already having issues with outside streaming, how does encouraging users to stream even more help the congested network? The answer is... it does not help it. Which leads me to believe bandwidth was never an issue and was all bull shit.

 

[Falsedawn]

You are confused here. The argument against net neutrality was that it has caused the quality of service over time to degrade because each respective ISP network was never designed to handle all these high bandwidth hogging outside streaming services. But now they are offering and encouraging users to use their service because of an uncapped incentive. If the network is already having issues with outside streaming, how does encouraging users to stream even more help the congested network? The answer is... it does not help it. Which leds me to believe bandwidth was never an issue and was all bull shit.

They currently have a bunch of garden hoses and want to restrict the flow of water instead of laying out some fire hoses for increased flow. That's basically it.

 

[thechoice2]

You are confused here. The argument against net neutrality was that it has caused the quality of service over time to degrade because each respective ISP network was never designed to handle all these high bandwidth hogging outside streaming services. But now they are offering and encouraging users to use their service because of an uncapped incentive. If the network is already having issues with outside streaming, how does encouraging users to stream even more help the congested network? The answer is... it does not help it. Which leds me to believe bandwidth was never an issue and was all bull shit.

ATT was for Net Neutrality not against it so why are you using an argument that was against net neutrality in order to use it as ATT's positioning on it?

 

[Thepaintbucket]

ATT was for Net Neutrality not against it so why are you using an argument that was against net neutrality in order to use it as ATT's positioning on it?

That's completely false. It's a play on words.

http://www.businessinsider.com/att-...st-lanes-but-wants-right-to-prioritize-2018-2

"Let me [be] clear about this — AT&T is not interested in creating fast lanes and slow lanes on anyone's internet," Bob Quinn, AT&T's senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a blog post published on the company's site on Tuesday.

But, he added, the company does want the freedom to essentially do just that — give preferential treatment, or a speedier virtual lane, to certain classes of applications.

 

[Prutfis]

Allowing customers the ability to steam their service for free is just smart business, that gives customers a reason to subscribe to a bundled package service offered by ATT.

Data caps should really be a thing of the past. I can stream netflix in 4k 24/7 on my 500/500 for 70$ a month. This also includes online security, always getting the newest equipment, 3 MESH wi-fi units and 100GB online storage..

Power companies are becoming the biggest ISPs here. The government let them into the market so while they were already digging to put down power cables they put down fiber tubes as well. Lowered the cost by quite a bit. I think my initial payment was 200$ to have a fiber put directly into my house and that was because they had to redo most of the driveway.