republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category Wireless Carriers Oppose Neutrality Rules
Surprising, well, nobody...
08:58AM Tuesday Sep 22 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · competition · business · wireless · net-neutrality
AT&T and Verizon have unsurprisingly come out against the FCC's new network neutrality push. "AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly," says AT&T's top policy man Jim Cicconi, joining a chorus of carriers this week suddenly pretending they support rules governing their network management.

Calling wireless the "most competitive consumer market in America," Cicconi warned that such rules are impractical because of the bandwidth concerns on wireless networks, which in AT&T's case are partially self inflicted given intentionally lower wireless CAPEX despite the clear demands of Apple iPhone users. Cicconi's suggestion that network neutrality principles shouldn't adhere to wireless networks would seem to run contrary to statements he made just one year ago, when he suggested that broadband principles should be applied "across the board."

Verizon similarly says they're working hard with their "Open Development Initiative" to embrace open networks without government prodding, though as we've explored, the initiative is more public relations than substance so far.

Related:
  1. Google, You're a Wireless Tease
  2. Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
  3. Gimped Skype release, AT&T TOS Changes Annoy Advocates
  4. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  5. AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
  6. Retired Telco Exec Sent Sloppy AT&T Lobbying Letter
  7. AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Ads
  8. Telus Sues Rogers Over Ad Claims
Forums » Wireless Carriers Oppose Neutrality Rules
view: topics flat text 
Post a:
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03

2 edits

Restricted Internet Service

You either offer Internet service (and all that comes with it) or you do not. Wireless carriers like Verizon and AT&T specifically blocking a competitive application (Skype, Hulu, etc) from customers is a blatant violation of neutrality principals.

baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
·Verizon Wireless B..

Re: Restricted Internet Service

A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view.

If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it, and suspend people if they abuse it. If they dont like that, face the free market, where they can go to a different provider that may have more options for that consumer as far as bandwidth consumption.
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03


1 edit

Re: Restricted Internet Service

said by baineschile See Profile :

A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view.

If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it, and suspend people if they abuse it. If they dont like that, face the free market, where they can go to a different provider that may have more options for that consumer as far as bandwidth consumption.
NOTE: Ignoring your uncalled for insult.

Abuse is very different then dictating which services you can use on an similar, but competitive, Internet based application. If you offer an Internet service, the data services bits are normally considered just bits. The wireless carriers are being very specific about restricting competitive Internet based services on an Internet product offering.
averagedude

join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ

Re: Restricted Internet Service

One persons "abuse" is another "capacity issue" or another "business model failure".
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

I am fed up with these big corporations and i am equally fed up with the large medai studios & their stooges RIAA & MPAA

Net Neutrality will be good for all of us consumers.we need protection or we will be taken advantage of by these big corps
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

Re: Restricted Internet Service

So if you do a friend a favor and allow him to more into your home for some small amount and the friend then invites 10 of the people he knows to move in and he is charging enough to make a nice profit. Well your power, water and food bill are draining you bank account but you and your friend signed a contract and you were not allowed do anything about it.
chemaupr

join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA


1 edit
Once again they build the infrastructure to access a network that in principle requires you to be open. So if they want to have access to the content the Internet provides... then they should play by its rule.

If not, then they can do like verzion VCast and repackage the media they want to offer and services.
Necronomikro

join:2005-09-01

said by baineschile See Profile :

A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view.

If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it, and suspend people if they abuse it. If they dont like that, face the free market, where they can go to a different provider that may have more options for that consumer as far as bandwidth consumption.
Ahh, but, some providers have TOS that are restrictive about what kind of content can be passed through their networks.

Most wireless providers say that video streaming (unless its theirs! or sponsored by them) and p2p networks are banned altogether.

Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..

said by baineschile See Profile :

A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view.

If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it, and suspend people if they abuse it. If they dont like that, face the free market, where they can go to a different provider that may have more options for that consumer as far as bandwidth consumption.
I think "generally dictating" would fall under the 5GB cap. Who cares if I use all 5GB at once? I pay extra or lose service if I go over.

As far as being naive, do you really think we have any choice or the option of ANY carrier who doesn't impose bandwidth consumption limits, penalize you with high ETF fees, and generally collude with the other carrier to keep prices high and service low.

If I would have known my AT&T service was going to be so terrible and they were going to block me from using certain applications, I would never have signed up in the first place.

S_engineer

join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast

Re: Restricted Internet Service

I'm kind of surprised you thought you'd get great service from AT&T. The horror stories from this site alone have kept me from getting an I-Phone.
And this all encompassing excuse of "bandwidth concerns"is really stupid considering they are once again overselling capacity. Don't put out 5 million I-Phones if your network can only handle 500,000.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..

Re: Restricted Internet Service

said by S_engineer See Profile :

I'm kind of surprised you thought you'd get great service from AT&T. The horror stories from this site alone have kept me from getting an I-Phone.
And this all encompassing excuse of "bandwidth concerns"is really stupid considering they are once again overselling capacity. Don't put out 5 million I-Phones if your network can only handle 500,000.
The horror stories weren't quite so plentiful a year ago. I honestly believe the iPhone caught AT&T off-guard, because the service wasn't as bad a year ago as it is today. In other words, it's been slowly getting worse and worse.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..

Re: Restricted Internet Service

said by Matt See Profile :

The horror stories weren't quite so plentiful a year ago. I honestly believe the iPhone caught AT&T off-guard, because the service wasn't as bad a year ago as it is today. In other words, it's been slowly getting worse and worse.
the reason i went with an iphone was simply because of the fact that i had experience with att in this part of the country and i was pleasantly surprised.
i had a work provided blackjack2 on att. once company policy changes occured, i purchased a 3gs and i haven't been taken aback by the network. its fairly speedy down here and the coverage rivals any other major carrier.
best of all - work foots the bill (voice, data, and unlimited text), so i guess i have no real vested interest other than the phone.
it works well for what i do, ymmv.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo

If someone is indeed causing major problems on a consistent basis, then I would agree that the provider should be able to remove them and cancel their service without charging any sort of early termination fee (since the removal was at the provider's discretion).

However, in order to do this the provider must be held to some kind of standard. This should be treated more like a home rental agreement than an single sale of a bag of M&Ms at Wal Mart, especially given the ongoing nature of the service contract between the provider and the consumer. What this means is that prior to providers terminating service, a series of written warnings should be issued. These warnings should include what the user was doing, along with some sort of verifiable proof that it was actually causing a problem on the network.

Providers should also not be allowed to restrict certain applications from running on their network if they are allowing similar applications to run. In other words, AT&T allowing users to stream audio and video of baseball games through the Major League Baseball app means that AT&T should also be forced to allow users to stream audio and video from other sources across their network. Allowing use of the MLB app proves that streaming audio/video doesn't "kill" their network; if they had those kinds of concerns they wouldn't have allowed it to begin with.

I'm tired of AT&T and the like crying wolf and painting those of us who actually want to maximize use of the connections we've paid for as "bandwidth hogs" and the like. But I guess that's the new "in" thing in wireless: overcharge people for shoddy data connections, and then point fingers and blame them when things go awry.
--
It's simple: Obama is lying about health care. His plans require rationing, and openly fund abortions and euthanization. And his continued association with ACORN only shows that he supports its illegal and immoral activities. Remove Obama from office now.

Eat Me

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage

said by baineschile See Profile :

A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view.

If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it, and suspend people if they abuse it. If they dont like that, face the free market, where they can go to a different provider that may have more options for that consumer as far as bandwidth consumption.
It's not as black and white as you want it to seem.

Public utilities get generous use of public infrastructure, which in many cases consists of rights to put equipment on private land via utility easements. Private land owners most times are forced to give up these easements and receive no compensation in return.

If a public utility such as a phone company were to negotiate with every land owner for access to their land to put up poles, put up equipment cabinets (fridge size VRADs for example) it could get expensive very quickly and could quite possibly be halted in its tracks by one unwilling land owner.

So yes, they spend their money, but the network isn't all on their property. They need to serve the public and that should include fair and open access to the network.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest

Re: Restricted Internet Service

Well said. This same issue also applies to the argument "If the competitors want to provide service, they should have to build their own network from the ground up."

Impossible, since they don't get the utility access and right of ways and easements the existing players do. Even when they do get utility access, they can still be blocked by the incumbent saying "Sorry no room, sure we'll put in more equipment (poles, cabinets, whatever....) .... if you pay us huge amounts for it. Oh and we'll take forever doing it too.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest

said by baineschile See Profile :

A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view.

If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it,
Not if you want to sell service to people to access the internet. If you want to market it as "Censored Monitored controlled semi-access to part of the Internet we deem is ok" well then so be it.

But if you are marketing it as Internet access, then no, you really should NOT control where people go with it. What you're proposing it like the Telephone company selling service that won't dial competitor's or non-affilates businesses, TV's that won't tune to channels that don't participate in some sort of payola plan, or cars that won't run on certain gasoline unless it's from a certain company station.

All which should be illegal, and rightly so.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Wizeguy

join:2008-08-23
Safety Harbor, FL
The Telcos didn't pay for the infrastructure their customers did. All the while they also reaped huge profits. OK that's cool but if your going to advertise internet access it should not mean internet access of our approved sites only.
anderboy

join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX
·AT&T U-Verse

If a business had designed the internet instead of it evolving from a government/educational system, we wouldn't need "neutrality principles".
I think they are within their rights to dictate how their service is to be used, but they're being all stupid about it. If they just charged more for certain types of packets, instead of blocking them, it would increase their profits.

The best way is an economically efficient way determined by bidding. This paper, written in 1993, explains a better way of doing things, yet I can't find any recent research or proponents of it: »129.3.20.41/eps/comp/papers/9401/9401002.pdf

Basically, each internet link provided by a company should have a monthly cost for maintaining the link and for future investment. Any single packet on the internet should have a bid to the service provider to carry the packet, representing actual dollars and cents (really a fraction of a cent). Packets are priority forwarded by the bid amount.

People who are using video conferencing should be willing to pay more for their packets than people using a torrent. A little meter applet could show the real-time cost, and you could adjust it up until service was acceptable or down if the price is too high for you. A computer program to set these bids could probably minimize your cost if given the right constraints. There would also have to be a best-effort equivalent lowest denomination (which could be free).

This simple solution would solve all pricing and congestion problems on the internet. Now poke holes in it, I'd like to develop this further.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest

Re: Restricted Internet Service

said by anderboy See Profile :

If a business had designed the internet instead of it evolving from a government/educational system, we wouldn't need "neutrality principles".
You're right. We wouldn't need Internet access at all, as it would be just another expensive service that was one-way and pretty much useless.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

said by yt See Profile :

You either offer Internet service (and all that comes with it) or you do not. Wireless carriers like Verizon and AT&T specifically blocking a competitive application (Skype, Hulu, etc) from customers is a blatant violation of neutrality principals.
Actually AT&T only blocks Skype on the iPhone. You are free to use it on WM. So, technically, AT&T isn't blocking anything as they don't block it at the network level....err I guess you could say they block it at the user level. But, it's really just a tap dance around the issue. The simple issue that as it stands NOW, there is nothing stopping AT&T from blocking those apps at the network level. And there is nothing as a consumer we can do.

But for some reason people still support the Apple/AT&T, which I would gladly buy an iPhone if for not one of the simple facts Apple bends over for AT&T...I like to think that NOT purchasing their product will send a message that they should change their business model. If only others felt the same way, but it seems the current iPhone owners are HAPPY with the way Apple is doing business with the iPhone. But, then again, this isn't an Apple vs Other device argument now is it?

Should I break out the tiered internet pic?

digiprod



Of Course They Oppose Openness

Glad to see an FCC that finally works for us and not the telcos and ISPs. Their is a big difference between managing a network's bandwidth and net neutrality. On AT&T/iPhone, Google Voice was removed and rejected, it uses no big bandwidth and even uses cell minutes - BLOCKED.

Skype and other VoIP uses no more bandwidth than a service like Pandora, but it is blocked off AT&T's network. Carriers need to stop blocking services they just don't like - these are the PUBLIC airwaves! We need an open Internet, not one controlled by a select few companies that want to dictate what can run on it.

Innovation should not be stifled by ISPs and carriers WE PAY for bandwidth. Stop the filters NOW! I am a conservative that does not agree with the Obama administration on much, but this time they got it right!
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Of Course They Oppose Openness

said by digiprod :

these are the PUBLIC airwaves!
That companies have paid handsomely to lease for their use.
said by digiprod :

We need an open Internet, not one controlled by a select few companies that want to dictate what can run on it.
And we have an open internet. Don't like the restrictions of your particular service provider? Change providers. There are several wireless providers spanning most of this country.
said by digiprod :

Innovation should not be stifled by ISPs and carriers WE PAY for bandwidth.
Be careful with your words. You pay for service, not bandwidth. I'm sure the providers would be willing to let you do whatever you desire if you're willing to pay for bandwidth
jsuboh

join:2002-06-13
Earlimart, CA
·RoadRunner Cable

Re: Of Course They Oppose Openness

said by openbox9 See Profile :

said by digiprod :

these are the PUBLIC airwaves!
That companies have paid handsomely to lease for their use.
Actually, we as consumer pay for the network by subscribing to their services - If we did not pay a dime, they would not invest a dime. If we did not pay them to provide a service, they would not exist.

Gbcue
E.I.T.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·Skype
·Dreamhost
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse

Re: Of Course They Oppose Openness

said by jsuboh See Profile :

said by openbox9 See Profile :

said by digiprod :

these are the PUBLIC airwaves!
That companies have paid handsomely to lease for their use.
Actually, we as consumer pay for the network by subscribing to their services - If we did not pay a dime, they would not invest a dime. If we did not pay them to provide a service, they would not exist.
Ha, you invest lots of dimes, but they (providers) still don't invest a dime.
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
That's how businesses operate. Am I missing your point?

Gbcue
E.I.T.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
Do you know how long these leases last?
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA

Re: Of Course They Oppose Openness

The recent 700 MHz license period is for 10 years if I'm not mistaken.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
AT&T and Verizon got free 850 spectrum way back when. Just sayin'.

baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
Agreed wholeheartedly with this. When you lease a car, you dont get unlimited miles; as it affects the bottom line for the leasing company.
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03

Re: Of Course They Oppose Openness

I don't want unlimited miles. I just want to go to my local mechanic, coffee shop, grocery store, etc with the car I bought. I'd rather not be forced to go to Ford or an affiliated company for everything I do with that car.

NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo

When you lease a car, does your lease stipulate that you must only use gasoline purchased from the auto manufacturer? Or does it stipulate that you can only drive on interstates, and are prohibited from running the vehicle on dirt roads? Or that you can't drive it into the states of Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, and California? Of course not-- that would be just plain silly.

To me, an ISP telling you that you can use their video streaming app, but not another's, is similar to the above scenarios. If AT&T allows one video streaming app to run on one type of handset on their network, then it should be fair game to use other video streaming apps on all handsets on their network.

If you're paying for access to the internet with a 5GB monthly cap, that essentially means that you're paying for the right to flow 5GB worth of data through their pipes each month. It is disingenuous of them to sell 5GB worth of access but place enough restrictions on what you can do to essentially limit you to several hundred megs at most. Perhaps the next publicity campaign that AT&T runs should read "AT&T: The Michael Moore of Wireless Service". That just about sums it up: lie, cheat, and screw your customers as much as possible to increase your bottom line.

I'll agree with what one of the previous posters said... There isn't much I agree with the Obama administration on, but I do agree with them on net neutrality. It is time for these companies to stop hiding behind the "Bandwidth hog! You'll take the network down!" ruse and actually spend some of those billions in profit upgrading their networks.
--
It's simple: Obama is lying about health care. His plans require rationing, and openly fund abortions and euthanization. And his continued association with ACORN only shows that he supports its illegal and immoral activities. Remove Obama from office now.
MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA

Infrastructure

What percentage of the 'providers' infrastructure exists as the result of government subsidies and tax-breaks?
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Infrastructure

100% - Because no matter how many times they have "reinvested" into the network it was originally created on our backs, they were able to invest in it on our backs, and because of other "friendly incentives" they continue to make billions every quarter on our backs.

They would not exist without us and therefore they can never separate themselves from us.

justsayin

@sbc.com
Toyota gets tax breaks to build plants, that does not mean that you are entitled to a discounted car or have a say in the way they run their business since you pay taxes...
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Re: Infrastructure

You are speaking of 2 different markets and industries that don't even compare in any way.

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

AT&T knocks FCC proposed rules as bait & switch

»www.google.com/url?q=http://bits···&emc=rss
In its statement today, the company noted “that unencumbered spectrum was sold for many billions more” than the spectrum Verizon bought.

For the F.C.C. to now place such requirements on that spectrum so soon after the auction creates the impression of a ‘bait and switch,’ and could raise questions about the fairness and integrity of the auction process itself.

The C.T.I.A., the wireless trade group, also raised significant reservations about the new rules. It said: “The commission is considering changing the rules after the auction — impacting companies’ confidence in the auction process — just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis.”
AT&T has a point. They paid much more for wireless spectrum that was SUPPOSED TO BE unencumbered by restrictive regulations and now the FCC is trying to change the rules midstream. I think they should get a rebate on their wireless leases.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


See 10 replies to this post

asdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

...

The internet is a global open network of networks.

If a particular network is incapable of providing open access to this global network then it is not the obligation of the global network to alter its standards to meet the technical limitations of a provider network. The provider network needs to deal with its technical limitations or cease providing a service that it claims is "internet access". If wireless providers are only capable of providing a limited data service with specific applications then they should sell it as a proprietary data service, not call it an internet connectivity service and then demand that the internet adapt itself to the needs of their network limitations.

If the market was as competitive as they claim we wouldn't even be looking at things from the point of view of redefining the internet to meet the needs of carriers. Carriers would either be capable of providing internet connectivity or they wouldn't. The fact that we consider defining internet innovation around the technical limitations of these wireless networks is proof of how concentrated control over internet access actually is in this country. If there was robust competition a carrier would either find a way to provide open internet access over their network or they would die and there would be plenty of others to take their place.

If wireless technology is not, in general, capable of handling the open internet, then we need to cease viewing wireless as the future and need to focus on universal wireline build out to get the infrastructure built that can handle the open internet.

SHABAZZ

join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA

Re: ...

Great analysis man.

pizmo pete

join:2007-10-24
Portland, CT

Is the Wireless Net different, that the wireline net?

According to Att and Vz they are different...not so because after the cell tower, it's the same ethernet cloud. If they built their own new network, then maybe.The "problem" is the providers, lack of towers, lack of fiber to feed the bigger towers, played the wait and see, sat on their money and let's try to reap more from the texting loophole. They did great till the Iphone came and the lack of investment, bits them in the ass....just like what's happening to att now...They spent nothing on the upgrades in last couple of years, only to "panic" this year... network overload. The Iphone blew the corp idiots expectations away, with it's success, I doubt they new how big it would be and now they want to control the herd. More lies to cover our stupidity blame the kids....
ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
·Comcast Formerly ..

Let the networks compete

Here's a concept....

If the unfettered networks are so horrible as the carriers say, then created a managed network, price it and let it compete against "open" networks and let the best one win.

Then the market will decide.

Commercial vendors have been pricing and selling managed networks for years, why not sell it to residential?

Want a virus free connection? OK, that $5/mo
Want a spam free connection, OK that $3.50/mo

Let it the service compete on true value & features as opposed to some nebulous standard the carriers dream up.

They moan about being a dumb pipe but yet all they can market are bigger, dumber pipes.

People will pay for value, the capability is there, so offer it and let the market decide.
Forums » Wireless Carriers Oppose Neutrality Rules


Saturday, 21-Nov 07:59:05 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.