The sun never sets on the Intel empire - Intel official
|
|
|
AT&T claims net neutrality is oppressive
US TELECOM AT&T has come out in support of Google's contention that wireless communications are different than wireline Internet services.
Last week Google and Verizon agreed on a deal that left wireless communications free to be carved up by telecoms operators and tiered for commercial exploitation. Given Google's stance as a supporter of net neutrality, it has faced widespread criticism and even had 100 or so demonstrators outside its doors claiming that it had sold out.
Google defended its deal with Verizon by saying that its users simply misunderstood technology and that wireless was somehow different from wired technology. It comes as no big surprise that AT&T has also adopted this patronising position to concur with Google and Verizon, its largest competitor.
The firm claimed that even long term evolution (LTE) networks have only a fraction of the bandwidth found in fibre-optic networks. It also claims that the wireless network companies often "split cells" by installing new towers, but that is restricted by local authorities.
AT&T has come up with a three point action plan that includes the deployment of HSPA+ and LTE networks, using WiFi and microcells and installing even more cell towers.
AT&T said that policy makers can help by "protecting wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations", which it claims is "vital to the continued growth of the industry". Or in other words, net neutrality will limit the profits it can extract from wireless services.
The bare-faced cheek of the company calling net neutrality 'onerous' is a disgrace and simply goes to show how much AT&T and the like care for their paying customers. As we and many others had predicted, Google's deal with Verizon has opened the floodgates for telecoms operators to make ridiculous claims in order to destroy net neutrality and promote their own agenda of what AT&T termed 'continued growth'.
It should also be noted that AT&T's statement made no reference to how its network performance affects its subscribers. Rather it reads like a sob story, except that it's being told by a company that raked in $123 billion in revenues and about 12.5 billion profit last year alone. µ
Tags: Google
Share this:
Share
Umm no. The corporations have bought limited licenses to use a very scarce public resource ie spectrum. How they use it needs to be controlled and managed for the maximum public benefit.
@Mike
I currently don't have a choice. A month after signing an apartment lease they informed everyone that we had to switch the internet to AT&T DSL (from my fast-as-heck cable) because of some deal they made with AT&T and if I switch back to cable AT&T will literally cut my line so now I'm stuck with AT&T suck net for an entire year and I'm an IT specialist so it's not like I can go without the internet, it's part of my job. I'm not sure where you get this "entitled" business from (Fox News) but I just want the speed and service I pay for, no more, no less with a choice of my provider.
Take your business elsewhere? Free Market? There are only a handful of providers in the industry so "taking your business elsewhere" doesn't really accomplish anything. All you can do boycott the whole system.
They rake in so much profit though they could care less. And even with all of the upgrades and construction of new towers etc..they still managed to bring in record profits.
The problem is that so many people want everything for free. These people feel entitled to free whatever.
Remember that wi-fi & wireless service costs these "evil" corporations money to install, maintain, and upgrade these services.
You are able to choose where you spend your money.... that is the free market and capitalism! If you don't like what AT&T does, you take your money to a place that gives you the service you want.
Get off the "entitled" bandwagon. The last thing this country is more clueless bureaucrats making decisions for everyone. Just like a clueless judge can overturn something the people have repeatedly votes against. It's just not right.
"Rather it reads like a sob story, except that it's being told by a company that raked in $123 billion in revenues and about 12.5 billion profit last year alone."
Uh yeah, that IS what the article says...
That would be $123 billion in revenue last year (not profit).
It has been alleged that AT&T wiretapped their customers via government orders and AT&T says net neutrality is oppressive?
From what I understant AT&T told the government to force the baby bells to provide telephone wire neutrality. AT&T needed neutrality from the baby bells to make a profit.
AT&T's big eyes, big ears and big teeth should worry all of us.
The idea of Net Neutrality, where one vendor cannot block or otherwise impair access to a competing vendor's services, totally makes sense and is something that I support.
However, I think we should all be VERY hesitant to allowing the government, the same government that wants to give Obama a "Internet Off" button, to write the legislation governing Net Neutrality. The ability to throttle traffic intelligently is more than just "blocking access" to specific services and has a lot to do with providing good Quality of Service.
Under the existing bills discussed, someone spamming a million emails every minute will get the same right to bandwidth as you at home trying to stream a movie...
So think real hard before blindly agreeing that spammers and torrenters can usurp your bandwidth because you decided they are just as important as you are.
The Net Neutrality issue will be yet another real-life demonstration of the power of corporate America over the federal government. We should EXPECT the federal government to fold, and to give away Net Neutrality to Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, or any other "corporate person" wealthy enough to make officials weak in the knees. It's in the nature of Corporatism that government be partners with big business interests, whether the common citizen's rights are diminished or not.
Obama will choose his battles, like he chose to stand up for freedom of religion-- a "corporation-neutral" and therefore, a "safe" issue to raise. But Obama will NOT offend the telecom giants.
What is really oppressive is paying at&t for internet access. They know the only new competition is going to come from wifi internet providers and are attempting to kill them before they grow.