AT&T Weighs In On Net Neutrality

[dalyew]

And a net neutrality debate doesn't have to get political in the dem versus repub sense. Everyone I know, regardless of political affiliation, thinks what is being done to Netflix is problematic and would only become more so if it spread to other sources of data.

Not to mention that most conservatives will admit that the free market works best in competitive open markets. The ISPs are a small oligopoly with near monopolies in certain regions. Throw in the high barrier of entry and it's not exactly the ideal situation for the invisible hand to balance things out.

Long story short, I don't see this as a traditional conservative versus liberal argument.

It isn't, but those politicians backed by cable & satellite money wants to make it political to muddy the waters. Big money always know how to play the game using their bought & paid for puppets....they're just "Cruzing" along.

 

[dalyew]

What I find hilarious about the whole argument that the phone companies have is that Comcast (of all the evil companies) and most all major cable companies strung fiber up along their entire networks YEARS AGO. Comcast bought up AT&T Broadband in late 2002, and then immediately after for most of 2003 into 2004 had trucks everywhere in the streets as they were putting up fiber -- consequently you can now get a 50 meg Comcast connection practically anywhere in their footprint for $60 per month, and 100+ megs if you pony up for it -- they just doubled it from 25 megs at that price point, and now they are in trials in some markets of making 100 megs the 60 buck plan and 200 megs the expensive one.

The phone companies have wider networks, better facilities, better rights-of-way, more revenue (especially from all the business customers -- we pay over a grand a month for Metro Ethernet at work -- I somehow doubt the phone company isn't making a pretty penny) and could bring fiber to the curb (it doesn't HAVE to be to the premises -- although Verizon proved that they can actually pull that off and the results are pretty sweet) if they wanted to the same way the cable guys have -- but they'd rather whine about how providing a basic service they way they made their billions off phone service just doesn't bring them enough money.

As much as I love to hate on Comcast, their internet service is pretty good considering the competition I have -- which is Centurylink, who loves to send me fliers saying that 40 meg internet is available for $29.99 for the first year -- except it's actually only 1.5 megs here, it tops out at 8 megs in the middle of the city (Olympia, WA), and the only 20 and 40 meg connections to be had are in the surrounding suburbs of Seattle and parts of Tacoma -- their latest marketing scheme on radio and TV is that they offer GIGABIT internet -- and plaster advertising about it everywhere... which would be cool, except it's basically only in limited neighborhoods near downtown Seattle, even less available than their 20 and 40 meg VDSL... but from hearing and seeing the ads you'd think it's practically everywhere. Really the only way to get "decent" phone-system based internet here is if you were lucky enough to be in a GTE area... Verizon picked them up, really did a good job pushing FIOS out to most of the area -- but then sold off all their markets in the NW to Frontier Communications. In other words you now have a mid-sized ISP who owns an amazing network -- it's like having all the benefits of Verizon's massive wallet, without having to deal with Verizon.

So I have absolutely no love for phone companies... I have very little love for Comcast, but at least they provide me with a reasonable connection -- and lately they've gotten MUCH better about not dropping down considerably during prime time (I get my full 50 megs now, and drop to around 30 during heavily congested times... it's much better than when it was supposed to be around 25 megs but peaked at 14 and dropped as low as 2). But AT&T in particular has absolutely no excuse -- from what I understand UVerse is a network that was done on the cheap, has limited bandwidth for multiple DVRs and shares the TV bandwidth with the internet. At least Verizon tried with FIOS, and did their fiber network right the first time... as for CenturyLink, they are absolutely worthless to me -- except I can call up Comcast like clockwork and say "CenturyLink sent me a flier that says 40 meg service is now in my area" and I get $15 bucks off for 6 months...

The internet is a UTILITY just like phone service. No one can say at this day and age that it isn't -- it should be regulated the same way phone service is. Tack on $5 for a "universal broadband service charge" the same way the phone service has, and require that at least the minimum standard of "broadband" (I think it's 6 megs now) across the entire network -- which means even if you live in the middle of nowhere you'll still get 6 megs -- in the areas where they have to compete with cable (who gets franchise fees) that's the incentive to provide faster service. Whoever it was at the FCC that let them change internet service from "common carrier" to "information service" was an idiot.

I'm not a huge "government regulation" type of guy either -- but even I can see that the internet is right up there with phone service as far as an essential utility. In fact since you can actually use the internet as phone service without actually subscribing to phone service means it might even be a little more useful and essential than phone service at this point. I'm all for a USF fee for the internet -- the phone companies LOVE their USF money because even though it's a large capex up front, it's money they get from everyone continually... with everyone dropping their landlines, it's a great way to ensure they continue to get their USF money -- and that (selfishly) I can find a nice place in the country where I would actually have a reasonably priced option and not have to choose between satellite internet (never again) or dropping $250 a month on a T1 line that, although only 1.5 megs would be rock solid (I'd take the T1). When real estate agents are now being asked "What sort of internet can I get out here?" (and it's not just I who ask this question) I'd say you've crossed into "essential utility" territory...

That has been my thinking from a layman's point of view, the Internet so resembles the function of telecommunications which is already regulated so why not just adopt those same regulations by just classifying these providers as public utilities? I & several people I know, even bookmark these sites as "Utility Bills"! These utility regulations seems to have worked for the consumers over the decades but not for the companies that saw their ridiculous super profits disappear to only making good, solid profits, which is always a no no for greedy companies like AT&T & Comcast.

 

[mike123abc]

That has been my thinking from a layman's point of view, the Internet so resembles the function of telecommunications which is already regulated so why not just adopt those same regulations by just classifying these providers as public utilities? I & several people I know, even bookmark these sites as "Utility Bills"! These utility regulations seems to have worked for the consumers over the decades but not for the companies that saw their ridiculous super profits disappear to only making good, solid profits, which is always a no no for greedy companies like AT&T & Comcast.

Most opponents fear what has happened to the phone bill... Your line may only be $30/month, but with taxes and regulatory fees it manages to be $75. I know that taxes and fees are not required to be put on regulated "utilities", but once they start, they just keep adding them slowly over the years, all seemingly good causes.

 

[dalyew]

Most opponents fear what has happened to the phone bill... Your line may only be $30/month, but with taxes and regulatory fees it manages to be $75. I know that taxes and fees are not required to be put on regulated "utilities", but once they start, they just keep adding them slowly over the years, all seemingly good causes.

Good point but those taxes & fees are a little more transparent though & can be more questioned than random increases in your cable/internet bill. But I get your point though.

 

[NGeorge]

Most opponents fear what has happened to the phone bill... Your line may only be $30/month, but with taxes and regulatory fees it manages to be $75. I know that taxes and fees are not required to be put on regulated "utilities", but once they start, they just keep adding them slowly over the years, all seemingly good causes.

I think a lot more of this has to do with how the phone companies market their plans -- since more people are moving to broadband, it is very hard to get a clear "basic line" rate from them... it almost always includes "unlimited long distance" for a $20 upcharge, "line protection", calling features etc... which is what leads to inflated bills when you call up and just say "I want phone service".

If you know what your asking for, it's completely possible to get just a regular phone line... You just need to be adamant that you just need a BASIC LOCAL LINE. My mom has her basic local phone line, it's $18 for the basic charge, about $25 and some change after taxes and fees. She doesn't care about caller ID, has an answering machine built into her phone (remember those? It's much easier for her to use than voicemail), and has a local calling area that has expanded widely over the years ("local" calls are now about 40 miles in every direction), and a 5 cent/minute long distance plan from Sprint when she actually needs to call long distance (which isn't that much).

So I don't think it's so much a case of all the fees increasing as much as it is the phone companies trying to bundle in higher margin products and marketing these packages as the "basic" line if you don't really need them all -- but, due to the regulations, they HAVE to offer you a basic line. You just have to ask for it...

N

 

[dishcomm]

I think a lot more of this has to do with how the phone companies market their plans -- since more people are moving to broadband, it is very hard to get a clear "basic line" rate from them... it almost always includes "unlimited long distance" for a $20 upcharge, "line protection", calling features etc... which is what leads to inflated bills when you call up and just say "I want phone service".

If you know what your asking for, it's completely possible to get just a regular phone line... You just need to be adamant that you just need a BASIC LOCAL LINE. My mom has her basic local phone line, it's $18 for the basic charge, about $25 and some change after taxes and fees. She doesn't care about caller ID, has an answering machine built into her phone (remember those? It's much easier for her to use than voicemail), and has a local calling area that has expanded widely over the years ("local" calls are now about 40 miles in every direction), and a 5 cent/minute long distance plan from Sprint when she actually needs to call long distance (which isn't that much).

So I don't think it's so much a case of all the fees increasing as much as it is the phone companies trying to bundle in higher margin products and marketing these packages as the "basic" line if you don't really need them all -- but, due to the regulations, they HAVE to offer you a basic line. You just have to ask for it...

N

$26 per month for basic POTS...That's absurd.

 

[NGeorge]

$26 per month for basic POTS...That's absurd.

How much is it where you're at? It's always ran about that much here... its went up about $6 over 20 years -- and every time it goes up it's because Centurylink has added interchange agreements with local independent phone companies for local calling. Mom's local area gets expanded which may or may not be a direct benefit to everyone (although when TDS's areas were added in it was a huge savings for our entire family--some of the others, not so much) -- but it's a HUGE benefit for those on TDS as well as the truly independent companies we have around here if those people haven't moved to a cell phone only.

When TDS added local calling to CenturyLink areas about 12 years ago a number of people griped because their bill went up from around ~$11 total to ~$23 total, and it was all-or-nothing (we had to write our local representatives to support it) -- but in the case of my grandma, my dad and uncle they were ecstatic because their long distance went down from ~$100 a month to a few bucks for any "true" long distance they made. Since telephones came to their area, their local area had previously been 3 exchanges in the middle of BFE from a company called McDaniel Telephone before TDS bought them out. A number of those still stuck with truly family ran independents were even worse with their local exchange being the only local area (we still have a number of these in some truly tiny cities). I think mom's CenturyLink (er Qwest er USWest at the time) bill went up around $2.50. Since then, CenturyLink has even added some more since they merged with CenturyTel who had some of the tiny little cities before they merged with Qwest as were previously isolated as well, and all of the little companies who used to have just their own exchange as "local" have got interchange with them over the years.

Not that I defend it much -- I'm just saying that to me it doesn't seem too unreasonable -- especially when it's your only option (in the case of my mom, she lives in a true cell phone dead area -- if she had service she'd drop the landline just like everyone else seems to be doing, including myself).

N

 

[George_T]

CenturyLink customer here. Is Comcast still throttling down speeds during congested periods? Are they capping data? I get 10 megs here in East Tennessee, which is plenty fast enough to stream high definition content to my Roku or tablet. If Comcast didn't throttle down or cap data and didn't charge me an arm and a leg for internet only, I would consider them. But, if there's data caps and throttling down, it makes no sense to me, because I don't have either of these issues with CenturyLink.

 

[NGeorge]

CenturyLink customer here. Is Comcast still throttling down speeds during congested periods? Are they capping data? I get 10 megs here in East Tennessee, which is plenty fast enough to stream high definition content to my Roku or tablet. If Comcast didn't throttle down or cap data and didn't charge me an arm and a leg for internet only, I would consider them. But, if there's data caps and throttling down, it makes no sense to me, because I don't have either of these issues with CenturyLink.

I don't think it's ever been a case of them purposefully capping data -- it's just that cable is set up in a "trunk and branches" sort of way, usually by neighborhood -- if everyone is online downloading, it can pull bandwidth down to the entire "branch". That's why it can seem like you are being throttled during peak times -- it's just a matter of the cable company increasing the overall bandwidth to support their number of subscribers. Comcast has been really great about this lately... they seem to keep on top of it. This will usually happen for a few months, they fix it, it works great for a year then slows down and they increase it again -- I'm currently getting the full 50 megs, 30 during peak times. Not too bad -- when they first increased it from 25 to 50, I got around 30 / 15 but they fixed that in a couple months...

DSL is "direct to the central office" so if you pay for 50, you'll get 50 no matter what... problem is, the areas where they offer higher speeds are so limited... I can get 1.5 meg here. I checked again the other day when I first noticed this, and their online tool actually said I could now get 7... I figured I'd follow their checkout through since $19.99 for a year seemed like a great deal and I'd try it... well, I got to the end of the checkout, and on the very last screen it said there was an errorand I'd have to call in -- called in and they said nope, I can only get 1.5 and their online system malfunctioned... so I'm still sitting on Comcast; even if it's "up to 50" I'll still take it since Centurylink can't even offer 7... let alone 10, 20, or 40...

N

 

[coolman302003]

Is Comcast still throttling down speeds during congested periods? Are they capping data? I get 10 megs here in East Tennessee, which is plenty fast enough to stream high definition content to my Roku or tablet. If Comcast didn't throttle down or cap data and didn't charge me an arm and a leg for internet only, I would consider them. But, if there's data caps and throttling down, it makes no sense to me, because I don't have either of these issues with CenturyLink.

You said your in East Tennessee, well that does cover a rather large area but if your Comcast market is considered part of the Knoxville system then yes they are one of the handful of markets trialing the caps. 300GB included with additional gigabytes in increments/blocks of 50 GB for $10 each. 3 courtesy months where you can exceed in a 12 month period and not pay the additional charges.
More info:
http://customer.comcast.com/help-an...trials-what-are-the-different-plans-launching

http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials/

http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials-exceed-usage

Huntsville and Mobile, Alabama; Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah, Georgia; Central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, Mississippi; Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; Tucson, Arizona are the markets listed

Oh and yes they still charge a rather large premium for having internet only. Usually ~$15-17 more and that is if you purchase your cable modem.

 

[dishcomm]

How much is it where you're at? It's always ran about that much here... its went up about $6 over 20 years -- and every time it goes up it's because Centurylink has added interchange agreements with local independent phone companies for local calling. Mom's local area gets expanded which may or may not be a direct benefit to everyone (although when TDS's areas were added in it was a huge savings for our entire family--some of the others, not so much) -- but it's a HUGE benefit for those on TDS as well as the truly independent companies we have around here if those people haven't moved to a cell phone only.

When TDS added local calling to CenturyLink areas about 12 years ago a number of people griped because their bill went up from around ~$11 total to ~$23 total, and it was all-or-nothing (we had to write our local representatives to support it) -- but in the case of my grandma, my dad and uncle they were ecstatic because their long distance went down from ~$100 a month to a few bucks for any "true" long distance they made. Since telephones came to their area, their local area had previously been 3 exchanges in the middle of BFE from a company called McDaniel Telephone before TDS bought them out. A number of those still stuck with truly family ran independents were even worse with their local exchange being the only local area (we still have a number of these in some truly tiny cities). I think mom's CenturyLink (er Qwest er USWest at the time) bill went up around $2.50. Since then, CenturyLink has even added some more since they merged with CenturyTel who had some of the tiny little cities before they merged with Qwest as were previously isolated as well, and all of the little companies who used to have just their own exchange as "local" have got interchange with them over the years.

Not that I defend it much -- I'm just saying that to me it doesn't seem too unreasonable -- especially when it's your only option (in the case of my mom, she lives in a true cell phone dead area -- if she had service she'd drop the landline just like everyone else seems to be doing, including myself).

N

Windstream basic POTS is $16 plus taxes and fees.
Unlimited POTS is $40....LD, caller ID, etc