AT&T Weighs In On Net Neutrality

[dishcomm]

And again, another post that fails to address the fact that it is being paid for... By the customers of Comcast and the other ISPs. I am paying for every bit of data I request. Comcast has agreed to this payment by offering me their service and accepting my money. What they want and what you seem to be in favor of is for them to be able to charge twice for each bit of data. It would be like the post office charging both the sender and the recipient for transporting a letter. It's nonsensical and just a $$$$ grab.

I never stated any such thing.
What i cannot believe is when I see normally rational people who believe they absolutely must have a certain product or service, believe there is some one or some entity depriving them of said product or service and their solution is to run to the government to "fix" it for them...And time and time again, every single time when government interferes in the marketplace, they manage to screw it up.

 

[dishcomm]

It is good to see the FCC calling AT&T's bluff and requiring them to turn over all the documentation as to their gigabit plans. They may have announce over 100 cities to get 1 gigabit service, but what % of customers in those announced markets would actually see 1 gb/s service? Was it really all just a press release to get the AT&T/DIRECTV merger approved? Were they really going to do 2 million households?

With this Title II issue looming, do you not think AT&T is going to delay any new investments in plant expansion?
I sure as heck do. Why should they?

 

[dangue]

I never stated any such thing.
What i cannot believe is when I see normally rational people who believe they absolutely must have a certain product or service, believe there is some one or some entity depriving them of said product or service and their solution is to run to the government to "fix" it for them...And time and time again, every single time when government interferes in the marketplace, they manage to screw it up.

Please show me how the previous net neutrality rules that were in place until ISPs sued and got them tossed on a technicality screwed things up in the way you're predicting the new ones will.

I wish there was only one thread on this topic so I wouldn't have to repeat myself over and over. In a nutshell: There is so much agency capture that the FCC barely has the appetite to even consider net neutrality let alone al the other regulatory FUD that everyone is predicting will screw up the internet.

 

[dangue]

With this Title II issue looming, do you not think AT&T is going to delay any new investments in plant expansion?
I sure as heck do. Why should they?

ATT was already delaying a significant portion of their investment. Hell, they only said they were rolling it out to counter the bad press generated by google fiber running circles around their offerings. They'd much rather charge current prices for current speeds than to actually put money into to improving speeds. The only reason they do is competition. If there was more competition in this field, net neutrality regulations wouldn't be needed. Consumers would have choices and be able to choose a provider that didn't throttle or otherwise violate net neutrality principles.

 

[acostapimps]

In what way was I being "offensive"?

When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.

Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE

 

[dangue]

When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.

Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE

He wasn't saying you were. He was asking who was your post addressed to or responding.

 

[acostapimps]

Well he didn't complete that statement or a short word meaning perhaps
so I took it the wrong way, and meant what I thought it meant

With so many short meanings I can't keep up so it's cool now

btw I wasn't responding to anybody just forming my opinion.

 

[mike123abc]

With this Title II issue looming, do you not think AT&T is going to delay any new investments in plant expansion?
I sure as heck do. Why should they?

They announced cuts to their CAPEX to the wireline side (uverse/dsl/pots) 3 billion in the weeks before Title II came up... One of the ways they were going to save money for the merger... Hmm, they announce the merger will deliver gigabit service to 100 cities via a press release and wire up a few homes in Austin while cutting the equipment budget $3 billion. Then conveniently blame the lack of investment on sudden fear of new regulation. They must have forgotten they were being reviewed by the FCC and had made promises before that last press release...

AT&T has a long history of announcing great U-Verse things that they never really seem to widely deliver. Again they go to the press release to look good for a merger, promising that they could deliver more high speed internet.

 

[whatchel1]

Your area. Ok I can see issues there.
Answer this question...Government intervention will do what for me( you)?
Lets just say for a moment the FCC moves forward with Title II. The internet becomes a regulated common carrier. Then what? Without going into a long wish list of things you'd like to see( what you or I want is irrelevant), offer some insight as to what you believe will be the result of a regulated internet.
I know my view. I think prices will rise, providers will refuse to invest anymore than exactly the federally mandated minimums which means copper.
Rural areas will see little if any benefit because the telcos will claim there is already copper plant by which these areas can recieve internet service.
The prices will rise because the government will mandate that those areas of communities currently unserved by fiber, will get fiber and because the business generated will be minimal, the providers will demand as a trade off, some kind of fee attached to all their existing customer's bills ( internet welfare tax)
I am telling you if the government gets their paws on this they will make a big mess out of it and our prices will skyrocket.

Well I have no need to since dangue did such a fine job of it right after this statement of your. s

 

[dishcomm]

Please show me how the previous net neutrality rules that were in place until ISPs sued and got them tossed on a technicality screwed things up in the way you're predicting the new ones will.

I wish there was only one thread on this topic so I wouldn't have to repeat myself over and over. In a nutshell: There is so much agency capture that the FCC barely has the appetite to even consider net neutrality let alone al the other regulatory FUD that everyone is predicting will screw up the internet.

The simple explanation is "it's government"....Meaning based on past performance, the federal govt is bound to screws up the thing. Badly.
There is nothing wrong with the overall internet. Yes, some tweaking is needed. But the marketplace should do that. Not a bunch of unelected accountable to no one federal bureaucrats who could not distinguish the difference between a mega byte and an overbite.

 

[dishcomm]

ATT was already delaying a significant portion of their investment. Hell, they only said they were rolling it out to counter the bad press generated by google fiber running circles around their offerings. They'd much rather charge current prices for current speeds than to actually put money into to improving speeds. The only reason they do is competition. If there was more competition in this field, net neutrality regulations wouldn't be needed. Consumers would have choices and be able to choose a provider that didn't throttle or otherwise violate net neutrality principles.

Of course competition would spur price drops and improvement in technology.
The glaring issue is government interference will have an adverse effect on the process that may become irreparable.
Look, any time there is impending new government regulations or new taxes on business, those affected companies will sit on the sidelines until such time as the fallout from government action is evaluated. If the effect is adverse, business will act accordingly. If the net result is additional costs or the new regs prevent operations as normal, business will find a work around. Invariably, the consumer is the big loser.

 

[dishcomm]

When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.

Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE

I did NOT post that. Someone edited what I posted or you posted back to me on someone else's post.
I have no reason to make this personal WHATSOEVER.
This is a civil discussion about issues with which we do not see eye to eye. In no case did I ever post that.

 

[Jimbo]

Boy, I'm glad I bowed out of this thread ...
Just as much att hate in this thread as the other ATT thread, that btw has NOTHING to do with D* (in the D* forum).

I didn't kmnow we had so many people on board with the extreme knowledge of how this stuff all works in the Big Business world ...

All you people seem to have answers for att, but none of you are pulling the strings.

Why is that ?

 

[dishcomm]

When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.

Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE

Just a minute. You posted to no one. I asked "to whom are you responding"?
How do you make the great leap to me getting personal?

 

[dishcomm]

Well he didn't complete that statement or a short word meaning perhaps
so I took it the wrong way, and meant what I thought it meant

With so many short meanings I can't keep up so it's cool now

btw I wasn't responding to anybody just forming my opinion.

Hey, I don't write in code. If I want to insult someone, it's readily understood.
Now let's just conclude you reacted to something that wasn't there and move on.
You are wrong about what you thought you saw. That will be all.

 

[dishcomm]

They announced cuts to their CAPEX to the wireline side (uverse/dsl/pots) 3 billion in the weeks before Title II came up... One of the ways they were going to save money for the merger... Hmm, they announce the merger will deliver gigabit service to 100 cities via a press release and wire up a few homes in Austin while cutting the equipment budget $3 billion. Then conveniently blame the lack of investment on sudden fear of new regulation. They must have forgotten they were being reviewed by the FCC and had made promises before that last press release...

AT&T has a long history of announcing great U-Verse things that they never really seem to widely deliver. Again they go to the press release to look good for a merger, promising that they could deliver more high speed internet.

AT&T has but one goal in it's business model...Keep the price of the stock rising.
AT&T is not a telecommunications company. It is a firm which attracts and then attempts to keep investors.That is AT&T's primary goal. Everything else the company does comes last.

 

[Jimbo]

AT&T has but one goal in it's business model...Keep the price of the stock rising.
AT&T is not a telecommunications company. It is a firm which attracts and then attempts to keep investors.That is AT&T's primary goal. Everything else the company does comes last.

That is the Business model of every Large profitable company.

 

[mike123abc]

AT&T has but one goal in it's business model...Keep the price of the stock rising.
AT&T is not a telecommunications company. It is a firm which attracts and then attempts to keep investors.That is AT&T's primary goal. Everything else the company does comes last.

Which is why it has always been known as a widows and orphans stock. Reliable returns year after year. Simply buy and forget...

 

[acostapimps]

Hey, I don't write in code. If I want to insult someone, it's readily understood.
Now let's just conclude you reacted to something that wasn't there and move on.
You are wrong about what you thought you saw. That will be all.

Okay it's fine but I didn't see the responding part when you quoted me, just RE
All I saw was Whom Are You, which I took as a response to my AT&T joke opinion
So it's easy to read that and confuse it to what I thought it meant

That's like someone saying so and so sucks, then responding So are you and nothing else.

Plus another poster already said what you meant, so I take back what I said and move on.

 

[acostapimps]

I think this is the FCC's response to the AT&T case against them for invasion of personal privacy and
not disclosing investigation materials against AT&T
the fiasco about corporate should be considered or not as personal privacy.