AT&T: Net rules must allow 'paid prioritization'

[ProfessionalLeftist]

AT&T said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting its ability to engage in "paid prioritization" of network traffic would be harmful and contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet.

Telecommunications providers need the ability to set different prices for different forms of Internet service, AT&T said, adding that it already has "hundreds" of customers who have paid extra for higher-priority services.

"Our view is that if the Federal Communications Commission is going to be making policy decisions on this front, it should base them on the facts, as opposed to dogma," an AT&T representative told CNET on Tuesday. In a blog post, AT&T vice president Hank Hultquist argued that the Internet Engineering Task Force's specifications specifically permit paid prioritization.

The flap over paid prioritization started a few weeks ago when Free Press, a pro-regulatory advocacy group, sent letters (No. 1 and No. 2) to the FCC dubbing the concept "discriminatory" and claiming it will "only benefit the few content giants that have deep enough pockets to pay for favorable treatment."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20015231-38.html#ixzz0yIo2Bh2e

[no limit]

1. I hate how these fucking assholes just lie without any kind of shame.

And I guess cnet couldn't be bothered to explain why this was a lie.

[AndyA]

2. Good ole AT&T...they helped Bushco spy on us illegally, and then they charged

the American taxpayers hefty fees to make and maintain the spy connections.

I can't imagine why anyone would do business with AT&T. My experience with them demonstrated horrid customer service, they hang up on you when they're tired of talking to you, you get disconnected or have to hold extra long if there've been any problems. Just coincidence? I think not.

I don't trust AT&T, and that's why they cannot be allowed to speed up or slow down sites whenever they want to. This is just another income stream for them, and they're ejaculating over the possibilities of being able to charge more for something they already provide, that won't cost them anything extra to provide going forward.

The Internet must be equal for all. If you want to pay for higher speeds at home or business, that's fine, but corporations should not be able to regulate the speed of websites.

[avaistheone1]

9. Obama agreed there should be immunity for AT&T spying on Americans

Sounds a lot like BUSHCO to me.

[Touchdown]

10. And so did Sprint. And so did Verizon. And so did Comcast.

And So Did Century Link. And so did Frontier Communications. Be honest about the NSA wiretap. Qwest was the only big company that told them to take a hike.

[AndyA]

12. AT&T was the worst offender from what I heard.

Plus, I have personal experience with AT&T (all bad) and I don't with the others. There was nothing dishonest in my post, I mentioned AT&T since the post is about AT&T and I had experience with them. There's nothing more to it, so don't try to add anything else.

[Touchdown]

15. No. Just the only company who had whistleblowers

That's what you heard. Your experience as a customer isn't about that.

[Kalyke]

3. No - it would not be harmful to the principles of the Internet.

It would only be harmful to their wallets.

:grr:

[Kat45]

5. Bingo!

Harmful to their profits. And the total opposite to the principles of the Internet. It really pisses me off that these scum always get their way.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. It's like demanding that some corporations get different speed limits for their shipping trucks

on the interstate system, never mind that it was built for everyone, with taxpayer money.

[gratuitous]

8. Or that your calls go through depending on how much you bribe AT&T

If you're a fatcat who doesn't mind paying the premium rate (and passing that cost on to your customers), your calls go through on the first try. Individual phone calls for the hoi polloi go through when the fatcats don't need the line. You'd rather talk to Aunt Mildred at 2 in the morning anyway, wouldn't you?

[bvar22]

6. "only benefit the few content giants that have deep enough pockets"

Sounds like another "Uniquely American Solution" to me.

[AdHocSolver]

7. A website that discusses the issues from the users' perspective:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions

(snip)
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.

Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
**********


What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

(snip)
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
**********

[Touchdown]

11. The CWA is dead set against this, and we are lobbying hard

against the telecoms on this. CWA is the union who represents 100,000+ AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and Century Link employees.

[ThomCat]

13. This all ignores that tax money PAID THEM to build out the internet.

All the major carriers accept tax money under the Telcom act to build out fiber access to the internet. They made excuses for why they failed. They claim they are still progressing, but they have failed.

One essential point though is that we all paid for them to build out the internet. We own that infrastructure. Yet they are claiming that they must be allowed to install tiers in part because of the technological cost of development and the cost of maintaining the internet. Those are costs that they don't pay. WE paid those costs and WE got nothing in return for paying those bills!

Unlike every other industrialized nation on earth, have we rolled out low cost access to the internet to essentially the entire nation? No, we still haven't. We have been behind every other industrialized nation for decades.

They should not be allowed to get away with this. Not only should they be forced to stop attempting to make their own rules governing the internet, they should be required to either roll out low-cost fiber internet to the entire rest of the country or else return all the taxpayer money they took from us.

Verizon cannot claim that their roll-out of FIOS has been a nationwide roll-out of internet access to remote and rural areas on the scale of the government mandated roll-out of telephone service through Ma-Bell generations ago. They haven't even tried. Hell, there are still locations even here in NYC where they aren't available. Go into Westchester an their available is spotty at best. Go into rural areas in upstate NY and their service is often non-existent.

Can any other carrier say they are doing any better than that?

Deliver Internet Access in a timely and professional manner or return the money! Stop trying to change the rules to put yourself in charge of making more rules and interfering with customer decisions.

It is time for carriers to start keeping their promises, or else! But in order for that to happen we need our government to start holding them accountable, instead of constantly getting down on their knees whenever carrier reps enter the room. :(

[struggle4progress]

14. The providers already charge different rates for different technologies:

dial-up, wireless broadband, fiber optic ...

They don't need to segregate access further