[img]http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ATT.png[/img]
[quote]AT&T is trying to convince the Federal Communications Commission to backtrack from a $100 million fine issued to punish AT&T for its throttling of customers on unlimited data plans.
“The Commission’s [b]findings that consumers and competition were harmed are devoid of factual support and wholly implausible,[/b]” AT&T wrote in a response to the FCC, according to The Hill. “Its 'moderate' forfeiture penalty of $100 million is plucked out of thin air, and the injunctive sanctions it proposes are beyond the Commission’s authority.”
AT&T claimed it made all the required disclosures to customers, and also that the statute of limitations on the alleged violations had passed. The company also claimed that the FCC is infringing its First Amendment rights by requiring AT&T to tell customers that it violated an FCC rule.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/att-doesnt-want-to-pay-100m-fine-says-throttling-didnt-harm-customers/[/url]
Classic
"I shouldn't be punished for murder because I think my killing was justified." Yeah, lemme know how that defense works out ATT because it didn't work for murderers or anyone else.
I shouldn't be punished for theft because the victim recovered from the loss without significant financial loss!
Yeah I embezzled millions from the company but we're a successful multimillion company so it's no big deal right?
Quit being so whiny. You make so much money, 100 mil is chump change to you.
I hope the FCC cracks down hard on AT&T for their non-compliance.
I hope the FCC puts interest on that fee.
Oh please, I'm sure they can make that back in a year or two.
[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448769"]This is the same AT&T that, collectively with the other big ISPs through industry collusion figurehead NCTA, claimed that there is [I]no reason[/I] to redefine the US's legal definition of "broadband" from [B]4Mbps[/B] to 25Mbps.[/URL] This is an industry where 0.5MB/s is considered acceptable as "high-speed broadband internet" by the corporations in charge.
Kick 'em in the fucking teeth, Tom Wheeler. Do it for all of us.
Good luck, AT&T will be the start of many I hope.
while i've never had my internet throttled before i would love if broadband could be redefined as 25mbps so i could get some good fucking internet for once
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48329028]while i've never had my internet throttled before i would love if broadband could be redefined as 25mbps so i could get some good fucking internet for once[/QUOTE]
I've had it throttled, and on top of that their service has gotten super spotty. I dealt with it for four weeks, and I finally had enough of it today and called them.
I was on the phone for an hour and a half, it took an hour and ten minutes to actually get hold music, and when I finally got on the phone with someone, they refused to send out a technician to fix their proprietary modem, and gave me $30 off my bill for "my inconvenience." Needless to say, since the problem hasn't been fixed, I'm probably going to be getting a lot of those $30 extras.
AT&T is garbage but they're the only ISP in my area because literally anyone else is too scared to come here because they have a monopoly.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48329028]while i've never had my internet throttled before i would love if broadband could be redefined as 25mbps so i could get some good fucking internet for once[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps"]It has been.[/URL]
However, this doesn't force the ISPs to change their service, directly. Instead, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448769&p=47047877&viewfull=1#post47047877"]broadband has a specific legal definition[/URL], and if the ISPs try and market their sub-25Mbps service as "broadband" or their advertising is misleading enough to imply that it is, the FTC gets out the whip.
So, look forward to "blazing fast" Internet speeds of up to 5!!! Mbps, not called the B-word anymore. The technical, specific definition of broadband would also apply where legal contracts specify that "broadband" is to be deployed or provided in X situation, so it may change [I]some[/I] things, but not the actual speeds consumers get unless individuals can point to being newly sold B for Broadband shitternet after the rule change.
I hope we see real changes in internet speed now, only for the better I can hope.
Interest! for every day they don't pay it!
[QUOTE=Source;48330129]Interest! for every day they don't pay it![/QUOTE]
Ridiculously high rate too. If and when they pay it, use the money to build fiberoptic internet infrastructure and deny AT&T access to it as a grand "Fuck you".
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;48330419]Ridiculously high rate too. If and when they pay it, use the money to build fiberoptic internet infrastructure and deny AT&T access to it as a grand "Fuck you".[/QUOTE]
You know, most of the US actually has fiber-optic infrastructure, built back in the 90s by the old ISPs.
Problem is, when the .com bubble burst, those ISPs went under, and that infrastructure was transferred to the cities it was built in. ISPs are buying the old infrastructure right now, trying to expand their fiber territory.
A majority of the region AT&T was able to offer U-Verse in fiber is actually old material, because they found a lot of it, and didn't have to pay for the infrastructure.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48330475]You know, most of the US actually has fiber-optic infrastructure, built back in the 90s by the old ISPs.
Problem is, when the .com bubble burst, those ISPs went under, and that infrastructure was transferred to the cities it was built in. ISPs are buying the old infrastructure right now, trying to expand their fiber territory.
A majority of the region AT&T was able to offer U-Verse in fiber is actually old material, because they found a lot of it, and didn't have to pay for the infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
More info where? Because I find this extremely interesting. At least here in Argentina we only have like 3 providers and some others which are off the radar.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48329111][URL="http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps"]It has been.[/URL]
However, this doesn't force the ISPs to change their service, directly. Instead, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448769&p=47047877&viewfull=1#post47047877"]broadband has a specific legal definition[/URL], and if the ISPs try and market their sub-25Mbps service as "broadband" or their advertising is misleading enough to imply that it is, the FTC gets out the whip.
So, look forward to "blazing fast" Internet speeds of up to 5!!! Mbps, not called the B-word anymore. The technical, specific definition of broadband would also apply where legal contracts specify that "broadband" is to be deployed or provided in X situation, so it may change [I]some[/I] things, but not the actual speeds consumers get unless individuals can point to being newly sold B for Broadband shitternet after the rule change.[/QUOTE]
The whole broadband thing is a crock of shit anyways. ISP's get financial help if they're a broadband provider. All they have to do with it is prove they [I]can[/I] provide [I]up to an average[/I] of 25mbps to customers to get this. The only thing this really effects is small ISP's in rural areas who don't charge out the ass for 6mbps because they now don't get the money to help them compete with ATT and Co.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=woolio1;48330475]You know, most of the US actually has fiber-optic infrastructure, built back in the 90s by the old ISPs.
Problem is, when the .com bubble burst, those ISPs went under, and that infrastructure was transferred to the cities it was built in. ISPs are buying the old infrastructure right now, trying to expand their fiber territory.
A majority of the region AT&T was able to offer U-Verse in fiber is actually old material, because they found a lot of it, and didn't have to pay for the infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
It's not just the ones that went under though. Even more recently there had been money given to ISP's for fiber infrastructure. They laid out even more but refused to do the last mile anywhere. So we have a huge fiber network "darknet" that isn't being utilized because the ISP's want to make more money. Also, for the record, most ISP's have stupid amount of fiber around cities for business only. And it's not like ATT uses fiber to the door in most areas, it's fiber to the cabinet, fucking VDSL2 to the house.
[QUOTE=Levelog;48330500]The whole broadband thing is a crock of shit anyways. ISP's get financial help if they're a broadband provider. All they have to do with it is prove they [I]can[/I] provide [I]up to an average[/I] of 25mbps to customers to get this. The only thing this really effects is small ISP's in rural areas who don't charge out the ass for 6mbps because they now don't get the money to help them compete with ATT and Co.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
It's not just the ones that went under though. Even more recently there had been money given to ISP's for fiber infrastructure. They laid out even more but refused to do the last mile anywhere. So we have a huge fiber network "darknet" that isn't being utilized because the ISP's want to make more money. Also, for the record, most ISP's have stupid amount of fiber around cities for business only. And it's not like ATT uses fiber to the door in most areas, it's fiber to the cabinet, fucking VDSL2 to the house.[/QUOTE]
U-Verse can split from the cabinet three ways: fiber, coaxial, and VDSL2. My grandmother's house, for instance, has coaxial. For businesses, you can buy fiber to the modem.
But yeah, there's a lot of fiber infrastructure that just isn't being used. It's insane.
They should receive an extra fine for trying to bullshit their way out of the first.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48328812][URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448769"]This is the same AT&T that, collectively with the other big ISPs through industry collusion figurehead NCTA, claimed that there is [I]no reason[/I] to redefine the US's legal definition of "broadband" from [B]4Mbps[/B] to 25Mbps.[/URL] This is an industry where 0.5MB/s is considered acceptable as "high-speed broadband internet" by the corporations in charge.
Kick 'em in the fucking teeth, Tom Wheeler. Do it for all of us.[/QUOTE]
Let's hope the FCC takes AT&T's execs and lines the walls of head office with their femurs. If there's anything more metal than having a deer head mounted on your wall, its having the bones of your enemies on show as trophies.
AT&T is going to pay this now, or they will pay it later with added interest. There is no avoiding the fines.
[QUOTE=ironman17;48330637]Let's hope the FCC takes AT&T's execs and lines the walls of head office with their femurs. If there's anything more metal than having a deer head mounted on your wall, its having the bones of your enemies on show as trophies.
AT&T is going to pay this now, or they will pay it later with added interest. There is no avoiding the fines.[/QUOTE]
There is definitely avoiding the fines. Throw lawyers at it until the FCC gives up. It hasn't exactly been an unsuccessful strategy in the past for companies vs regulatory agencies.
And really what's the cost to not throttling anyways? If the servers and most of the backbone are already designed to handle high load during the day and night, its not protecting the servers from a massive load. If anything its underutilizing the servers.
[QUOTE=Levelog;48330647]There is definitely avoiding the fines. Throw lawyers at it until the FCC gives up. It hasn't exactly been an unsuccessful strategy in the past for companies vs regulatory agencies.[/QUOTE]
If there's one thing you should know as an American it's that when there's money owed to the government on the line, the Government won't give up ever. The IRS is one hell of a thing.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48330651]And really what's the cost to not throttling anyways? If the servers and most of the backbone are already designed to handle high load during the day and night, its not protecting the servers from a massive load. If anything its underutilizing the servers.[/QUOTE]
You can't charge a larger volume of people a dick load of money to use less infrastructure. A lot of areas are oversubscribed based on the infrastructure and if they have to offer decent speeds they'll have to put out a lot more infrastructure. This of course cuts into their insanely high profit margins and we can't have that now can we?
[QUOTE=Levelog;48330500]The whole broadband thing is a crock of shit anyways. ISP's get financial help if they're a broadband provider. All they have to do with it is prove they [I]can[/I] provide [I]up to an average[/I] of 25mbps to customers to get this. The only thing this really effects is small ISP's in rural areas who don't charge out the ass for 6mbps because they now don't get the money to help them compete with ATT and Co.[/QUOTE]
Rural/tiny carriers are being held to a more reasonable standard than 25Mbps, btw. I believe it's 10Mbps, and all of the usual rural carrier assistance functions remain the same under the redefinition.
Let's also remember that the FCC is currently doing what it can to swat away legal action from the ISPs trying to stop it from classifying them as Title II, aka "making them the FCC's bitches". Amount of bitch-making will depend on how many of Title II's elements will be applied and which; Obama has urged the FCC not to apply pricing controls, for example, as part of urging a light hand on Title II.
It's going to be a major victory even if the only two things the FCC manages to ram past the ISPs' butthurt lawsuits are:
1. requiring competitive access to the poles (hel-[B][I]lo[/I][/B] Google Fiber anywhere they want to go)
2. no discriminatory packet shaping/throttling such as choking Netflix down to 250kb/s while Comcast's own in-house HD streaming service pumps 10Mb/s in under identical conditions. Note: outright bans on traffic management would wreck the Internet, because routers and networks need to be able to apply (uniform) flow control as needed to keep routes healthy, so it's a nuanced situation and one I hope the FCC understands ([I]maybe[/I])
That is, if Republicans don't manage to legislate the FCC's ability to regulate the Internet away first.
I sincerely hope Verizon gets something thrown their way too. While they don't throttle speeds afaik, their customer service / billing is probably one of the worst I've ever seen for an ISP (over here in California, at least.)
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48331156]Rural/tiny carriers are being held to a more reasonable standard than 25Mbps, btw. I believe it's 10Mbps, and all of the usual rural carrier assistance functions remain the same under the redefinition.
Let's also remember that the FCC is currently doing what it can to swat away legal action from the ISPs trying to stop it from classifying them as Title II, aka "making them the FCC's bitches". Amount of bitch-making will depend on how many of Title II's elements will be applied and which; Obama has urged the FCC not to apply pricing controls, for example, as part of urging a light hand on Title II.
It's going to be a major victory even if the only two things the FCC manages to ram past the ISPs' butthurt lawsuits are:
1. requiring competitive access to the poles (hel-[B][I]lo[/I][/B] Google Fiber anywhere they want to go)
2. no discriminatory packet shaping/throttling such as choking Netflix down to 250kb/s while Comcast's own in-house HD streaming service pumps 10Mb/s in under identical conditions. Note: outright bans on traffic management would wreck the Internet, because routers and networks need to be able to apply (uniform) flow control as needed to keep routes healthy, so it's a nuanced situation and one I hope the FCC understands ([I]maybe[/I])
That is, if Republicans don't manage to legislate the FCC's ability to regulate the Internet away first.[/QUOTE]
I forgot the rural rules were different. And #1 needs to happen but hasn't and probably won't for a while. Last mile unbundling needs to happen now. Most of what they passed helped the companies on either side (yes, some of it definitely benefited the ISP's) but not much really helped the consumer.
make it 150m
[QUOTE=Levelog;48331242]I forgot the rural rules were different. And #1 needs to happen but hasn't and probably won't for a while. Last mile unbundling needs to happen now. Most of what they passed helped the companies on either side (yes, some of it definitely benefited the ISP's) but not much really helped the consumer.[/QUOTE]
Google applied to the FCC at the start of the year to be treated as a common carrier (I think? whatever status grants them equal access to the poles with the big kids like Verizon and Comcast) to roll out Google Fiber, and Title II would help Google cut through the bullshit they're encountering nearly everywhere in the current, flatly [B]anticompetitive[/B] environment -- and this is going to weigh on the FCC's decisions when throwing Title II restrictions on the big five.
The Title II fight has only started, and it's going to probably be a few years before the system's finished chewing it up, digesting some appeals, and then spitting out the final outcome. But, Tom Wheeler showed us that he's not just some career cable industry man, he's the Chairman of the FCC and is charged with considering the interests of the People (including corporations, thanks Citizens United and all that, but also including the real people that sent >2 million pro-net neutrality messages during the FCC's period for comment with effectively token dissent). Hope that he's going to see the fight to the end and not cut a deal with the ISPs to make the legal pissing stop.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48331319]Google applied to the FCC at the start of the year to be treated as a common carrier (I think? whatever status grants them equal access to the poles with the big kids like Verizon and Comcast) to roll out Google Fiber, and Title II would help Google cut through the bullshit they're encountering nearly everywhere in the current, flatly [B]anticompetitive[/B] environment -- and this is going to weigh on the FCC's decisions when throwing Title II restrictions on the big five.
The Title II fight has only started, and it's going to probably be a few years before the system's finished chewing it up, digesting some appeals, and then spitting out the final outcome. But, Tom Wheeler showed us that he's not just some career cable industry man, he's the Chairman of the FCC and is charged with considering the interests of the People (including corporations, thanks Citizens United and all that, but also including the real people that sent >2 million pro-net neutrality messages during the FCC's period for comment with effectively token dissent). Hope that he's going to see the fight to the end and not cut a deal with the ISPs to make the legal pissing stop.[/QUOTE]
Last mile unbundling =/= common carrier. ISP's do still not have to unbundle last mile to common carriers.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;48331291]make it 150m[/QUOTE]
Fuck it, may as well add another significant figure to it every time they bitch about it. Don't like 1.00e5? Time to pay 1.00e6! So on and so forth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.