The Beginning of the End, AT&T capitalizing on death of net neutrality
124 replies, posted
I see a lot of bitching about people getting fucked by the Telcos, but I don't see anyone actually doing anything.
Haha, good thing I don't even have the option of using AT&T. I mean, the fastest internet here is 1mb/s and we pay like $60 a month for it, but uhm, at least it isn't AT&T!
[editline]3rd February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43774082]I see a lot of bitching about people getting fucked by the Telcos, but I don't see anyone actually doing anything.[/QUOTE]
There is literally nothing you can do.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43774082]I see a lot of bitching about people getting fucked by the Telcos, but I don't see anyone actually doing anything.[/QUOTE]
I'll set up [I]my own[/I] internet service provider, with [I]blackjack[/I], and [I]hookers[/I]
No, I guess people are just sitting around waiting for their elected officials to represent the interests of said people who elected them.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43773076]It's the "in accordance with the type of data being downloaded" part.
If I'm paying for X bandwidth, give me X bandwidth. Don't give me X bandwidth when I'm streaming Comcast digital video services but X/10 bandwidth when I'm streaming Netflix in the exact same traffic conditions.
If I am paying for X transfer rates and Y monthly bandwidth cap, I expect to be allowed to use that Y bandwidth in mostly any way I choose (or at least on what I choose, if not when, with prime time clogging up the pipes) at something resembling X transfer speed (limited by the speed the internet itself is going that day, obviously).
Tiering it up [I]and[/I] metering it is the problem.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you're right, that's an unreasonable system. All the same, I think using this in the context of net neutrality is a bit disingenuous. 'Net neutrality' has generally referred to neutrality regarding who is sending data across the Internet, not the type of data itself.
If postal services weren't 'neutral' in the sense of how net neutrality is used, then they'd be charging different amounts depending on who is sending a package through the mail. If postal services operated like the method described in this article, they'd be charging more or less depending on the type of mail it is, but still irrespective of who's sending it. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
Businesses, universities, and ISPs have been treating traffic differently depending on protocol for a long time. One example you can easily see is throttling of torrent traffic, which ISPs have been doing for much longer than the 'net neutrality' debate has been around. It's not the same issue and to say 'this is what happens when you don't defend net neutrality' is dishonest.
[QUOTE=Dalndox;43773234]I'd like to think that an exodus of customers from AT&T to other companies in the wake of this program's implementation will show companies that people aren't going to stand for that kind of bullshit.
That's just me being optimistic, though.[/QUOTE]
Until the companies you switch to start using their own system to throttle network usage based on what services you're using as well.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43773785]Isn't that technically impossible in a lot of the US, with how the telecom companies have virtual monopolies in certain areas like their own digital feudal fiefdoms?
[editline]3rd February 2014[/editline]
The one thing I most commonly hear in complaint of US internet is the lack of options in many areas, at least.[/QUOTE]
That's because a HUGE portion of the US population actually lives in "rural" areas, that is, areas that aren't bustling cities like New York, Denver, Santa Fe, or hell, even my hometown of Clovis, NM. 50-60K people live here, so there are some options concerning internet not counting satellite, but as soon as you get outside the city limits (or even close to them), your only option is our own local provider, Plateau Telecommunications (aka Eastern New Mexico Regional). If you live IN town, you MIGHT get a chance to sign up for their FiOS, or Suddenlink/AT&T/COX/Comcast/Century Link, depending on what PART of town you live in. But as soon as you get outside the city limits (or even close to it), your only option is Plateau's wireless MMDNS service, which has shit speeds compared to other providers of similar services (2Mbps down maximum on their $60-70 a month plan compared to 7Mbps with other providers that don't offer that service here) on top of not being able to handle peak usage hours (when all the little crotch-spawn get out of school and start clogging the tubes with their Facebook updates and Pewdie Pie videos).
tl;dr A massive portion of Americans live in the boonies rather than cities so they get super fucked on internet.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;43774908]Until the companies you switch to start using their own system to throttle network usage based on what services you're using as well.
That's because a HUGE portion of the US population actually lives in "rural" areas, that is, areas that aren't bustling cities like New York, Denver, Santa Fe, or hell, even my hometown of Clovis, NM. 50-60K people live here, so there are some options concerning internet not counting satellite, but as soon as you get outside the city limits (or even close to them), your only option is our own local provider, Plateau Telecommunications (aka Eastern New Mexico Regional). If you live IN town, you MIGHT get a chance to sign up for their FiOS, or Suddenlink/AT&T/COX/Comcast/Century Link, depending on what PART of town you live in. But as soon as you get outside the city limits (or even close to it), your only option is Plateau's wireless MMDNS service, which has shit speeds compared to other providers of similar services (2Mbps down maximum on their $60-70 a month plan compared to 7Mbps with other providers that don't offer that service here) on top of not being able to handle peak usage hours (when all the little crotch-spawn get out of school and start clogging the tubes with their Facebook updates and Pewdie Pie videos).
tl;dr A massive portion of Americans live in the boonies rather than cities so they get super fucked on internet.[/QUOTE]
Especially in the Midwest. The vast majority of areas don't even have access to DSL or cable unless its a town with enough of a significant population that a company feels its worthwhile to put broadband equipment in. Once your a mile or two away from that equipment, you're stuck with one of three options. Wireless broadband through cell towers (which is expensive, and heavily dependent on your signal strength), satellite (which has high latency and expensive), and of course, dial-up (this is 2014).
AT&T is the only provider in my area. Fuck me.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43773741]Same, though knowing how Americans are, we'll just lie down and let people continue to kick us in the teeth because we are too lazy to care.[/QUOTE]
no they've made it illegal for us to care
an example of which they recently tried to do in kansas and are still trying to do
[QUOTE=catbarf;43774329]Okay, you're right, that's an unreasonable system. All the same, I think using this in the context of net neutrality is a bit disingenuous. 'Net neutrality' has generally referred to neutrality regarding who is sending data across the Internet, not the type of data itself.
If postal services weren't 'neutral' in the sense of how net neutrality is used, then they'd be charging different amounts depending on who is sending a package through the mail. If postal services operated like the method described in this article, they'd be charging more or less depending on the type of mail it is, but still irrespective of who's sending it. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
Businesses, universities, and ISPs have been treating traffic differently depending on protocol for a long time. One example you can easily see is throttling of torrent traffic, which ISPs have been doing for much longer than the 'net neutrality' debate has been around. It's not the same issue and to say 'this is what happens when you don't defend net neutrality' is dishonest.[/QUOTE]
"Net neutrality" as a pure concept cannot exist, because all networks must be managed to some degree or another, or else the whole thing collapses. However, it's important to draw the distinction between protocol discrimination and [I]source[/I] discrimination.
If ISP X decides that torrents are a problem, or video streaming is a problem, fair packet shaping techniques to lessen the impact of large amounts of video/torrent traffic exist. This is why I said that I expect to be able to do what I want with my data cap, although I might not be able to choose [I]when[/I] since there [I]are[/I] peak traffic periods where traffic load is higher than other periods. I think anyone with a realistic view on network maintenance and management can accept that things like this are sometimes necessary.
It's still possible to apply protocol/packet content discrimination in a malicious or consumer-unfriendly way, but that's just overselling your service and then punishing users for using your infrastructure instead of building out the infrastructure to handle the demand. That's nothing new.
On the other hand, where net neutrality really applies (moreso than in the above situation) is when the [I]source[/I] of the traffic is cause for traffic discrimination. I won't repeat my above post, because the argument I made above (that you replied to) is basically the argument against source discrimination, and it's where the ISPs show their real monopolistic fangs, because they now are the transport network and the favoured content on it.
If Comcast and Verizon and the other big monopoly telcos really can't find any coins in their billions and billions in annual profits to upgrade the infrastructure, something's very wrong. They choose not to because it's more profitable to eliminate the competition, sign up everyone in the area, and then threaten them with overage if they strain the pipes. If Comcast's infrastructure is too old and outdated to handle tons of customers streaming video, it should hamper or block [I]all[/I] streaming video to protect the network, not meddle with streaming video [I]except for[/I] its own in-network service which might also not count against bandwidth caps as a further advantage.
The two arguments are similar, but vary slightly; both sides of the argument like to confuse the two--the ISPs for deliberate clouding of the issue, and net defenders because they don't know the distinction or get lost mid-argument.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;43766684]revolt is one way although it might not be the best way[/QUOTE]
The government is watching everyone but GOD FORBID THEY SLOW DOWN OUR INTERNET PORN
[QUOTE=Xystus234;43775798]The government is watching everyone but GOD FORBID THEY SLOW DOWN OUR INTERNET PORN[/QUOTE]
You can generalize it to make it sound as ridiculous as you want, but the Internet, by nature, is singlehandedly the largest information resource worldwide. It should not be restricted by arbitrary means.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;43775798]The government is watching everyone but GOD FORBID THEY SLOW DOWN OUR INTERNET PORN[/QUOTE]
Simplify it as much as you want, but at least with net neutrality we have only the government spying on us, as opposed to the government [B]and[/B] the ISPs.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;43775873]Simplify it as much as you want, but at least with net neutrality we have only the government spying on us, as opposed to the government [B]and[/B] the ISPs.[/QUOTE]
How about [b]NEITHER[/B]?
That's where I'm at. Neither the Gov't nor the ISP should be looking through my files, not unless i'm sitting in a court chair wanted for internet crimes, abuse, child pornography, and conspiracy to harm.
Besides, look at China. Control the internet and it won't just be spying that the government will do. There are those that would have content blocked out that disagreed with their views or went against their political campaign.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;43775873]Simplify it as much as you want, but at least with net neutrality we have only the government spying on us, as opposed to the government [B]and[/B] the ISPs.[/QUOTE]
No believe me I totally am for net neutrality. I just find the thought of open revolt due to net neutrality to be overkill.
Seriously, that's bullshit. How dare they do this. What about if I develop an app and they choose to limit bandwidth due to it?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43771595]Maybe it is for you, but it sure as hell isn't a luxury for the thousands of businesses who use it to multiply their efficiency or even act as a virtual storefront, and they are the most at risk of being damaged by lacking net neutrality laws.[/QUOTE]
Please pay close attention: The article stated that they would tack on charges for using BANDWIDTH INTENSIVE SERVICES. These are things like watching netflix all day, constantly downloading torrents, etc... Checking your facebook: not affected. Shopping on the internet: not affected. Doing regular business on the internet: not affected. I don't NEED to watch netflix. I don't even NEED the internet. Yes, it is convenient, and it helps me waste time and shop for some things, but it's not a necessity.
Don't get me wrong here. This does suck and should be fixed. But please stop trying to imply that the internet is some sort of super important thing without which we would die. It's not a necessity, it is a luxury for the average private consumer.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43777408]Please pay close attention: The article stated that they would tack on charges for using BANDWIDTH INTENSIVE SERVICES. These are things like watching netflix all day, constantly downloading torrents, etc... Checking your facebook: not affected. Shopping on the internet: not affected. Doing regular business on the internet: not affected. I don't NEED to watch netflix. I don't even NEED the internet. Yes, it is convenient, and it helps me waste time and shop for some things, but it's not a necessity.
[/QUOTE]
So an IT person who has to download versions of *nix, keep updating on IRC and Mumble, won't be able to anymore.
A business person who telecommutes won't be able to work from home anymore.
A student learning from Khan Academy, or watching video on youtube won't be able to get their education.
And you still have to define what 'high bandwidth intensive services' are. Should I not be able to utilize the full bandwidth I am paying for?
ISPs should NEVER discriminate the inbound/outbound bandwidth from source or content. It's as simple as that.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43777408]Please pay close attention: The article stated that they would tack on charges for using BANDWIDTH INTENSIVE SERVICES. These are things like watching netflix all day, constantly downloading torrents, etc... Checking your facebook: not affected. Shopping on the internet: not affected. Doing regular business on the internet: not affected. I don't NEED to watch netflix. I don't even NEED the internet. Yes, it is convenient, and it helps me waste time and shop for some things, but it's not a necessity.
Don't get me wrong here. This does suck and should be fixed. But please stop trying to imply that the internet is some sort of super important thing without which we would die. It's not a necessity, it is a luxury for the average private consumer.[/QUOTE]
I pay for 10Mb/s internet, I should be able to stream 10Mb/s of data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, of any type of data I choose. If my ISP doesn't want to give me that bandwidth then they shouldn't advertise it and they definitely shouldn't charge me for it.
This is just awful. And 99% of people affected will simply complain that their bills have gone up, just as would happen over here.
[QUOTE=Keys;43776114]How about [b]NEITHER[/B]?
That's where I'm at. Neither the Gov't nor the ISP should be looking through my files, not unless i'm sitting in a court chair wanted for internet crimes, abuse, child pornography, and conspiracy to harm.
Besides, look at China. Control the internet and it won't just be spying that the government will do. There are those that would have content blocked out that disagreed with their views or went against their political campaign.[/QUOTE]
Way to fucking miss the point. I was just saying that having net neutrality is always better than not having it.
Screw attacking the government over this sort of thing, we should start putting these asshole corporations to the torch.
I've always believed that communication infrastructure should be managed by the government. Why in the hell would we leave something so important to private interests?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43777408]Please pay close attention: The article stated that they would tack on charges for using BANDWIDTH INTENSIVE SERVICES. These are things like watching netflix all day, constantly downloading torrents, etc... Checking your facebook: not affected. Shopping on the internet: not affected. Doing regular business on the internet: not affected. I don't NEED to watch netflix. I don't even NEED the internet. Yes, it is convenient, and it helps me waste time and shop for some things, but it's not a necessity.
Don't get me wrong here. This does suck and should be fixed. But please stop trying to imply that the internet is some sort of super important thing without which we would die. It's not a necessity, it is a luxury for the average private consumer.[/QUOTE]
But bandwidth intensive services are the reason people want faster speeds - so videos and streams can be higher quality, and bigger files can be downloaded/torrented faster. You can check your Facebook or buy stuff online on a shit connection and not have much trouble, the real issue only occurs when you're watching videos. (hell, when I was on a bandwidth-capped connection I could play TF2 on the throttled rate without much issue) But it's just pointless to selectively charge more for the only services that max out the connection for a meaningful amount of time - might as well just increase the prices and have some honesty about it.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;43778135]Screw attacking the government over this sort of thing, we should start putting these asshole corporations to the torch.
I've always believed that communication infrastructure should be managed by the government. Why in the hell would we leave something so important to private interests?[/QUOTE]
If it's that fucking important, I wouldn't trust the government to handle it either. Stick in the Constitution and—
Oh wait, it's already fucking there. Wouldn't it be nice if people followed the law?
[QUOTE=Ardosos;43777621]I pay for 10Mb/s internet, I should be able to stream 10Mb/s of data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, of any type of data I choose. If my ISP doesn't want to give me that bandwidth then they shouldn't advertise it and they definitely shouldn't charge me for it.[/QUOTE]
You might be misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is probably my fault. I don't like what they are doing. I'm just trying to make the point that to the average private consumer of internet services, the internet isn't something that's necessary. It should be EXTREMELY easy for the majority of people to tell AT&T to fuck off if they would ever do that to personal home connections.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43777537]So an IT person who has to download versions of *nix, keep updating on IRC and Mumble, won't be able to anymore.
A business person who telecommutes won't be able to work from home anymore.
A student learning from Khan Academy, or watching video on youtube won't be able to get their education.
And you still have to define what 'high bandwidth intensive services' are. Should I not be able to utilize the full bandwidth I am paying for?
ISPs should NEVER discriminate the inbound/outbound bandwidth from source or content. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to start this off by saying I do agree with you.
But you are still misunderstanding my point. An IT person, business person, or someone doing education via internet is NOT an average private consumer of internet. Your average private consumer is going to be the one shopping, updating facebook, browsing instagram, etc... That is what the average private consumer does.
You're looking at the exceptions and saying "they need this."
I'm looking at everyone else who uses the internet for entertainment and saying "Hey, you can use your power as a consumer to get what you want because you don't need home internet service."
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43778564]
I'm looking at everyone else who uses the internet for entertainment and saying "Hey, you can use your power as a consumer to get what you want because [B][U]you don't need home internet service.[/U][/B]"[/QUOTE]
Actually, yes I do.
The net is everything.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;43777621]I pay for 10Mb/s internet, I should be able to stream 10Mb/s of data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, of any type of data I choose. If my ISP doesn't want to give me that bandwidth then they shouldn't advertise it and they definitely shouldn't charge me for it.[/QUOTE]
Have you read the fine print on your agreement? Most ISPs that offer 10Mb/s assume that you will not be using 10Mb/s at every waking moment of your life, and will throttle you if you try running an FTP server or something on that plan. What you're describing is already the status quo.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43779474]Have you read the fine print on your agreement? Most ISPs that offer 10Mb/s assume that you will not be using 10Mb/s at every waking moment of your life, and will throttle you if you try running an FTP server or something on that plan. What you're describing is already the status quo.[/QUOTE]
My point was that if they can't handle 10Mb/s every waking moment of my life, then they shouldn't advertise it or offer it. Fine print or not, at the very least it's deceptive.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43779474]Have you read the fine print on your agreement? Most ISPs that offer 10Mb/s assume that you will not be using 10Mb/s at every waking moment of your life, and will throttle you if you try running an FTP server or something on that plan. What you're describing is already the status quo.[/QUOTE]
In fact, this is why commercial and enterprise grade connections exist. They need the reliability and consistency as it can seriously hurt business. Hence, you will pay dearly for the connection you get, but the ISP will bend over backwards to make sure you get the speeds and up-time you payed for. Or at least do more than they would for a residential connection.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43767689]I told you in one of the other threads the other day that AT&T would be the first to do it because of how big of scumbags they were[/QUOTE]
Here it is, 2 weeks ago
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43597772]AT&T will definitely do this. My bet is they'll be the first[/QUOTE]
In this thread
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1350924[/url]
There are 3 constants in life. Death, Taxes, and AT&T looking to fuck you in the ass
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;43770522][B]Stay the hell away from Comcast.[/B] Unless you actually want substandard services, then go right ahead.[/QUOTE]
My experience with them is that their service is great, but if you're young or new, they'll try to charge you more than the contract price (how the fuck is this legal?) and you'll have to curse out a few representatives until they cut it out.