AT&T "kills net neutrality," announces sponsored data

Japan's getting 2Gb/s FTTH soon as well, even though the rest of their technological climate is still in the '70s. Cable companies in the US could make the switch to DOCSIS 3.0 standards to provide gigabit service without having to do expensive FTTH installations but they have no inclination to do so until they're forced to, be it by government regulation or consumer revolt. One thing you can be damn well sure of is that they'll be kicking and screaming all the way.

On a related note, the Trans Pacific Partnership deal is far worse for the Internet's future than this ruling--the FCC will continue the fight to reinstate net neutrality, most likely by getting cable internet providers reclassified as common carriers and thus subject to the same antitrust regulations that phone providers are subject to--but when TPP slides under the radar and goes into effect it'll be far more disastrous; TPP has SOPA/PIPA-levels of potential for abuse and practically the whole free world will be under its jurisdiction.

Be sure to contact your representatives. Most of them aren't even aware of these issues.
 
P.S. Catgirl, you ignorant slut........the system is already monetized; all the FCC sought to do was allow free competition on a level playing field. Big corporations hate that, and will throw vast sums of money at anything to tip the balance to favor them , so that they can collect even larger sums from us. And when your ISP decides to charge you extra to allow you to play games online through XBL, over and above what you pay for XBL, keep it to yourself.

1: You're the slut, not me.. ^_^

2: Plenty of things online that were not monetized before, now have micro-transactions.

3: I already pay a ridiculous amount for my high-speed internet, I have 700KB per second upload speed, (with Turbo Boost) a little extra price probably wouldn't even make an impact on the overall absurdity....

4: All this thing boils down to is them trying to charge you in more individualized price packages, quit acting like the overall price of things will go up, that's purely internet nerd speculation you've been reading, they always fear-monger you, (Remember SOPA?) And in any case I highly doubt they'd say "Oh, we're going to charge you more based upon how much bandwidth you use!" That's what the high price for internet is already, the charge to use lots of bandwidth, and if they did charge you based upon bandwidth, then I'd probably get a discount because I don't use that much anyways!!!

5: You know what I love about online petitions? They mean nothing, it's just a bunch of people free-of-charge putting their names on a statement in hopes a big company will read / or care about... Now if people mass threatened to cancel their current service, then it'd have some weight...
 
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SIDE-EFFECT OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PESSIMISM ISN'T THE NORM.

I have trouble knowing if this is how you actually feel because you're consistantly negative or if this is another of your dedicated trolling attempts.

On topic: Who else thinks it's more than a little suspicious AT&T announces this and eight days later net neutrality is struck down?
 
Last edited:
Wr6Tlv1.png
 
On topic: Who else thinks it's more than a little suspicious AT&T announces this and eight days later net neutrality is struck down?

AT&T was just working off the foregone conclusion the FCC would lose in court, and gave a big middle finger to the rest of us.
Kinda like Verizon, except they said "fuck you" under their breath and actually started doing something (instead of just saying something) about it, also reported in WSJ:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/21/technology/verizon-netflix/index.html?iid=HP_River
EDIT:
More even-handed treatment here:
http://mashable.com/2014/02/21/netflix-verizon-speed-battle/
 
Last edited:
[notice]THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE[/notice]
Tell the FCC to reclassify broadband internet as a common carrier telecommunications service:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=jwz6o

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Spam their email: OpenInternet@fcc.gov
The proposed Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet bill that would allow ISPs to charge online content creators for access to faster data lanes would cause irreparable damage to arguably the most important means of communication ever created. Not only should this proposal be shot down, but future legislature with similar goals should be illegal. Regardless of what misleading name is assigned to it, there is nothing at all "open" about the idea that the largest corporations in the country should be able to determine what information its citizens can reliably receive. While this may have been a popular idea at Chairman Wheeler's former role as head of the National Cable Television Association, it is an absolute violation of his current responsibility to represent the best interests of the United States public.

Information is a public good. The free and open transmission of information promotes the general welfare of our nation. This information should not be segregated into those that can afford to pay an ISP toll and those that cannot. Modern innovation is dependent on all entrepreneurs having access to the same infrastructure that their competitors do. Allowing large corporations to buy their way into prioritizing their content over all competition would be a huge barrier to any new company or individual attempting to offer a new and potentially innovative product or service to the public. True net neutrality means a free exchange of information between all people and organizations, regardless of their ability to contribute to election campaigns or hire politicians to cushy high paid executive roles.

It is in the best interest of all Americans (and ultimately all internet users worldwide, as our content creators deliver their data everywhere and this proposal would have far reaching effects) that we immediately classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Internet access is no longer a luxury; it is no longer a product. It is an essential tool for work, commerce, and the exercise of free speech, and a necessity for the vast majority of Americans. Broadband providers use public rights of way to install their cable across the country, and the government has an obligation to ensure that this allowed monopoly is not abused. Given that this installation of cable is controlled by local governments just as utilities are, it is only right that they should be classified and regulated as one. FCC Chairman Wheeler has already offered this as a solution if ISPs abuse this Open Internet legislation, indicating two things: first, that the Chairman acknowledges that this reclassification would be beneficial to a truly open internet, and second, that this current proposal does provide ISPs an opportunity for abuse. Although the Chairman feels that scrapping this proposal "invites delay that could tack on multiple more years before there are Open Internet rules in place,” there are Americans all over the country who know that this is a fight worth fighting, regardless of how long it takes to get right. This decision will set long lasting precedents that will shape the future of this and all countries for years to come.

In addition, many ISPs themselves publish online content like streaming video, television, music and news. These same ISPs could use these proposed laws to throttle or block their own competitors, an obvious conflict of interest. How this is not immediately apparent to any legislator considering this proposal is astounding. ISPs like Comcast should not have control over the flow of information; they should be held responsible for providing equal and unrestricted access to all content to each and every subscriber. There are repeated claims by these same ISPs that their infrastructure can not handle current demands, which is why their customers often experience far slower speeds than advertised. How these same companies can now promise improved service, but only to corporations that shell out large payments, indicates that they do not have the best interests of their customers at heart. The idea of data congesting their infrastructure is a complete fabrication. If there weren't such monumental barriers to entry for new ISPs, their clients could express their disappointment by moving to an alternative carrier. For most of the nation there is only one broadband carrier available, and you're about to give them a green light to further abuse their customers and hold hostage every individual and company, large and small, who has an online presence. Can we really trust them to act appropriately when the FCC Chairman himself has indicated that there is potential for abuse?

In closing, this issue will never slip under the public radar. Every time a new SOPA, PIPA or "Open Internet" proposal is made, citizens like me will be here to fight it. I repeat: the only acceptable solution is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Then, and only then, will we be on the road to the internet that we as Americans and all citizens of the world deserve.

Sincerely,

If your friends are so stupid they don't understand why this is important, send them these videos:



Capitalism doesn't exist without legitimate competition, the free exchange of ideas, and a strong middle class whose opinion matters. So speak up.

PS: Even if we win this battle, the war is not over. Shit like this will keep happening until we get money out of politics. Join http://www.wolf-pac.com/ and tell the lobbyists to go fuck themselves. Take back your democracy, America.
 
Back