ADVERTISEMENT

AT&T fined $100 million....

Jack_Ripper

Junior
Aug 10, 2011
1,129
34
48
for parking their "unlimited data users" in the slow lane for....wait for it...using too much data...
My provider has been doing this for years (they deny it).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-fine-after-slowing-down-its-unlimited-data/

This-iPhone-6-mind-reader-commercial-from-AT-T-is-funny-or-creepy-or-both.jpg


One of 'em must stand for liar....
train_cast.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjvcaj
for parking their "unlimited data users" in the slow lane for....wait for it...using too much data...
My provider has been doing this for years (they deny it).
One of 'em must stand for liar....

Yes, but they still have Lily (aka Milana Varyntrub):
Milana%20Vayntrub%20--%20ATandT%20girl.jpg
 
Is amazing how dressing down and dressing up can change one's appearance. I had no clue Milana Varyntrub was so stunningly beautiful. Didn't even know her name before the post above.
 
Hmmm, and AT&T is one of the companies against net neutrality. Go figure.


ALL internet providers are against net neutrality.

if Fed Ex and UPS could charge the shipper for delivery of a package, then hit the recipient with a COD when they get to the house, they would.

much of net neutrality issues are because internet providers want to bill both parties.

the recipient, the internet customer of the providers, has already paid the provider IN FULLl for the delivery.

but if the provider can then turn around and bill the sender as well, they will if allowed.
 
ALL internet providers are against net neutrality.

if Fed Ex and UPS could charge the shipper for delivery of a package, then hit the recipient with a COD when they get to the house, they would.

much of net neutrality issues are because internet providers want to bill both parties.

the recipient, the internet customer of the providers, has already paid the provider IN FULLl for the delivery.

but if the provider can then turn around and bill the sender as well, they will if allowed.

There's so much more to it than that. They could slow down the bandwidth of websites they didn't agree with. Like, if a staunch raving democrat owned Comcast and just decided that the bandwidth for Fox and all the blogs like Drudge would be slown to crawl they could do that. Well, they could do it now, but with neutrality it's against the law. That example wouldn't bother me, but I'm an American and believe in equality and free speech.
 
There's so much more to it than that. They could slow down the bandwidth of websites they didn't agree with. Like, if a staunch raving democrat owned Comcast and just decided that the bandwidth for Fox and all the blogs like Drudge would be slown to crawl they could do that. Well, they could do it now, but with neutrality it's against the law. That example wouldn't bother me, but I'm an American and believe in equality and free speech.



the whole bandwidth slowing/throttling thing is just the means of extorting payment from the sender as well, since currently, i nor the providers, know of another way of forcing the sender as well to pay for delivery, .

or it could be used to force the consumer to deal only with senders whom said providers have an equity interest in. (ie a Comcastflix or ATTflix service, instead of Netflix or Hulu or whatever).

regardless, it's a means to extract revenue from not just the consumer/recipiant, but the sender as well.


as for your hypothetical and a literally zillion others, the prospect of blocking or throttling for non monetary reasons, regardless of motive, is also very much a reality in a non neutral internet world

after all, "no rules" means "no rules".


as for the case in question, throttling for functional rather than monetary, idealistic, or other reasons, is a different story, and that is what AT&T was doing here.

i see what AT&T did, and was fined for, as falling under false representation of terms of service, rather than any net neutrality type violation.

they were throttling a particular consumer/customer, not a particular sender.

that said, absent any NN type rules, one could see, or even predict, a scenario where a customer who had passed their usage barrier, (even if spelled out in their service agreement), being throttled for all incoming traffic OTHER than that which was sent by an entity in which AT&T had some equity interest in, or was receiving payola from.

were that the case, where the customer themselves rather than the sender, was throttled for excessive usage, but some senders with whom AT&T had a relationship with were exempted from said throttling of said customer, that then would be a NN issue.
 
the whole bandwidth slowing/throttling thing is just the means of extorting payment from the sender as well, since currently, i nor the providers, know of another way of forcing the sender as well to pay for delivery, .

or it could be used to force the consumer to deal only with senders whom said providers have an equity interest in. (ie a Comcastflix or ATTflix service, instead of Netflix or Hulu or whatever).

regardless, it's a means to extract revenue from not just the consumer/recipiant, but the sender as well.


as for your hypothetical and a literally zillion others, the prospect of blocking or throttling for non monetary reasons, regardless of motive, is also very much a reality in a non neutral internet world

after all, "no rules" means "no rules".


as for the case in question, throttling for functional rather than monetary, idealistic, or other reasons, is a different story, and that is what AT&T was doing here.

i see what AT&T did, and was fined for, as falling under false representation of terms of service, rather than any net neutrality type violation.

they were throttling a particular consumer/customer, not a particular sender.

that said, absent any NN type rules, one could see, or even predict, a scenario where a customer who had passed their usage barrier, (even if spelled out in their service agreement), being throttled for all incoming traffic OTHER than that which was sent by an entity in which AT&T had some equity interest in, or was receiving payola from.

were that the case, where the customer themselves rather than the sender, was throttled for excessive usage, but some senders with whom AT&T had a relationship with were exempted from said throttling of said customer, that then would be a NN issue.

Senders do already pay for their connectivity, using a complex system of agreements. The problem for bandwidth providers is that many of their competitors are also content-providers, which means that when, for example, Verizon serves Comcast content over their network, Comcast is double-dipping (i.e., collecting subscriptions) without paying any extra for the bandwidth. Vertical integration is ultimately the culprit here.

In the Internet 1.0, connectivity and content were provided by the same companies. AOL served AOL content. Compuserve served Compuserve content. That's not true today.

This might sound like a good argument against net neutrality, so let me ward that off: it's not. The negative side effects of a non-neutral net would far outweigh the market benefits of forcing content-providers to pay extra for using more bandwidth. If anything, it's an argument against vertical integration on the internet.
 
the whole bandwidth slowing/throttling thing is just the means of extorting payment from the sender as well, since currently, i nor the providers, know of another way of forcing the sender as well to pay for delivery, .

or it could be used to force the consumer to deal only with senders whom said providers have an equity interest in. (ie a Comcastflix or ATTflix service, instead of Netflix or Hulu or whatever).

regardless, it's a means to extract revenue from not just the consumer/recipiant, but the sender as well.


as for your hypothetical and a literally zillion others, the prospect of blocking or throttling for non monetary reasons, regardless of motive, is also very much a reality in a non neutral internet world

after all, "no rules" means "no rules".


as for the case in question, throttling for functional rather than monetary, idealistic, or other reasons, is a different story, and that is what AT&T was doing here.

i see what AT&T did, and was fined for, as falling under false representation of terms of service, rather than any net neutrality type violation.

they were throttling a particular consumer/customer, not a particular sender.

that said, absent any NN type rules, one could see, or even predict, a scenario where a customer who had passed their usage barrier, (even if spelled out in their service agreement), being throttled for all incoming traffic OTHER than that which was sent by an entity in which AT&T had some equity interest in, or was receiving payola from.

were that the case, where the customer themselves rather than the sender, was throttled for excessive usage, but some senders with whom AT&T had a relationship with were exempted from said throttling of said customer, that then would be a NN issue.

I just like that the internet is now officially a common carrier like the utilities. We've gotten to a point that constant and fast internet access isn't just a luxury anymore. You almost have to have it today. Especially if you have school age children for all their net learning days if school is called off.

But as far as paying more money for faster speed, they all do that. Certain prices for different tiers of speed (25, 50, 100 Mbps). It's really the speed for the content providers we're talking about. A non net neutral world wouldn't provide a lot of competition for content providers and in turn provide us with fewer choices. How could some start up video streaming site compete financially with Netflix or YouTube as far as what they could pay for bandwidth? They'd never be able to pay what the big boys could and would never even have a shot at a successful content provider.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT