Ok I dug up some stuff on landline networks, indicating we've paid public money to create a network we'll never see. Public money went into this network so we should therefore have a say in how it's implemented.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...021240_F.shtmlhttp://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
We did not get what we paid for or were promised, but regardless of that, we still have a right to demand things from landline network providers.
That said, ATT has been paying a lot of their own money to increase their wireless network capacity. Unless someone here can demonstrate where ATT has used public funds to create their nationwide network, I don't see how anyone who values private property can say that ATT should be forced to do anything that they don't want to do with their network, be in allow Skype or heavy bandwidth video or data streams.
Here's a link to ATT pushing out a costly network update on this site.http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ne_launch.html
Now, ATT is paying for this, and people are screaming that they cannot say what can be done with their property? Huh?
Originally Posted by macFanDave
Free Press' request for the FCC to investigate AT&T's obviously anti-competitive behavior would have been answered with a Foghorn Leghorn, "I say, I say, go away, boy! Don't bother me."
Now that the grown-ups are in charge and the Rule of Law is returning, this might get a serious look.
I'm not going to get into the political aspect of this, as I'm really not interested in a debate over Obama vs Bush, or democrats vs republicans, etc. However you seem to be advocating that ATT is not allowed to determine how to use the property they created. That you'd prefer that the network they created be given for free to a competitor via government mandate.
I haven't seen any evidence that ATT's network is publicly funded like landline networks has been, and you don't seem to be arguing that. Unless you are, make that clear, you're saying you essentially do not respect private property if I'm understanding you correctly.
Is this a blanket viewpoint or do you pick and choose what private property you respect? Do you freely share your private property with friends strangers and enemies?
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
If AT&T's network is that piss poor, they should be giving service away for free. You (plural) can not continue to apologize for crappy service that you are paying for.
You didn't indicate where you live or even admit to being an ATT customer. I can tell you that ATT's service is great in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas where I live and work. I don't speak for it's quality across the entire country, but even if it's the worst network (which it's not), don't buy it. If I don't like the food at a restaurant I don't eat there. But I also don't demand free food from them.
Why is that?
Originally Posted by georgetang
What about Slingbox? and Internet Tethering?
These shouldn't be a restriction from AT&T as well!
Originally Posted by PXT
I'm all in favour of pay-per-packet rather than the nasty rates we pay for things like SMS or voice, but why did these guys wait for Apple? Carriers have been shafting customers for years.
Originally Posted by PXT
I bought a BMW... ...Apparently, for $99 a month, you can pay them to leave the wheels on the car that you bought.I hate the carriers.
How do you propose that ATT and other providers recover the costs associated with setting up their networks, on top of subsidizing individual cell phone hardware?
company that recovers the costs of business and adds a little profit "gouging"?
Originally Posted by heaven or las vegas
So what if broadband providers (like Comcast) decide to block Skype? Or they decide to charge customers more money to use apps like Skype? Apple's iPhone eco system makes it easy to assert this level of control. Would you feel the same if it spread to all service providers?
Show me some evidence that ATT's wireless network is publicly funded. I provided some links indicating that landline broadband received 200 billion of public money. If this network is funded entirely by ATT, then it's not the same as landline based networks.
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar
It's not about getting anything for free. Consumers PAY
to transmit IP data over AT&T's network, and AT&T is discriminating against certain types of devices and data. That is illegal with or without network neutrality.
Illegal? Seriously? It's illegal
for ATT to determine what they do with their property that they created with their own hard work and financial investments?
So lets say I build a road using my own money on my private property, some company, lets call them Skoop wants to have a street fair on my private road and set up vendors and collect ticket sales for admission to their fair. Would it be illegal
for me to tell Skoop they can take their street fair and stick it where the sun don't shine? Or should Skoop hit up federal agencies to force me to have the street fair on my private road without compensation or permission on my part, while Skoop who paid nothing for the road collects all the money?
The whining in this site over this issue is almost as bad as Slashdot.