Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may
stop the likes of Comcast from
discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the
iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the
new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
posted Sep 18th 2009 4:42PM
pwnd
The reason that ATT does not allow it on iPhones is because people use DATA a lot more on the iPhone and it would kill the ATT network, if people started to use Slingplayer. ATT's network is already struggling to keep up with capacity....
@fatima
part of me would like to believe that, but how is it any different than watching a video on youtube? like, i dont think that many people would go out and by a slingbox for like $200 and pay another $30 for the app because of the current economic conditions. AT&T just wants our money. like if i have a 5gb cap, why should i have to pay more to tether if the cap is still the same? all in all, screw AT&T.
The FCC doesnt care about network bandwidth, they just want to be able to tell companies what to do. When everyone is having horrible service people will yell at their service providers for not keeping up with demand, not at the FCC for forcing carriers to stretch their networks.
Fatima: GOOD!
Force ATT to and make them suffer because obviously they aren't spending the $80 a month I send them to upgrade their network!
The reason the networks are so stretched is because the companies are being so greedy. AT&T had one of it's most profitable years last year. They make a ton of money on data plans, and they could definitely afford to upgrade the network more... but they're a business, and they're here to make money, so that's what they're doing. Minimalize network traffic, and what people can do on the network, but still charge a high price because you can do "almost anything you want."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that AT&T has been sticking it to its customers for quite some time. The FCC has come out with a lot of good news today for the consumer. AT&T has no right to tell an iPhone what it can't do while allowing another handset more bandwidth. If their network is not robust enough, then maybe they need to hire some people that have been layed off and spend some of those hefty profits on building their network. Not feeling sorry for them one bit. They want exclusivity with iPhone but put limitations on what they allow an iPhone to do. AT&T, open your wallet like the rest of us do to you each month for your overpriced service. On a related note today, the FCC is looking again at the Apple rejection of the iPhone Google Voice app which I suspect AT&T is trying to squash. This app provides many free services which would allow AT&T users to lower their minute and messaging plans, saving the consumers big dollars. FCC, thank you for looking out for the consumer. Time for AT&T to stop limiting competition in the marketplace.
@ Cindy, are you a communist?
the government shouldn't be able force AT&T how to use their money!! if customers want to be able to use the internet how they please then go to a different carrier!- OR- start your own network with ZERO regulations and let me know how that goes for you...
The problem Fatima, is that other phones ARE allowed 3G usage of Slingbox. Not only that but iPhone users are paying high data rates for LESS service. That is NOT fair. AT&T should also have known their network would get a workout with iPhone usage and upgraded it accordingly. Instead they held back and now it's coming to bite them in the a$$! We're seeing AT&T network upgrades JUST RECENTLY??? When they've known about this problem of network strain for how long?
@ murmermer
Since AT&T literally refuses to listen to the customers...since they don't have to, as there are no other options for the iPhone and other cellular providers see them making a killing then copy their shitty practices;
- The government SHOULD be able to step in and help out the people against greedy corporations with shitty or just plain unfair business practices.
- They SHOULD be able to ensure AT&T uses OUR money to progress cellular service instead of just cutting huge profits every month with the same shitty, sub-par service and forced limitations just to keep said shitty service just barely chugging along.
- The FCC should also step in and FINALLY say something about us being charged such high fees for the basic service of text messaging, which actually requires little to no extra data transfer and is piggybacked onto the cellphone service we all already pay for.
If you believe corporations like AT&T should be allowed to do as they please with no regulation you're quite naive and frankly deserve to be taken for a ride and milked out of every penny you earn...you probably can't be trusted with the money anyway.
Like it or not, government regulation is about the ONLY way anything would get changed. Even if customers have a problem it's not easy to get out of lengthy contracts and even if they do, there are few options.
murmurmur...the government definitely needs to be allowed to step in and block ridiculous plans like this. It's just as bad as what the antitrust laws prohibit. Consumers get ripped off.
You sound like a far-right guy trying to call Obama a socialist fascist evil dirty commie dictator...wait, you just contradicted yourself four times.
To those saying the network will be overloaded by this:
Well then they'll have to build a better network or rework the plans. Right now I am paying for an Unlimited Data plan for my iPhone. But we are far from unlimited in what we can do with that plan. If AT&T can't handle the load, they can get rid of their Unlimited Data plan and make people pay based on usage. Then people wouldn't go berserk and rape the network. I'd prefer that type of plan structure with freedom instead of the current unlimited plan with no freedom.
Oh...so many contradictions. Net neutrality will increase some aspects freedom on the internet. But, then it's seen as government being overbearing on individual companies. I can imagine Glenn Beck's head exploding at this thought.
This just in: YOU DONT HAVE TO PURCHASE AT&T SERVICE!
with a number of other wireless service providers, what dictates that you have to have AT&T? government interferance is always a bad idea... why dont they make verizon lower their prices, or T-MoBILE have 3G everywhere? businesses should be allowed to run them any way they see fit (within the confines of law of course) otherwise it is pure socialism. downrank if you must, it is the truth
@Nightmare: you are an idiot. Did you use "terrorist" to describe everyone who was associated with any kind of crime too? Your use of "socialism" is so Fox News it's ridiculous. I can't believe I have to even write this, but regulations have a role in many government functions, and to consider simple regulations as "socialism" is just plain stupid. No one is saying that the FCC should mandate AT&T or any other carrier to upgrade their network or whatever - AT&T will be free to do that or not do that - but the FCC *is* saying that it's not okay to prevent users from doing whatever the hell they want to with their phones. In terms you might understand, they're saying AT&T can't act like a totalitarian. AT&T can choose to a) upgrade their network to handle the increased traffic, b) do nothing (since the SlingBox issue is actually not about increased traffic but a competition to their own services like Cellular Video), c) introduce more sophisticated bandwidth limiting measures on their network to ensure equal access to all paying the same rates, d) introduce hard caps such that when you hit 5GB or whatever you are cut off until the end of the month, c) adjust their plans to remove the "unlimited" option, etc. There are many options - they just can't continue to say "You can do this or this, but not THIS with your data pipe."
Sometimes consumers get to have rights too.
Oh... SKYPE!!!! On 3G!... I can't wait!
that would be epic!
What? You don't get Skype on 3G?! What the hell are you doing in the US?! o_O
@loocas
Everything wrong :-(
And where pray tell can you get skype on 3G? Without a hack that is
does this mean i could get slingplayer for my VZW BB?
from what i've read, it *might* work, but is technically against VZW's TOS and they could basically drop you if they find out you are doing it....
anyone have any insight on this?
This is saying their TOS are bogus. If the FCC approves this change, you can do whatever you want with your data, TOS or not, and the carrier can't do anything about it.
Basically they will have to tell tellcos to rewrite their TOS completely.
I would imagine that network quality would surely suffer in the beginning, but it would also put needed pressure on the carriers to step up their efforts, as their brand perception would suffer even more. While I do realize the need for newer technologies, it makes me crazy that AT&T is actively building a 4g network, when their 3g network has never been acceptable to begin with. Am I to believe that their 4g network will not suffer the same problems while they start on a 5g system?
AT&T is not actively building a 4G network. They stated just this week that they will continue with their HSPA 7.2 (3G) upgrades and begin deploying LTE (4G) in 2011.
"Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids."
That's the thing though, what have they been doing with my money up till now then?
With my 2 year contract and $30 "unlimited" data plan, they basically allotted me "unlimited" bandwidth for $30.
If they continue adding users to the point where they are out of bandwidth to allot, they need to add bandwidth to take care of additional users.
Using my monthly bill to overcompensate executives and not expand their bandwidth shouldn't be my problem.
I agree that it shouldn't be your problem, but sadly, it is.
Capitalism.
YES !!!
We Can?
Seriously, Obama appointed the guy, right? I was a little worried htere for a while about how he will handle the Internets, but so far so good.
lol, by forcing carriers to allow extremely data centric applications it will force carriers to raise prices to support the network. therefore YOU PAY MORE because of the guy OBAMA appointed... but then again if you cant see that then I must be making no sense to you.
@murmurer,
I don't disagree with the basic economics, but I don't understand why you think carriers arbitrarily limiting what you use their network for is a GOOD thing for you.
@murmermer: This is technology site. Opening up networks to all applications is a technology fan's dream come true because it drives innovation and competition for applications and media. The network providers can adapt and compete by adjusting their pricing and bandwidth caps. They can also develop their own services if they so choose.
I suppose that the glibertarian perspective is to allow the mega-corporations to have all the control they want over their networks. That's fine with me, as long as they return their spectrum and franchise rights and truly compete.
@murmurer: Are you not able to read? No one is proposing that carriers are forced to provide truly unlimited data at the maximum throughput and for the same prices. Carriers will OF COURSE simply throttle data back so you can only have whatever throughput makes economic sense, and with a maximum monthly data cap (instead of their claims of "unlimited" today). It's not even hard to do technically, as the networks already support all of this (and they already use it!). So shut up already - this isn't about politics or good vs evil or whatever - it's just about calling the wireless (and DSL/cable) networks the equivalent of the standard wired phone networks - they provide a pipe, and you do what you want to with that pipe. I understand the carriers not wanting this because they give up control; why wouldn't YOU want this? Are you really so dense to think this has anything to do with Obama?
We do pay for unlimited data after all...
Bet we start seeing data caps...
we already have data caps, read your fine print.
Whereas in China they wave the data cap in your face just so that you know that you're not getting unlimited data. And I get 30GB for the same price you pay for 5GB. And down south in HK unlimited really means unlimited. We need Three in America.
FCC should now address the HUGE markup on text messaging. 1-2KB of data per message sent on the network does not justify the text/price ratio.
I would agree that carries need to lower prices but wouldnt that be considered making a price ceiling?
SMS do not cost carriers a thing -- they piggyback unused bytes in frames that are passing between tower/terminal anyway.
It doesn't matter that text messages cost the carrier no money. What matters is that they have value to you. No one forces you to write a text message and spend the money to send it. As iPhone users were so fond of stating when MMS was unavailable, you can always just send an e-mail for free.
Yay, does this mean that AT&T will have to upgrade their network yet again... I mean, they JUST added MMS and THAT was so much data usage.
I can't believe people pay for AT&T crap. More money for less service. If people refused to buy into the hoopla and go to Verizon, Tmo or Sprint, AT&T would find that its in their best interest not to discriminate and to give more value for the dollar spent on monthly bill.
Suck it Comcast!
And please somebody bring Verizon FIOS to northwest Houston or a similar service, guess I'll have to do with ATT U-Verse. I hear ATT has bandwidth caps, is it nationwide like fucking Comcast or in some markets like Beaumont?
The thing is, people already paid the bill, on the agreement and understanding that they can use what they want, it's the sleazy providers who warp the system and want 100% profit without expanding backbones (or bother too much with customer service/satisfaction in general)
Not correct. If you read your TOS (who does.. I didn't) I'm sure it says exactly what you can and can not do. You may think you can do what you want, but the carriers have other ideas.. and you agreed to them when you signed your contract. Which hopefully now will be changing!
If that were true comcast for instance would not have been a) lying and b) been told they had to quit by the government.
What about reverse-net neutrality? Like ESPN 360
Bout damn time...
But now that it is coming... WOOHOO!!!
They'll just do what tmobile does. Throttle all data indiscriminately when the network is overloaded. Although judging by the way ATT and Comcast usually do business, unlike tmobile, they won't limit it to heavy traffic periods and will apply it to anyone who seems like they might be engaging in filesharing, such as those with a lot of upstream traffic.
"how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids."
It is unnecessary to worry about that, Telecom are already charging the max of what people are willing to pay already, it's not like they are charging based on marginal profit.
Nothing in the article about getting rid of bandwidth caps, or did I miss that section?
@loocas I enjoy travel so I would gladly leave the US but roaming rates are ridiculous and international SIMs - while easy to use - should be unnecessary. Some company needs to fix this... I like what Clearwire did with negotiating with those other WiMax group outside of the US. Hopefully someone was taking notes.
well they will be paying for their that right. i say that it is just.
Was that image chosen just because there are two black people and this article is about (data) discrimination? weak sauce engadget.
...or maybe it's because it's slingplayer... on an iPhone...
So now I can watch ESPN 360 on any network or does this not cover that
This is what I was thinking. I still don't understand how espn gets away with this.
They are already doing this though.
Fine! I'll pay a bit more if I can have access to everything. Although I do think cell companies like AT&T should dig into their huge profits and try to improve the network (a bit faster than they already are).
close to $30 Billion the last 3 years and another $18 Billion planned for 2010 isn't enough for you.
Cool. So this means they won't be able to stop DOS attacks at all!
Yeah, you guys crying about ISPs trying to keep the network nice for 99% of the people should think about this before you bitch to the FCC.
Packets are packet right? They won't have any right to stop DOS attacks, and you guys crying about it will have caused it. Thanks.
Your assumption that malicious and illegal behavior will not be subject to reasonable limits is silly at best. That's like arguing that allowing sports cars on the road will lead to speeding and horrific accidents that will kill everyone.
Wouldn't charging to tether violate this? Wouldn't that imply that each carrier would have to publicly state what the bandwidth cap is and NOT charge for tethering? I've always seen charging for tethering as a violation of net neutrality. Just because the packets are coming from my laptop's web browser doesn't mean I should have to pay more for them.
Although I see where you're coming from, I disagree. Tethering is extra because of the higher data usage. I would bet users who tether their phones have significantly higher data usage than those of us who don't. I think of it as AT&T/VZW/etc. charging the extra $30 (or whatever it is) to unlock another feature of the phone (which is another issue altogether I realize).
I don't know, I pay $30/month for data and rarely go over 100 MB. As long as they set a bandwidth cap (even 1 GB a month), I think you should be able to use it however you want.
Yeah I think this means the end of charging more for tethering. Carriers would still be able to charge you for tethering if they were actually providing some "additional service" to support that (e.g. some software for your laptop to communicate with your phone to establish that connection), but since everyone knows how to tether their phone to their laptop without any extra software/support, they'll just go that route. The data itself can't be priced at a premium under net neutrality - that is the whole point. Of course they're free to impose whatever caps/throttling they want to protect the network, provided those caps/throttles are in place for EVERYONE, regardless of what "type" of data they're sending/receiving. I'd imagine you'll see basic tethering become free, but with a low throughput allowance (both for tethering and within-device streaming/etc), and if you want that throughput allowance upped, you need to pay extra. THAT is fair.
It's not about the quality of their network so much as them blatantly lying to consumers in advertisements. If their network bandwidth is so precious to them, DO NOT ADVERTISE IT AS UNLIMITED. As much as I don't want to be nicked and dimed for the amount of bandwidth consumed, I think them acting as gatekeepers telling me what I can and can't use their services for even though it's all the same bits in the end is even MORE ludicrous!
I agree, although I think most carriers make it clear that there is a cap in their ToS.
Sprint, for example, does not yell at you if you use a lot of data as long as they know you aren't tethering. If you tether and you go over 5GB/month, they will send you a warning letter(and kill your contract if you don't stop).
If you buy a MiFi then there is a very clearly advertised 5GB limit.
Huzzah!
pfft, only tools browse the web on a cell phone anyway.
As for the rest of us, Huzzah!
Hello low bandwidth caps. A lot of other countries have them, and if every internet/cellular provider does it, we can't stop them unless it they can be gotten on price-fixing.
PWNED indeed!
I wonder if this would apply to tethering as well. After all, tethering is really just a choice to use a different app (from another device) on the bandwith we are already paying for.
The FCC is just going to cause everyone to lose "unlimited" data plans. If the cell carriers are forced to allow any and everything data, then they'll just start capping the rate plans at 5gb and charging horrific overages. Again, the FCC needs to stay out of the way and let capitalism do it's stuff.
5GB is usually the limit with cell phone carriers. "Unlimited" was a fallacy to begin with. People who go over 5GB can get a letter saying don't do it again.
And FCC is trying to get carriers to allow people to use the bandwidth they paid for! Do you want to be singled out and told what you can and can't do even though you're paying the same rates as everyone else? That's what AT&T does to iPhone users. And don't even get me started with Comcast.
Net neutrality laws are definitely needed!
That sounds like what the carriers were doing before the FCC was planning to step in. So at worst nothing changes. Everything to gain, nothing to lose- why not?
I wrote out a big long post, but then deleted almost all of it because this pretty much summarizes everything:
The entire provider industry revolves around overselling lines and then hoping that people don't actually use what they are sold.
"let capitalism do it's stuff"
Yes cause thats been working so well for us eh?
I dont often post but here goes. I'm not a hugely patriotic person but I'm stunned by your opinions about this.
In most of Europe we have had regulated mobile operators (we are not communists either, than you mumemur) and out of it we have much lower bills than the US, complete 3G coverage and some of the largest operators in the world.
I pay £22 per month for unlimited texts, no incoming charge, 5GB of data and 1000 minutes of calls. Does that not sound better to you guys? Having regulated companies does not make you a communist (read up on it and don't be so ignorant and I have spent alot of time in Russia) It keeps them from ripping you off, makes completion tighter and stops a huge monopoly from taking all YOUR money.
Cheers
would regulation trump a contract that prevent streaming video? because that's in there.
AT&T Throttles Bit Torrent downloads the exact same as Comcast. Comcast is just more famous for it.
So does Road Runner.
Cox Cable does not.
AT&T deserves to be hated on for it's BT Throttling too. Castrate them publicly for it imo.
Okay one more time....
You *WILL* see throttling come into play under any of these FCC scenarios. Throttling is GOOD. It allows the ISP (cable/dsl/wireless/whatever) to provide service to everyone but without having their network killed by a couple people doing massive data transfers. The part that is NOT good is *selective* throttling, i.e. a BT user is given lower throughput than, say, an iTunes music download or whatever. Net neutrality says that data is data and the ISP can control how much you get and and how fast you get it, but not WHAT data you get, or provide different levels of service based on the type of data.
Don't think the FCC is here to just screw the ISPs and give consumers free reign - it's not about that, but just about making it fair for both sides.
Wow, I'm kinda glad I'm on sprint at this moment. $99 for unlimited use... So far my pre has been streaming, browsing and downloading emails and my bill stayed the same. I'm sure Sprint is not an angel in this picture, but hopefully they continue with net neutrality, for that's what's making their model pretty successful.
I concur. I used almost 4000~ Min, 2500~ Texts, and almost 2GB of Data on the Pre.. and I have not tethered ...
Darrin you have no idea what you're talking about with net neutrality buddy. So don't even try and write a paragraph like you know what you're talking about. Letting the telecoms discriminate will lead to a strangle on creativity and political motivation. Open networks are the basis of the open source movement and the philosophical history of the internet (EFF). The network should remain free and open from discrimination from an outside source who is economically motivated. In Canada here Telus blocked a website that was for it's union workers who were on strike. The telecoms should not be allowed to pick and choose services and access to certain groups no matter what the reason, and this should be enshrined as a right in law. This is the only way to protect the user from being screwed by big corporations.
Laws that protect against discrimination help stop this sort of behavior. It helps stop the telecoms from one day offering website packages like they do digital cable. Opps I can't load CNN because there's a conflict with FOX having a deal with this telecom. The future awaits. Obviously you haven't even scratched the surface of the implications of this issue socially, culturally and economically.
So why don't you stick to making posts you have a grasp of their junior.
Just to remind people, even though texting has gone up in pricing, god only knows why, data plans are actually cheaper than they used to be back in 03-04.
i think mobile carriers do need to be regulated and given timelines / guidelines, as to how much they can charge and how fast they must deploy and improve coverage.
the main reason that this won't happen is because AT&T/ Verizon spend 100's of millions of dollars on lobbyist. Please don't think that at&t is the only evil one Verizon is no angel.
if the gov't tries to regulate them all they have to say is " that high prices are a matter of national security" then throw in a reminder of 9/11 and al-queda and congress will back off and let them charge whatever they want.
I can't complain too much about my service with at&T because i have a 20% discount i have a free texting app so i don't pay for text and i tether my jail-broken iphone, and with 3G unrestrictor i can trick any app into thinking im using wifi and so i can connect and watch HQ youtube videos or use 3G for VOIP.
im using about 4GB of data on my iphone which i think is a lot, but AT&T doesn't bother me, and if they did i tell them to go F** themselves and cancel my contract because than i get out ETF free.
Ugh. You're missing the point. No one is going to tell any operator how much they have to spend on network upgrades, or how much they can charge for services. That's going WAY too far. (Yes, they *could* regulate prices here if they wanted to but it's not necessary to go that far.) Operators are still businesses, and if they want to pull in monster profits, that's totally fine - another operator will come along and level the field if a lack of upgrades causes service to deteriorate too far, etc.
They just can't sell you a) the data pipe and b) services that go on top of that data pipe (e.g. streaming), and then c) prevent you from buying a simliar service from a competitor (e.g. Skype, Slingbox, etc). That is anticompetitive, and that's why the government is getting involved.
This is Comcastic!
here such data neutrality is considered as an obvious part of the service, you get as much free data transfer as your data plan offers and you can use it for WHATEVER you want. I honestly can't imagine my mobile service provider or phone maker deciding what i can or cannot do with my allowed amount of data transfer. from what i have heard people in the US are even charged extra for tethering which seems like complete nonsense to me
The implied practice is that of network shaping where ISPs can figure out what type of data a given packet contains. These ISPs mainly target P2P traffic and I doubt you will be exchanging torrents via your mobile phone. ATT and streaming is another story.
BTW in the case of torrents and P2P it is not like they block you, they simply place you under a very low priority tier, in other words they discriminate against your data.
This is the primary reason (Net Neutrality) I voted for Barack Obama over John McCain. It's surprising to me how many people are unfamiliar with this issue and how quickly it could destroy innovation if not treated properly.
This is great news. I live in the Time Warner Test market and they're restricting data like crazy. Online video games, p2p, and video streaming are the lowest priority so I get unacceptably slow speed for most of what I do online. If I want to do anything quickly I have to get on at 3 or 4 AM when most people aren't on. In my opinion, a company shouldn't have the right to decide that what I want (or in the case of my online classes, need) isn't an important usage of my bandwidth.
I'm paying for a service. If I hire a maid to clean my house but she decides to shove everything in a closet to just get it out of the way then ducks out early to take care of her own crap, the bitch is gonna find her self unemployed. The problem with this metaphor is that there's always more maids, but internet providers that can provide my desired bandwidth...
Wish this applied to Businesses and Schools that block certain data and programs
Wouldn't a service that is faster and handle more bandwidth lessen the affect of a DOS attack?
As if we don't already know how THIS is going to end.
COMCAST: "The government is trying to take our- er, YOUR rights away! Quick, protest!"
GULLIBLE AMERICAN PUBLIC: "D-uh, we'd better do something! Get the Obama is Hitler signs!"
(the FCC legislation fails because of all the protests)
GULLIBLE AMERICAN PUBLIC: "Good thing we stopped that nasty Obama!"
COMCAST: "By the way, here's your bill for a thousand dollars since you went over your broadband cap for the month."
GULLIBLE AMERICAN PUBLIC: "D'oh!"
the best thing in the world that the FCC can do is make simlocks illegal and this selective restriction game illegal. data is data. a smart phone is a smart phone etc. no more of this "well you can do that but not with phone X, only with A-W" or "Phone Q will have these rates but S, T and U which are pretty much identical but come from other companies will have this other way cheaper plan"
with the iphone in particular having even just ATT and T-Mobile (and in coming months add Verizon and perhaps Sprint) ducking it out will do a lot for consumers. T-Mobile will likely add some perks like free unlimited texting, perhaps cheaper voice plans also, to try to lure over folks. ATT will have to meet or beat it to keep them. Each will have to fight to improve their networks, particularly in the midwest where cell coverage tends to blow big time and so on.
Great! I hope that goes through. Then all they have to do is set a cap on what wireless carriers can charge their customers for unlimited calls, texts, and data.
How about no more than $80/month for an unlimited everything plan? Based on how long the wireless industry has been around, that would be more than fair pricing.
I can understand annoyance over not being able to use apps on some phones. It's pretty fail, contradicting yourself by denying apps that solve problems that you said would be solved by apps like the one you just denied.
But, why are people threatening to sue over not being able to illegally pirate anything they want and undermine the entire gaming/movie industry with BitTorrent? Last time I checked, that's what is on there.
>.>