AT&T, Verizon poised to fight FCC's net neutrality stance on the wireless front
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Sep 22nd 2009 2:25PM
posted Sep 22nd 2009 2:25PM
Verizon and AT&T, the States' number one and number two wireless carriers by subscriber count respectively, share a common bond in that they both have deep ties to the Bell System of old and have ended up running huge wireline broadband and legacy telephone businesses. That means they're liable to end up sharing a lot of common interests like candlelit dinners, walks on the beach, and a general agreement with the FCC's Julius Genachowski on new net neutrality legislation -- for wired broadband, anyhow. Both companies' wireless divisions are expressing concern that the proposed rules would apply to ISPs regardless of medium, and the argument is that while landlines (and the accompanying bandwidth) are a theoretically limitless resource, wireless bandwidth is ultimately limited by available spectrum no matter how advanced the underlying technology may be -- and if the carriers don't have authority to clamp down on certain types of heavy use, everyone loses. Though every bone in our body is telling us to vehemently disagree with the argument, they're right on the point that wireless capacity doesn't flow from an everlasting font of spectrum, and it's got to be managed. Thing is, "managed" doesn't necessarily mean "restrict." Here are the options we see at a quick glance:
- Lobby the FCC to aggressively search for and free up additional spectrum that can be safely re-purposed. The CTIA's already pursuing this angle, so it'll be interesting to see what becomes of it.
- Before raising hell, AT&T and Verizon should both consider completing their moves to LTE and coming within a stone's throw of tapping out their current spectrum allocations. Both carriers own swaths of 700MHz bandwidth that they haven't yet capitalized on, and AT&T is actively freeing up 1900MHz by moving a number of markets to 850 for 3G.
- As with everything else in a free economy, the market should decide wireless data pricing. It's a limited resource and it's in demand -- as long as the appropriate regulatory bodies are keeping a close eye on anti-competitive practices (which it seems they're looking to do a better job of), simply charge a fair market rate for usage rather than discriminating by application. We've got a long way to go from the virtually identical pricing structures and limited options that national carriers offer today.
We knew this was coming... They might actually have to change their whole model and allow voice/data/sms to just become data as it should be.
What color is the sky in YOUR world? The big three will just use their lobby power and make this go away.
If you want to solve the problem, get legislation passed that DISALLOWS lobbying. Clean up politics and you might actually get somewhere. Until these corporations have the cards FORCIBLY removed from their hands (you know, they hold all of them at this time), then we will never get anywhere.
The reason is simple: Publicly traded companies only care about their stock price. So do the shareholders. You do not make money for the shareholders if you are spending tons of money to improve a product that can just be left at status quo to squeeze out every last penny. Why improve it now, when you can get a virtual shitload of money out of the same old product?
They will only invest money into something new when they figure they have squeezed every last possible drop of money out of something and start to lose money to another company because they have a better product. And so goes the cycle.
It has been this way from the beginning of time, and it will continue until we all stand up and say "ENOUGH!" Not that this will ever happen.
so true, lobbyists are what fucks up so many things in our government
@Slappy:
Instead of standing up and saying "ENOUGH!", why don't you become part of the "system" (the best damn system in the world, imho) and switch to that other company's' better product?
"The reason is simple: Publicly traded companies only care about their stock price. So do the shareholders. You do not make money for the shareholders if you are spending tons of money to improve a product that can just be left at status quo to squeeze out every last penny. Why improve it now, when you can get a virtual shitload of money out of the same old product?"
So should investors get nothing in return for volunteering their money to these companies?
like I keep saying, If the way these private companies, offering an optional product, way of doing business stinks to you then start your own ISP with some friends and show them how it's done.
Using the FCC to "punish" these guys for not being as cool as the companies in some other nation is just petty and stupid.
Lobbyists only have two things to convince senators with : money or people.
AT&T and Verizon have the money. We have the people count.
A strong number of letters to the senators on the matter can overcome whatever money they are flashing about.
Lobbyist are a huge problem but a bigger problem is that we as Americans don't voice our opinions like we used to. If all the posters and readers of Engadget would get their friends and call up their congressmen to really voice their opinions, then we may get somewhere. Lobbyists can only give congressmen money citizens give them votes. A lot of people use myspace, facebook, and twitter so why not put them to good use?
Dear AT&T and Verizon executives,
This is why everyone in the world thinks you're total dicks.
Regards,
The world
invest in your damn network and this won't be much of a problem.
guess you didn't quite get the idea that no matter how advanced the underlying network is, the frequency spectrum can only carry so much bandwidth. nothing can be done about the limits of a frequency spectrum.
sjdurfey
and yet South Korea doesnt seem to have much of a problem because they...
wait for it...
INVESTED IN THEIR DAMN INFRASTRUCTURE!
The specture overload argument is hugely overstated. Most Asian countries cellphone use is quite higher than ours, bandwidth is larger, and yet their populations are denser.
You sound like one of the town hall meeting "protestors" who are worried about becoming a evil socialist country through Health Care reforms even though their #1 trading partner, Canada, who they share a border with have this very same evil plan.
The frequency isn't the problem, it's the fact that none of the carriers have invested much money to upgrading their infrastructure to allow it to keep up with the demands of more modern phones. AT&T's plan is to just bill you into submission so they can advertise these great features but to use them you have to pay an arm and a leg. Verizon just outright cripples them so they don't have to deal with the network load.
"You sound like one of the town hall meeting "protestors" who are worried about becoming a evil socialist country through Health Care reforms even though their #1 trading partner, Canada, who they share a border with have this very same evil plan."
Yet the U.S. buys oil from the Saudis and trades with China too. Just because a nation or state has certain values does not mean it must cease trading with those that don't share them. But whatever, its your world, all of us reading books all day just live in it.
@sjdurfey: Bullshit. They could increase the capacity of the network by adding more towers and lowering transmission power.
That costs money, but that's what "invest" means.
Granted, it's *hard* to add towers, because local governments get upset about it. The carriers could address that by creating smaller towers (feasible if their range is going to be lower).
"Bullshit. They could increase the capacity of the network by adding more towers and lowering transmission power.
That costs money, but that's what "invest" means."
Invest? That cost gets passed right to you. Any infrastructure upgrade isn't going to be free to you.
@Look_Around_You
You might have a point, but if the US industry is anything like the Canadian one, then your network providers are producing insane profit margins. Rogers here in Canada posted something like 35% profits last year in a country with some of the highest wireless rates in the world, and their network is mediocre at best.
In other words, your wireless company IS handing the costs down to you...they just aren't doing the network upgrades.
GO ATT and VERIZON!!!!!
STOP THE STUPIDITY OF NET NEUTRALITY!!!!!!!!!
IT WILL ONLY HURT SPEEDS OF ALL CUSTOMERS!!!!!!
Funny how angry people get with respect to government censorship and such, but when it comes to a corporation doing the exact same freaking thing, it's suddenly ok.
GO jump off a cliff!
I like people claim that the communications companies haven't invest in networks. That shows people don't know what they are talking about.
The infrastructure investments made by ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Quest, etc.....are vast and extensive where large population centers are. We are also a much larger country that actually believes in freedom and property rights. It's a little harder to run cables anywhere you want. FIOS anyone? Verizon invested heavily in this and they haven't had much return on their investment yet. The rest of the guys have run extensive fiber optic lines. The reality is that they all over extremely fast and reliable packages, but no one wants to pay for it. In other countries, people get raped in the ass from taxes and then get charge a lesser amount. Our rates actually come out cheaper in the end.
"Funny how angry people get with respect to government censorship and such, but when it comes to a corporation doing the exact same freaking thing, it's suddenly ok."
WHERE ARE THEY CENSORING YOU, MARK!?!!
"The reality is that they all over extremely fast and reliable packages, but no one wants to pay for it."
Really? Which ones? I know in my area I have a grand total of 2 choices: Time Warner Road Runner(peaks out at 15MB/s) or AT&T(peaks out at 15MB/s) and both are pretty unreliable. So which one is the "fast and reliable package"? Besides that, we aren't talking about such things right now, we're talking about a carrier's ability to restrict what you can access on the internet by looking through your packets and making sure everything is OK with them. Are you really going to argue that's a good thing?
@Look_Around_You: Bit Torrent for now. In the future who knows? Given the fact that we have enforced monopolies, they can block whatever they want and we can't do a damn thing.
@look_around_you
It's not so much censoring, per se... but they are deciding what gets priority in your downloading. '
also... TURN. CAPS. LOCK. OFF.
Mark,
I pay $50 a month for my Comcast internet that has a 250Gb cap. I can go unlimited with a much higher bandwidth if I'm willing to pay $99 which is also their base plan for businesses which require the reliability and higher connections.
They also offer cheaper plans for people that just don't need that much speed.
I'm located in Houston, TX; but other ISPs provide very similar pricing structure for internet access (including Time Warner).
ATT has very similar plans here were if you are willing pay a little more, you can get service much higher than standard DSL which is common for businesses.
"@Look_Around_You: Bit Torrent for now. In the future who knows? Given the fact that we have enforced monopolies, they can block whatever they want and we can't do a damn thing."
Here's the point, mark. All of these geeks are pissed off that ISP throttle down excessive bit torrent use, AND THAT'S IT. They are hiding behind "net neutrality".
This has not a damn thing to do with ISP in some kookball series of events, keeping you from going to Google or charging you to go to Youtube. Not a one of you can prove that this is happening nor is on anyone's radar screen.
You are just going to empower the FCC to shackle ISP on the vague fear that this might happen, you just dont know how or when.
It's like being jailed for the potential to commit a crime.
When they start to do this stuff then yell and scream, but using excessive government to make the net safe for YOUR Bit Torrent activities is repugnant, and I hope that the ISPs make that the central tenant of their counter-push. It will derail this in a heartbeat.
"You are just going to empower the FCC to shackle ISP on the vague fear that this might happen, you just dont know how or when.
It's like being jailed for the potential to commit a crime."
Regulation would be a law, not a punishment.
Hyperbole much?
Investors should absolutely see a return on their investment, but not at the expense of the public good. Look at the last 18 months, the driving force on Wall street became quarterly performance before anything else.
Didn't work out so well.
History has shown, that every opportunity to abuse a monopoly that has existed, has been seized and exploited.
@kjb434
And you are happy to pay $50 a month for a 250GB cap and whatever shit speed you are getting while korea & japan are getting 4 times as much at half the cost?
You sure like taking it in the ass. I can't believe you are trying to defend a cap as well. It won't be long before comcast begins to lower your cap as HD Streaming hits the web, or are you going to say you are happy to pay $80 dollars a month for 5 hours HD?
Get this : 250GB today, 100GB tomorrow. Only a couple of months ago, you were paying for the exact same speed for with no cap.
@Look_Around_You
"When they start to do this stuff then yell and scream,"
If we become so complacent with it now, what makes you think they WILL actually change things once its instated?
I guess I should let my 10 year old daughter stay out till 1 AM and then YELL and SCREAM when something bad happens.
No one is going to wake up one day and say "BAM 10 GB CAP for $100", it happens slowly. Ever read (if you do), Animal Farm? The pigs didn't suddenly have everyone working twice as hard for half the pay, it was gradual. Learn to speak up before its too late.
I think the integration of data/voice/sms (voip) is the threat they are seeing right now.
Agreed. Voice is just data, and it should be treated as such. The voice plans are as outdated as POTS.
I knew that sigh of relief was too soon when I read about the FCC's steps into net neutrality.
I think the first two posts here actually embody what most people will be saying.
Perhaps we can just up/down rate them via votes to get a general yay / nay respose?
why does verizon care...to them "unlimited" means 5 gigs of data anytwats...i mean anyways
I just want them to get rid of bandwidth restrictions, STOP charging me an additional monthly fee because I want to use their service on an additional device, and, oh yeah, make it so that your service doesn't suck!!!!
We should be able to pay a flat fee, and connect as many 3G or 4G devices as we damn well please. Of course these carriers LOVE the current model of "Well, you just bought a new laptop/GPS/picture frame/watch/etc. Now in order for it to be mobile and connected, you have to pay us an additional $59.99 per month PER DEVICE".
Why are you buying so many redundant devices? Buy a phone that can do tethering and then just connect everything to it.
@Mark,
Many of us did just that. Buy an iPhone that supports tethering. Guess what, Apple sneaked in an update that disabled it in order to comply with their secret commercial agreement with AT&T.
And the rest of the world has to suffer because of AT&T's greed.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2151255&tstart=0
BATTLEDOMO!!!!!!
We all know Washington's key figures have ties to Big Internet. This is doomed! Doooooooooooomed >=I
They have a 5gb limit anyway so it shouldn't matter.
But I can tell you whats going on (aside from the phone data price issue). I am on only Verizon 3g for my PC. I know they throttle the bandwidth. It gets very noticeable and annoying at times. If they have to disclose this they will look like fools and get all kinds of grief.
I'm not so sure about them looking foolish. All they really need is a key government body in their pockets and they will be set. Heck, even up here in Canada, Bell has admitted this unabashedly, and they have the CTRC in their pockets. They throttle the fuck out of all the bandwidth.
How can you tell the difference between bandwidth throttling and a busy network?
The timing of the network speeds and performance. Flipping a switch vs. incremental speed increases/decreases.
Heavy network load can be measured pretty easily ( everyone from 5 PM to 12 AM experience slow network performance ).
Bandwidth Throttle is as if someone turns on a switch. I have Bell Canada. They throttle P2P and only P2P on a daily basis. I get my WOW patches via P2P. I have to wait until 2 AM on the dot to get any patch updates for the game. The rest of the network outside of these ports run fine.
That's how you can tell.
"They throttle P2P and only P2P on a daily basis. I get my WOW patches via P2P. I have to wait until 2 AM on the dot to get any patch updates for the game. The rest of the network outside of these ports run fine."
Oh poor you. Maybe they should let the most bandwidth taxing service in the world just run at full speed 24/7 so their networks come to a screeching halt?
@Look
You know what, please just stop there because it's bullshit and you know it. You just don't like government intervention and the telecoms are using this fact to bamboozle customers all the way to the bank.
Case-in-point(personal experience).
I have Bell Canada Fibre Optic 16MB internet with 100G bandwidth limitations. I pay $100 a month. I dont mind the price. My bandwidth overages are @ $5 per GB. I don't mind paying that. I can pay that and limit my use within this agreed contract.
The problem comes in where the terms of the contract are circumvented by Bell, where they throttle service that I pay for, yet i receive no compensation for the service that was not available. They do this of their own accord and will restipulate the terms for the throttles based on what they see fit without any input or charge to me.
Simply put, if I am a bandwidth hog, then charge the frack out of me; otherwise stop throttling connections arbitrarily because you oversold your network capabilities.
Please just stop talking.
A busy network will have different speeds throughout the day and night. Bandwidth throttling will cap your speed at a set amount and the traffic graph will look flat. Although non-throttled services will be very fast.
You know what, please just stop there because it's bullshit and you know it. You just don't like government intervention and the telecoms are using this fact to bamboozle customers all the way to the bank.
I don't like idiot geeks shoving more government over our heads to protect their damn bit torrent speeds.
You are advocating "intervention" based on fantasy and made up scenarios and a bizarre idea that ISPs are going charge you to visit certain websites, like those companies would purposely do that to their paying customers just for giggles and dollars.
When you show something sinister and real, other than your bit torrent activity being slowed, then get back to me. Other than that, start your download at 11pm and go to bed.
@Look_Around_You
Thats an idiotic statement the most bandwidth taxing service is streaming hands down. For the fact that your clueless you should realize what will happen if internet T.V catches on and how it will hamper their efforts to succed in the market if they continue to throttle. I'm with you about the free market issue but when ISP are now interfering with other businesses with throttling and selective allowances of usage you are now interfering with fair competition between other sectors. A bussiness should not have to suffer because their customers are on AT&T. ISP effect the country as a whole bussiness or consumer alike.
@Look
Nice.
I came up with a real world example of how Corporations break their terms of service because of their shoddy marketing and overselling vs. when i break the TOS, I am heavily penalized.
You brought more rhetoric to the table.
Good Work.
And another thing, who mentioned BitTorrent? Is WOW Patch updates BitTorrent? Are Ubuntu downloads Bittorrent? These are what i use P2P for. P2P is similar to the internet, in that it is neither good nor bad. It is just a method of transferring data. It's actually quite humorous that the same government body that you're railing against, are probably the same people that convinced you P2P is "repugnant".
Come back to me when you understand the basics of the issues at hand, instead of letting your politcal leanings taint your argument.
Disclaimer(I have nothing against profitable corporation that stand beside their TOS)
"Thats an idiotic statement the most bandwidth taxing service is streaming hands down. For the fact that your clueless you should realize what will happen if internet T.V catches on and how it will hamper their efforts to succed in the market if they continue to throttle. I'm with you about the free market issue but when ISP are now interfering with other businesses with throttling and selective allowances of usage you are now interfering with fair competition between other sectors. A bussiness should not have to suffer because their customers are on AT&T. ISP effect the country as a whole bussiness or consumer alike."
Then you cross that bridge when you come to it by either having the companies continue to enlarge their bandwidth capacity or by the technology waiting until the capacity catches up to need.
You seem to think that internet TV providers have some sort of right to unlimited bandwidth just because.
Sorry to tell you, bandwidth is not unlimited. If IPTV companies want more then they can work with ISPs to build that capacity or they can start their own ISP/IPTV service and do it the way they want.
"but when ISP are now interfering with other businesses with throttling and selective allowances of usage you are now interfering with fair competition between other sectors"
The ONLY example people have of this is..... BIT TORRENT. Where are the examples of IPTV being throttled or Netflix? I use both a lot and never noticed a slowdown.
well, at least now they are workign together, not in way that is of benefit to us. but the 2 biggest rivals coming together to fight the FCC.
why don't they come together on LTE and work together on bringing us better prices and more coverage and speed.
Ya, let's have all the carriers team up. They can all work together and of course they'll just keep making sure we, the customers, get everything perfectly the way we want it, because that's just how great of people they are. Sure, such a situation would make it easy for them to raise their prices massively in conjunction with each other and make 0 improvements to their network since we'd still have to buy it since there's no other competition, but they wouldn't do that 'cause they're so nice!
HURRAH!!!!
It is about time we got rid of this net nutrality garbage after all! I'm tired of all the idiot, liberal, moron, democrats trying to tell business what to do!
Time for less government intervention in our business and personal lives!!!!
Have fun paying for your search results from Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc, because when net neutrality goes, the market opens up for businesses to systematically privatize content.
"Time for less government intervention in our business and personal lives!!!!"
Ya, less government intervention and more corporate intervention! Do you realize how much of a tool you are?
Is this sarcasm? Seriously?
@horizontaleight: He's baiting you. You don't have to reply to every troll on the internet. So he's an idiot, so what? Is it your job to point out all the idiots you see on the street?
"Have fun paying for your search results from Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc, because when net neutrality goes, the market opens up for businesses to systematically privatize content."
Are they doing this? No.
Bunch of paranoid fools. When companies start doing this, then raise noise.
@Look_Around_You
It's not paranoia if someones out to get you.
@Look_Around_You: By then it's already too late. Do people wait until the government starts actually making it illegal to say anything negative about it before complaining about such regulation? No. We see where things are headed and try to stop them before they get bad, not just watch complacently until there's not much we can do about them.
All I read is: "Lobby the FCC aggressively." LOL.
Arguments about expanding network in US to same degree as its done in Europe and Asia is limited to size of Europe (1/3 of United States with twice as many people) More money to be made and much smaller area to cover. When it comes to Asia (Japan and South Korea have amazing coverage but again, they are very small countries in comparison to United States as a whole.
Big problem here is that AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint are only companies that we can choose from. Yes there are many smaller players, but because they are smaller hence they offer smaller area coverage etc.
I honestly don't know what is the best solution here, but in my opinion carriers should offer unlimited access and maybe charge people based on bandwidth so 1mb/s 2mb/s 5mb/s 10mb/s 25/mb/s etc.
Then expand that to tethering and more. I wish I could use my iPhone with AT&T and get all my devices at home connected to internet that way.
Anyway, I think its great that FCC finally decided to tell all those companies that if we pay for service we should not be limited in any way period.
Right, but compare population density in major Asian cities to those in the US. The spectrum argument only really applies to population density, since all these waves have a very limited range.
They way I see it is in the next decade or two, we are going to need to do it anyways. I'd rather pay out tax money to expand the network and get back something for it, ie better coverage, speed etc, than shell out to telecoms who are not going to expand the network until action is forced upon them. What do I gain from that.
Arguments against infrastructure expansion are understandable, but are deeply flawed in that it is serving the very same people raping us in the ass while they do everything in their power to maintain the status quo.
Simply put, the government aren't your friends and the corporations aren't your friends, but voting out government bodies is a hell of alot more feasible than removing corporate board members.
Easy Solution:
Don't buy their products. They will be forced to change their ways. The only reason Telecom companies stick to their current rape you as much as possible price models is because it makes money.
In this day and age, it is almost impossible to imagine myself without an internet connection, or a data plan, etc. But it is basic economics. If you keep giving them your money, they will try to keep things the way they are, so they can keep getting your money. ;)
Right, but basic economics doesn't apply here. We have a semi-monopolistic situation enforced here by both the FCC and, more importantly, the laws of physics. Capitalism relies on competition, but when you have a small handful of companies owning the entire industry and actually banding together, all that goes out the window.
If you allow bandwidth caps and mandate true neutrality, everyone can win. Users can do whatever they want up to their bandwidth cap, and the telcos can ensure their survival by establishing reasonable pricing and cap structures. Then they can compete based on speed, mobility, bandwidth cap size, and price. The walled gardens will come down, but they are in serious jeopardy anyway with the rise of the app stores.
That last option (the market should decide wireless data pricing) is the most obvious, but how does it get implemented? How much wireless bandwidth is too much? I feel like the "market" would decide that truly "unlimited" data on a phone will be WAY more expensive than what they're charging now.
Well lets see, 3G claims 14mbit/s download capacity so 14mbit/s * 60 * 60 * 24 * 30.416666667 = 3679200 mbit or about 440 gb per month would be a fair cap.
IMO if you can not provide a service at a set rate then you are stealing, capping bandwidth far below a claimed average speed per months usage is like giving someone a cup with holes 1/2" up the sides.
Hahah, I was going to comment but everyone pretty much yelled what I was going to say. Cmon At&t and Verizon we elected barrack, it's time for some change.
Yeah, you just keep thinking that this clown has some 52% mandate to be a mini-dictator, and see how fast he loses power in 2010.
Haha it was a joke bro calm down, but im gunna let you finish because Micheal Moore is better at arguing politics. The best EVERRRR!!! Hahah Kanye'dddddd
Sorry. :P
If all of the phone companies got together and unified the system and decided to go with one system such as LTE or WiMax, and GSM or CDMA and jointly build new towers then the density of towers could be increased drastically without the fear of overlapping or interfering signals.
But as we all learned school, sharing and working together for a common goal is communism and should be avoided at all costs.
I have a question.
I'm writing this from Taiwan and I use what they call VDSL which is basically a fibre optic network of 10 megabytes. I download games from Steam at around 1MB/s and other stuff at around 150-500kbps. I pay around 1000Nt which is the equivalent of 30 dollars. How does this stack up to internet services in the US and other nations?
PS. That's 1000NT/month.
At least Obama's FCC is pushing for net neutrality. Bush's FCC was trying to sell all bandwidth to the highest bidder. On the other hand, it woudl be great if just one "cell" phone company realized that all data was data, and decided to pull out the stops to sell unlimited, high speed, cullular-radio data plans. And then have a separate division that would sell hardware like the MyFi, or devices which had vox (voice) as an application. It would be great if I could get a device which let me use Google Voice without having to get another cell phone number.
You used to have to pay a separate charge for long distance, now it is all the same.
Its inevitable. Wireless will take over the world. This is the beginning of the end. "Free" wifi, world-wide. Within 10 years it will be a reality and the "wireless carriers" will be a memory.
Its an awesome dream, but honestly one I don't think will ever come to fruition. :(
The problem a lot of people have regarding this issue is that it isn't an AT&T vs the Government thing. AT&T is right on net neutrality, but that doesn't mean they are a righteous company. AT&T and the government are both evil, and both are working to increase their own control and power at the expense of we the people. Government is worse because at the end of the day they have actual guns and prisons to back up their tyranny. The worst AT&T can do is send a collection agent after you. We need to keep the government out of the internet as far as humanly possible while also working to eliminate the advantages and regulatory hurdles the government has already built up to favor companies like AT&T which are the reason for their vast market share. Maximize freedom and you maximize choice.
Is anyone surprised that these jerks would fight any changes that the FCC might want to implement. Anything that could effect their every increasing "Golden Parachute" & might lower costs, or be a benefit to their customers, they are going to hate. If these jerks had their way we'd all be paying extra for any data usage at all, plus the monthly access fee. Go get them FCC & don't back down, no matter what legislator they have bought.
I would just like to point out that LTE doesn't actually exist yet. It is still in the architecture phase, and no LTE network devices have been launched by any commerical manufacturer. A cell carrier can't design business around something that doesn't yet exist.
That was kinda the point. Instead of dragging their feet, actually get something done.
This is one of the biggest reasons I hate wireless providers. They constantly take your money, which is supposed to be for repairs and upgrades, but while the repairs /may/ be taking place, the upgrades certainly haven't been.
I understand it takes time to upgrade without imposing a huge price hike on your customers, but I haven't seen any improvements in service. I'd still like to have a reasonably priced pay as you go data option with AT&T.
bigjaydogg3 @ Sep 22nd 2009 4:10PM.
NO it's not the point.
Cell carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) don't make network equipment. Ericsson, Nortel, NSN, Nokia, and others do.
If you want AT&T, VZ, and T-Mobile, et al to hurry up with their 4G services, then you should be yelling at Ericsson, Nortel, NSN, and Nokia to make it first.
Gov't intervention is always needed to prevent greedy corporations from screwing over EVERYBODY but themselves. That's what it's all about: controlled chaos. Let people/corporations have just enough sway in order to stay afloat and prosper from time to time. If there was no FCC, we'd be in a world of crap and you know it. Yes, let the free markets have some pull, but don't let them take over!
FCC made its intentions quite clear: they want to preserve everyone's right to gain access to this Internet and to make sure there is stateful competition among the telcos/ISPs so that no single entity controls. Let the ISPs solve their issues at their level. This could very well mean bandwidth caps in order to preserve the greater good. Like it or not, eventually it will be a free-market and socialist Internet at the same time....eventually. This is if the infrastructure cannot provide for peoples' insatiable appetite for multimedia. But maybe the telecomm industry _can_ support everything later on. With companies pushing towards 100G networks, maybe. Maybe there can be redundant grids to spread the load.
Net neutrality needs to stay, just as the commissioner of the FCC said.
look, the airwaves are public property. the wireless companies are merely custodians in the eyes of the fcc (and by extension, us). in this respect, there is very little separating wireless companies from radio broadcasters. by this conception of the airwaves, the wireless companies should have some responsibility to serve the public good as well as make profit.
wow this is nice
Yawn
Ok well all i can say is at Uni were were told that the maximum speed you would ever get over the phone line was 56K (remember those days) and oh by the time we had finished we were getting +512k i'm sure this would apply to the mobile world and not just wireless, they just need to invest in R&D and their networks!!!!!
I completely understand the need for limits on the use of bandwidth. I have been living quite happily with a 30 gig down/ 10 gig up limit on my home connection for years. The reason I don't mind the limits is that my ISP (Videotron in Montreal) didn't sell me an "unlimited" plan. They were very upfront about it, the limits were posted prominently when I chose my plan and the company made it easy for me to check my usage on their website.
What American companies want is the right to sell "unlimited data" plans and then restrict, slow down or block P2P, Torrent, Video or anything else they decide isn't included in the term "unlimited".
Ok after reading all of the posts I feel a lot of people in the usa are blinded by irrationalism. Ok First the FCC is not out to get anyone like many of the comments from the uneducated in the art of COMMEN SENSE.
Most telcom corporations if not all see us consumers as nothing more than an account number with the means to help the bottom line. So it is not in their best interests to give the most they can offer. Dont forget most companies state unlimited access is gauranteed at around x amount of speed. If they throttle it is it not then a complete opposit of unlimited?
Third for you whiner a$$ policticos or just under developmentary and intelligent thinking challenged spitting out " wah wah wah bit torrent are only affected. boo hoo hoo only pirates complain sob sob sob I dont want my elected officials to get in my deal" You all really need to look at the facts. I have twc. I am a beta tester for many companies and an avid gamer that loves world of warcraft. I also have netflix. Now can you follow me.......TWC does in fact throttle netflix WoW as well as my paid for download servicies like steam and MSDN services. Hell the have even blocked the undermine wow server entirely once. If iI did not have the means to keep them out I would still be blocked. Why I dont know maybe they dont like that I am a binge wow player but it happends. They also bricked 5 routers by marrying a isp addy to the mac addresses so the could continue the throttle. I had to fight them and involved...wait for it.... the FCC.
The FCC found TWC at fault and I got $1200 from TWC for damaged equipment and the credits for over a 70% packet loss.
So I feel it is needed for the FCC to step in and do their job. Companies out there are getting to big for their britches so to speak and feel they can do what ever they want. It is time to put them in their place and rimind them we pay their checks and income. The people have spoken and loud enough for the FCC to take of notice whats going on. It is not going to hurt any one but the companies that continue to gouge customers for unreliable services.
So to all you nay sayers please go find your self a rock and beats some sense into your heads with it.
Ok after reading all of the posts I feel a lot of people in the usa
are blinded by irrationalism. Ok First the FCC is not out to get
anyone like many of the comments from the uneducated in the art of
COMMEN SENSE.
Most telcom corporations if not all see us consumers as nothing more
than an account number with the means to help the bottom line. So it
is not in their best interests to give the most they can offer. Dont
forget most companies state unlimited access is gauranteed at around
x amount of speed. If they throttle it is it not then a complete
opposit of unlimited?
Third for you whiner a$$ policticos or just under developmentary and
intelligent thinking challenged spitting out " wah wah wah bit
torrent are only affected. boo hoo hoo only pirates complain sob sob
sob I dont want my elected officials to get in my deal" You all
really need to look at the facts. I have twc. I am a beta tester for
many companies and an avid gamer that loves world of warcraft. I also
have netflix. Now can you follow me.......TWC does in fact throttle
netflix WoW as well as my paid for download servicies like steam and
MSDN services. Hell the have even blocked the undermine wow server
entirely once. If iI did not have the means to keep them out I would
still be blocked. Why I dont know maybe they dont like that I am a
binge wow player but it happends. They also bricked 5 routers by
marrying a isp addy to the mac addresses so the could continue the
throttle. I had to fight them and involved...wait for it.... the FCC.
The FCC found TWC at fault and I got $1200 from TWC for damaged
equipment and the credits for over a 70% packet loss.
So I feel it is needed for the FCC to step in and do their job.
Companies out there are getting to big for their britches so to speak
and feel they can do what ever they want. It is time to put them in
their place and rimind them we pay their checks and income. The
people have spoken and loud enough for the FCC to take of notice
whats going on. It is not going to hurt any one but the companies
that continue to gouge customers for unreliable services.
So to all you nay sayers please go find your self a rock and beats
some sense into your heads with it.
If a doublle post sorry. Engadget has a crappy comment system.
*sigh* Please please please, go buy yourself a clue will you please?
Landlines no more have "limitless bandwidth" then wireless does. Bandwith has a cost. Adding bandwidth to copper phone lines is expensive. Putting in Docsis 3, replacing perfectly good Docsis 2/1 routers that where just put in, isn't cheap. Putting up thousands and thousands of miles of fiber isn't free.
Grow up and get over it. Good things cost money. Nothing is free. The government isn't here in the U.S.A. to hold your hand and give you everything.
Feel free to take your thumbs out of your mouth's (and other places) and stop stomping your feet because you can't get everything handed to you on a free silver platter.
"As with everything else in a free economy, the market should decide..." including health insurance and health care.
it's just like anything else though, until someone steps in and FORCES them to change the way they currently are doing business they will never find a better solution. I'm sure someone in those industries would find an outside-of-the-box solution that would benefit everyone if their business model was truley in danger.
Look what AT&T + Apple combine has planned for us paying customers in the near future :
"For example, a carrier 104 may wish to provide an enhanced service which utilizes the global positioning system (GPS) functionality in a mobile device. Carrier 104 may wish to charge a premium for this service, so it may configure carrier provisioning profile 208 to disallow third party applications from accessing the GPS functionality in device 100, and instead only allow applications digitally signed by carrier 104 (or another entity affiliated with carrier 104) to access the GPS services in device 100."
The above text is a direct quote from Apple's patent application:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220090247124%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20090247124&RS=DN/20090247124