AT&T likes Google & Verizon's wired-only net neutrality stance, Time Warner Cable doesn't
By Tim Stevens 
posted August 17th 2010 8:02AM
posted August 17th 2010 8:02AM
This is surely a real problem, but what we haven't heard yet is just how letting companies like Verizon and AT&T create premium tiers for wireless content will do anything other than allow them to make more money while still complaining about the same 'ol problems.We are constantly striving to increase the efficiency of our spectrum resources, but the amount of available spectrum in any given market is finite. And while we regularly split cell sectors and add additional cell towers, there are very real limits placed on cell site construction by zoning and local approval boards.
Meanwhile, a company that has virtually no skin in the wireless game, Time Warner Cable, isn't so keen on this stance regarding traditional, wired broadband. CEO Glenn Britt says his company would never throttle content in a way that would violate net neutrality, but still doesn't want more rules put in place that would prevent them from doing so. Funny how everyone likes net neutrality until it threatens to cramp their style, isn't it?
Them biatches be biatches to the end don't they, people should flock out of whatever service that picks this way of "filtering" the web and be done with these nazi folk.
@Taller
not really sure what your tryin to say there, but if you mean restriction on free speech and information is bad then I and the supreme court agree with you.
however many in congress (the ones getting earmarks) believe differently.
obama even said ''sometimes there is too much information available, it needs to be regulated''.
@toyotast165 I think you need to get your party straight there toyotaman on who supports net neutrality. You're listening to too much right wing radio/tv. Its fried your brain.
@toyotast165 ...it was self explanatory, you chose to find it ambiguous because it suits you. Like the other poster stated, turn off them airwaves and join the part of humanity that doesn't like to live under a rock and has a spine.
@kent99
If it was so good couldn't the send have passed it ?
I'm all for net neutrality, but not the added garbage they wanted to throw in with it.
@pavelbure
^^^^^ dems. Instead of send.
@pavelbure
That argument doesn't work. The Dems couldn't even pass healthcare to 9/11 heroes, which is pretty damn sad.
Regarding the proposal: It's A PROPOSAL. The media outlets pretend that Congress must either say yay or nay to this whole agreement, when in fact, Congress should use it to form their own net neutrality bill. Remove the part about "unlawful" and "lawful" traffic differentiation, and the wired part is pretty solid. Also, give the FCC a bit more power to review technological improvements at the development as time goes by. Wired is now a dumb pipe.
As for the wireless, we had an interesting discussion the other day. Wired can always have increased bandwidth to an area because you can just string up another wire. Wireless, on the other hand, must comply with the FCC regulations that it can only stay within a certain band. That means there is a logical restriction to how fast and how many phones are at any given point (bandwidth is limited).
Also, wired networks are pretty static. People don't generally switch by the thousands to a certain wired outlet. Cell phones must be able to handle this switch, however.
I say: Keep QoS in the hands of the providers. They know how to route their network to provide the best quality service. However, keep the wireless internet a dumb pipe just like wired should be.
And for God's sake, learn how to take a compromise. If they remove the "unlawful" content requirement and add in a provision for a review of the wireless internet's ability to be regulated the same as wired, TAKE IT. In battle's like this, it is important to be logical and willing to take a hit on your side for future rectification.
Finally: I like what they're doing as far as requiring "transparency". I think that was their way of saying "Ok, wireless can't be a dumb pipe yet, but we are still requiring wireless providers to be under review and open about their service". It doesn't mean I agree entirely (I say dumb pipe for every service and openness for all), but it certainly tells us a bit about what their motivation behind it is.
@Taller
i wanna know when will those new routers be developed?
the ones that tag a stream like watchin a movie or playing a game and would manage net traffic more effiecently, would make the isp and the user happy
In my area, TimeWarnerCable throttles YouTube content to the point or uselessness. A 30 second, low-res cellphone video will pause multiple times during playback.
Furthermore, some of the channels are practically unwatchable because of black-screens and garbling (probably from the data not streaming quick enough). What's most pathetic about this situation is that my streaming Netflix never misses a beat, even with HD content.
@manofchao5 It's called IPv6. It's been coming soon...since 1997.
@toyotast165
Link me on that Obama quote?
@toyotast165 ...right wing troll vote=shit. Pathetic americans, enjoy the downfall.
I wish that someone would already do something about these wireless carriers, and that Google stood strong.
@Sorral
Why must this be so hard !
I'm beginning to think that Google can go fuck itself: that co-announcement with Verizon was as vague as can be concerning wireless spectrum. How can a company that makes so many great things lie in bed like that with a wireless carrier. But I guess evil always comes in threes: Microsoft, Apple, and now Google.
@Spongecake
Why do you even seem surprised?? Everything in this world is about money... always have been... always will be.
What kind Jim Crow separate but equal type of argument is this the FCC needs to be allowed to put its foot down and secure our internet freedom.
@kamenwati
Secure our Internet, WTF are you high?
I think it's fine throttling users who go over clearly stated bandwidth restrictions, but not different sources at different speeds.
I see lots of home VPNs in the future, so cellular users can still get access to the "real" internet.
Time Warner sucks anyway, who cares what they think.
@icepop77
I have a new hate for TWC. They're known for "Throttling" and they speak out about it. TWC runs my area in a 200 mile radius I dont seem to have much choice.
@icepop77
same here, i care what they think because i really have no other option...it sucks, but the government has to take into account natural/regional monopolies before putting legislation into place...it's fine to grant companies some freedoms, but make sure users have a *reasonable* choice to leave
So let me get this straight. AT&T is claiming that things like zoning laws and approval boards are what is keeping them from building towers and expanding their network? Yet when they DON'T want someone building public access wireless internet in a are where they are a major ISP player, they'll shell out untold amounts of money paying off boards and officials to make sure that it doesn't get passed, or new laws written so nobody can even bring it up again.
@admlshake
Yes, there are numerous occurrences of this to prevent Wireless Carriers from putting up towers. It blows big time. Some town's are completely ass-backwards. There are creative ways to hide cell phone transceivers. For instance, my hometown has cell transceivers in some church steeples.
@dacman61 In Vegas, we've got many cell towers disguised as palm trees, pine trees, and extremely rotund flagpoles with tiny flags. None of them really disguise the fact that they are indeed cell towers. Of course, it doesn't help when you have several palm tree towers fenced into a cinder block enclosure in the middle of a several-acre-wide parcel of empty desert property.
We should just declare all the fiber optic and copper based networks in the US national infrastructure. Every time at&t or verizon has built out any of their networks, they've only done after they've received huge hand outs from the government. Since we've already paid for the networks, we can take them back at&t and co and let them compete on offering service instead of staking out territory over the country where they don't have to compete with each other.
@coredump
Oh my looky here another ignorant child who is brainwashed into thinking the fed can solve all problems lmao. Show one govt agency that runs efficiently and within budget. You need to stop feeling govt is the answer and start thinking why it is not.
@coredump I think you're going to have to provide some evidence for your claim of "handouts." IIRC, taxes are when the government takes from someone else as a handout to themselves.
@nastro
"Show one govt agency that runs efficiently and within budget."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
@coredump
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
@R2 D2 Wild guess, but I'm gonna say you've never actually been to Europe. When I lived in France, I personally witnessed government workers emptying garbage cans by hand because they don't use garbage bags anymore. Trying to be environmentally friendly? No, it just takes longer to do it, which means you can hire more people to do it and lower unemployment by artificially creating demand for an inefficient service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
@sonnybobiche
I live here, and I like the parable but I don't see how it is relevant to most government services.
@admlshake
wow thanks for the good read!
@R2 D2 I see your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe and raise you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece.
"In it she continues the theme of explaining how meeting demand on a wireless network is much more difficult than on wired..."
Apparently so for AT&T these days...
And digging up streets and buildings to add hard lines is oh-so-easy
@CodyTech actually digging up the streets is easier it's called "right of way" there's no "right of way" for wireless towers yet.
Net Neutrality is a bad thing if the government gets involved.. If you don't like a particular wired or wireless service, just switch services. That's where the consumer has the power to demand what they want from a company. When government gets involved, money gets wasted and things become politicized. Also when you give the government an inch they will most definitely take a mile and control more and more of our lives because they'll think they know what's best for us. Think and act for yourselves people! ;)
@dacman61 I was thinking that government for the most part, built the entire system you want to protect from government. Pretty funny.
@kent99 Utter nonsense. The government did not install the underground and undersea cables that are the internet, nor have they been seriously involved in the development of the internet for decades. Private industry did that.
@kent99
No... The original AT&T back in the day built the system before the government stepped in and broke up the monopoly... Yes, monopolies are bad... Heavy government regulation is the reason why "the system" was built the way it was. I don't know where you come from saying I'm protecting the government.... I don't like when companies go in "cahoots" with each other. It's almost like creating a faux-monopoly. The FTC may have to look into this a little bit, but that's about all of the government intervention I'd allow. I like heavy competition with companies. I'll switch to any carrier quick as hell if they do not do anything in regards to Net Neutrality.
@dacman61
In the timeless words of Dr. Raymond Stantz: "You never studied."
If you did, you would have learned about what happens when an oligopoly starts making rules for themselves. It took an act of government by, then president Theodore Roosevelt, to break up the Railroad Oligopoly for price fixing. Today, we have a few telecom companies that are trying to "price fix" in their own way by throttling down the content they don't want you to see and throttle up what they do want you to see. If we don't regulate them, whats stopping them from doing it? It has been proven throughout our history that if we let an industry get consumed by a few very large companies, the people get screwed.
@Bhima You, sir, never studied. Otherwise you would know the difference between anticompetitive practices (collusion, price fixing), which are already illegal, and market diversity (companies having different pricing schemes or services), which is desirable to everyone but bureaucrats. If companies are working with each other to stifle competition and innovation, the government should investigate as necessary. Otherwise, they should do everyone a favor and just stay out of it.
@sonnybobiche
Do you not see the direct connection between anti-competitive prices and internet throttling of content? Since we don't actually have much of a choice between ISPs, in fact most US customers have no more than 2 they can actually choose from, we are left with internet at their mercy. If, say, AT&T owned CNN, and therefore they stand to make a lot more money off of advertising on cnn.com so they decide to throttle UP cnn.com and retrospectively, they throttle DOWN MSNBC, BBC, PBS, NYT etc. Now, depending on where you live in the country, you have no other option for high-speed internet BUT AT&T. They have created an unfair advantage (anti-competition) for their news source and the people have nowhere else to go.
Do you see the connection now?
@dacman61 I would love to switch services, unfortunately where I live, one of the most densely populated places on the planet, NYC, which should be loaded with options, has, with a few minor exceptions, two choices: crappy TWC cable, and crappier Verizon DSL. Where this a legitimate, competitive, capitalistic free market, this whole argument would be moot, unfortunately virtually everywhere in this country you have two bad choices, from companies that love to collude, price fix and rest on their laurels, rather then compte and innovate.
@Paul M
Understandable point, but from what I've known in some town in OH where I grew up, the single cable company in town would get in bed with the local government and write up contracts to not allow competition to operate within the town. Obviously this is a bad thing for the consumer and a big reason why government needs to get away from controlling businesses. In Youngstown, OH there are 3 different cable companies to choose from. Lucky them.
@dacman61 Switch services? So if there is only one provider in the area I live, who would I switch over to?
And claiming the government involvement is bad is just pure fud. It is not to say that the government is perfection, but it is not the monster corporate shrills would want us to believe.
For example, where would car safety standards be had the government not pressed for regulations?
Also the local cable company in my hometown is the main reason why AT&T's U-Verse was held up for 2 years, because they pulled some strings with the local government and they wouldn't allow it for whatever reason and created tons of red tape for AT&T to deploy it throughout the town. My brother-in-law who works as an engineer for AT&T told me this. What a bummer for the locals.
@Magius
As technology and innovation naturally improves over the years, the car manufacturers would have made cars safer regardless of government intervention. The consumer would determine if they wanted to buy a car or not with safer standards based on the level of risk that they choose to accept. Freedom of choice... People who want safer cars will buy safer cars, and those who could give two crap wouldn't... Just like how I wear a motorcycle helmet because I want to protect my head, where someone else who doesn't want to wear one accepts the risk of cracking their head open like an egg.... Let WE THE PEOPLE decide not Big Brother.