http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/ Engadget Comments for AT&T likes Google & Verizon's wired-only net neutrality stance, Time Warner Cable doesn't http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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''.]]>Aug 17th 2010 8:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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. ]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
^^^^^ dems. Instead of send.

]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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.]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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.]]>Aug 17th 2010 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Link me on that Obama quote?]]>Aug 17th 2010 2:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 7:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Why must this be so hard !]]>Aug 17th 2010 8:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
Why do you even seem surprised?? Everything in this world is about money... always have been... always will be.]]>Aug 17th 2010 1:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Secure our Internet, WTF are you high?]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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.]]>Aug 17th 2010 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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. ]]>Aug 17th 2010 8:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 4:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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. ]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
"Show one govt agency that runs efficiently and within budget."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
I live here, and I like the parable but I don't see how it is relevant to most government services.]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
wow thanks for the good read!]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe and raise you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece.]]>Aug 22nd 2010 3:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
Apparently so for AT&T these days...]]>Aug 17th 2010 8:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 8:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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. ]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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.]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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?]]>Aug 17th 2010 9:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 9:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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.]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/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?]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/Aug 17th 2010 10:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/17/atandt-likes-google-and-verizons-wired-only-net-neutrality-stance/
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.]]>Aug 17th 2010 10:41AM