Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Says Net Rules Must Allow 'Paid Prioritization'

suraj.sun writes "AT&T said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting its ability to engage in 'paid prioritization' of network traffic would be harmful and contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet."

5 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Re:how fitting by Haxamanish · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. -- Aleister Crowley

    François Rabelais wrote that already in the first half of the 16th century in his book "Gargantua", chapter LIV.

  2. That is what paid prioritzation means by iYk6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm pretty sure that is exactly what "paid prioritization" means. AT&T wants to charge Netflix for prioritized packets. Unless Netflix ponies up, then AT&T will downgrade, or eliminate, Netflix traffic.

    AT&T calls it paid prioritization. You call it quality of service fee (possibly tongue in cheek). I call it double dipping.

  3. Re:The point of net neutrality by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

    AT&T says ISPs should be able to alter service levels based on how much the internal endpoint has paid or what preferences the internal endpoint has expressed. These are perfectly compatible and both make perfect sense.

    Want to access youtube.com from urISP? That's an extra $10/month. Don't worry though, we comply with the law since we aren't charging youtube.com for that premium access.

    Even if it is just: Youtube.com unthrottled: $1/month it's wrong.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  4. Re:The point of net neutrality by cHiphead · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because these assholes are trying to wall garden the internet itself, which is contrary to the very existence of the internet.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  5. Re:The point of net neutrality by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Returning to common carrier rules would not prohibit prioritization of traffic based off types, so VoIP and such would still get the bandwidth they need.

    This is what is frustrating about this debate.. the telecoms have done an amazingly effective job at getting misinformation out there about what re-establishing these rules would do. So no.... bringing back the old rules will not cause torrents to bump VOIP off... there is nothing stating that VIOP traffic, or any type of packet, can not be prioritized for bandwidth, and there never was. Completely made up talking point that the industry pushed into the discussion that people keep parroting.