Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise
An anonymous reader writes: The net neutrality debate has been pretty binary: ISPs want the ability to create so-called "fast lanes," and consumers want all traffic to be treated equally. Now, AT&T is proposing an alternative: fast lanes under consumer control. Their idea would "allow individual consumers to ask that some applications, such as Netflix, receive priority treatment over other services, such as e-mail or online video games. That's different from the FCC's current proposal, which tacitly allows Internet providers to charge content companies for priority access to consumers but doesn't give the consumers a choice in the matter."
AT&T said, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes.
AT&T said, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes.
You mean just like we can do now assuming our ISP treats all traffic equally? Isn't QoS supported by most home type routers, even without having to flash it with dd-wrt or tomato or whatever?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
This is QoS applied in a far less sensible manner, just give me a nice pipe and the interconnect it fully, I'll hand prioritizing everything I want to get faster.
First?
What if all consumers demanded that all their traffic be prioritized all the time?
Fuck you AT&T.
How is this a compromise? You hire a thousand people to vote the way you like, net neutrality on their terms. again.
No.
Summation 2
Treat a packet as a packet. Don't play games with the traffic.
Why would you request a fastlane for Netflix? As you can just buffer the video. If it's not fast enough you need a better internet connection.
For fast paced multiplayer games you would request a fast lane, or any multiplayer game really.
But what connections can be fastlaned? If Netflix or Valve have to negotiate for users to have fastlanes, then it will still cause the same problems.
Subject line says it all. You want to kill 6 babies, I want to kill none. A compromise to only kill 3 is not a good thing.
I did not RTA, but from the summary it sounds as if AT&T's proposal would allow AT&T to instead charge customers extra based on the applications they wish to use. No, thank you. AT&T, you already charge too much for broadband services which are far below the performance of broadband offered in much of the developed world. Charging consumers even more is an insult to the consumer, and an abuse of your government-granted utility monopolies (at least in may areas of the US).
How does not rejecting the demands of one side benefit me as a consumer? Literally, the ISPs demands only benefit them and hurt us, the consumers. Common carrier is the way to go.
Brown-nosing Bob asked a question in a department meeting, "Even though companies like Netflix pay out the ass for connections to our network, why don't we extort them into paying extra for faster content since tens of millions of their customers rely on stream HD video?"
The airwaves, phone, and Internet are a public resource and should be treated as public utilities. If these companies are not willing to maintain net neutrality then take away their licenses. I am already paying more for bad service and slower speeds than other countries. Given the level of service and speed, most of these companies should have had their licenses revoke years ago.
So ISP's want to give the "control" to the consumer, just like cable providers had given the control to subscribers in selecting their channels? And as time goes on the packages just get worse and worse, you mean that type of control? Where they will have "premium" web packages that will include faster response/load times for sites like netflix and youtube, but will conveniently put a related site like Hulu in a separate package. Just so you have to buy two packages.
THAT is definitely the kind of "choice" I want.
The internet should be OPEN for everybody.
So would AT&T's proposal let you "fast lane" any site? Or just a select group of major sites that AT&T has "approved"?
Oh, I see. So it's not really "I want X to be fast-laned" and then it is. It's "I want X to be fast-laned", therefore AT&T might possible approach X and demand fast lane payments. This way AT&T can pass the blame for the fast lane charges to the customers (who will also pay for those charges via increased fees for those sites) and can still pocket the money. Also, they are guaranteed that Netflix and the other Internet video companies would top the lists. Just the sites that they themselves would have targeted for extortion... I mean, fast lane payments.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
How about "Internet Service Providers" provide me with Internet Service, and not get involved in any kind of filtering, throttling, negotiating, etc. etc. etc. other than that required by law to block/track/remove illegal content?
Sell me bandwidth, let me use the bandwidth. Period.
Let's compromise. I'll only punch you in the face a little, and you get to decide which side I hit. That's fair, isn't it?
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
If the consumer can call for some content to be provided faster, the beginning state has to be that all traffic is slowed down; you can't go faster than "fastest". If all traffic is slowed down, you're already violating net neutrality. In other words, this proposal assumes a state in which net neutrality advocates have already lost and gotten nothing.
Wiring into the home owns YOU!
At some point this will pass. It will be billed as a compromise but the loopholes will allow AT&T and others to do what they want. As this happens, local storage will become cheaper and smaller and Netflix et. al. will begin offering home-based content libraries we can swap via Fedex or UPS. Then, after a while, the pendulum will again swing back to "instant" or "on demand".
hahahahaha
No, what we're seeing is one of two things:
1) They've already figured out how to milk this suggestion for every dime ( and given enough time, they'll figure out how to milk even MORE out of it )
2) They see which way the wind is (hopefully) blowing, and realize a compromise NOW might let them salvage some of the situation.
In either case, telling them to go "pound sand" is still the correct response. AT&T and their ilk have screwed over customers for years. There is no reason to suddenly adopt an attitude of cooperation with them, knowing full fucking well the only reason they're doing so is to find a place to stick the knife.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Sure, just let us configure on our router which port/service/internal IP gets a higher QoS and honor that. Why should we have to submit a request to the ISP whenever the mood strikes us to make a change?
Twinstiq, game news
Old plan:
1. Make all internet slow lane.
2. Require content providers to pay for fast lane.
New plan:
1. Make all internet slow lane.
2. Require content providers to pay for fast lane.
3. Require customers to pay in order to access fast lane.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Slippery slope, I say NO! No compromise.
I want you to give me all your money. You want to give me nothing. Let's compromise. Give me what's in your wallet, then we'll both be happy.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
AT&T is reaching out and offering a nicely wrapped turd to customers because its seen SOPA and PIPA go down in utter flames thanks to internet advocacy. We may not have caught Kony 2012, and ALS certainly wasnt cured with a bucket of ice, but the fact remains that internet users have inundated social media as well as the FCC formal request system with insistant pleas for net neutrality. AT&T is at a weak point, as its general position of ramming controversial and problematic legislation through in order to lube the wheels of its moneytrain has run into a plutocrats biggest problem. Namely, that if regular people are all allowed to vote and voice their opinions individually, your ability to control the outcome in your favour is eliminated. Its why we have the electoral college instead of an FCC-type system that permits individual input.
So stick it to these assclowns. Keep fighting. https://www.fcc.gov/comments
Good people go to bed earlier.
How about the ISP's spend a little money to give Americans a first world infrastructure?
I live in Japan and have 200Mps fiber with no caps for about the price of two pizzas per month. I've had at least 100Mps fiber (or 45Mps ADSL) for over ten years. I had 50 Mps fiber in 2000.
No, I don't live in the middle of a big city. I've lived in the suburbs no different than any suburban area or small city in the US, I've lived in the countryside for a year with no fiber, but had 45Mps about eight years ago.
And don't come back with the "US is too biiiiig!" excuse. You have electricity, water and gas, don't you? How did you get that if the area you live in is "Too biiiig!" The density where I live is no more than a place like Nashville, or Arlington Heights, or Jacksonville, or Albuquerque, or Portland, or Anytown, USA.
How did I get reasonable cost, high-speed fiber? Competition. There are no exclusive franchises or politicians controlling the internet business. Companies invested in infrastructure and competed to win customers with better and faster service with lower pricing. Most areas are now wired for 1Gps, and will be opened when the time comes to fill that bandwidth.
Your politicians and unelected regulatory gangs, er, agencies have hoodwinked you into forgetting that investment into infrastructure is amortized and not a fixed cost forever. Price should be going down and service should be better and faster... and ISP's would still be making mountains of money.
I doubt it's going to change, but I do wish you had options and at least 2nd-world service.
Isn't the precise practice that we want to prohibit is the ISP's engaging in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services?
How would you negotiate with that?
ISP Customer: "Want page fast!"
ISP: "Our customers want your website faster. Pay us more!"
Page: "No. Deliver fast as your customers asked."
ISP to Page: "Our mistake, they said they don't care."
ISP to Customer: "He he he... this is their fast."
You defrauding bastards. If i had my way you'd have been shut down decades ago & all your execs shot in the street.
So we let AT&T know certain businesses are important to us and from which they can try to extort money? AT&T: Nice business you have here. According to our records 15000 people requested that we make your traffic to your site faster. We have a few different options that can suit your needs. Random Business: What if we don't pay you extra for something your customers already paid for. AT&T: Well we are disappointed you would think of it like that. We are here to help you and to help you see the light we will continue slowing your traffic until you sign up for our "business protection plan".
Will Directv VOD get the fast lane no caps for it after they merge? they are also talking about useing fixed wireless internet as well. So maybe they can have lower cap on that but say that Directv data / VOD is free and does not court as part of your cap.
I am a consumer. I do not want all traffic to be treated equally. Why not? I don't download GB's of music and movies. I don't want to pay for infrastructure that my neighbors use, but I have no need for.
This proposal just serves to muddy the clear definition of the role of an ISP, and they can then use that ambiguity to create problems and extract more revenue by charging to fix their problems. It's critical that there be a clear definition of an ISPs role in the network, and the IETF has maintained those clear distinctions for decades now. Let's not let the business deal-makers muck things up!
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I love the speed, i love the reliability, i love the kickass router they supplied *for free*, i love how they actually have technicians at their helpdesk.
But mostly i love telling Time Warner to go suck a tailpipe.
I would like everything to be on the fast lane all the time... just like you promised when I paid you far too much for my connection ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
So we let AT&T know certain businesses are important to us and from which they can try to extort money?
AT&T: Nice business you have here. According to our records 15000 people requested that we make your traffic to your site faster. We have a few different options that can suit your needs.
Random Business: What if we don't pay you extra for something your customers already paid for.
AT&T: Well we are disappointed you would think of it like that. We are here to help you and to help you see the light we will continue slowing your traffic until you sign up for our "business protection plan".
I hope they wouldn't consider activating the checkbox that reads "honor QoS tagging". Please just let us subscribe for a moderate premium to a fast access to [service provider], and ignore that without those services, your access is useless.
AT&T wants more money for fast lane access to some partner. That is the opposite from the idea of the internet, where you can communicate with every one at the same speed.
And from the open market perspective, how likely are you to pay for a Netflix opponent to be fast tracked, when you already pay AT&T for Netflix fast lane access.
ISP should get money for the type of access (10 Mbps, 50 Mbps) and for nothing else. If they can not provide 50 Mbps for the money they advertise, than they should increase that rate and not double charge the customer.
Make TOR faster than anything else on the internet! ... heh ...
Just the fact that AT&T proposed it is enough to poison the entire proposal. Anything out of AT&T is going to be an attempt to fuck somebody because that's what they truly excel at. After all the taxpayers have done to provide money to build these guys networks and the subsidies they've gotten over the decades it's time for it to end.
Can't think of a worse company. Trusting them is like trusting a vulture to properly supervise organ donations.
The bad stuff in disabling net neutrality is having content providers (Netflix et al) pay the ISPs. This leads to market imbalances for smaller ISPs (don't have the clout to force Netflix et al to pay) and smaller companies (the overhead in negotiating a deal with all the different ISPs is too high). It is also overall based on the ISPs having monopolies in the form of captive audiences (almost all households have only one significant ISP for wired transmissions, and wireless isn't usually feasible to use as a substitute) and using that monopoly to force money out of content providers, effectively attempting to use one level of indirection to hide price hikes from consumers.
AT&T: If you're not able to make enough profit, *raise your prices*. If you want to include a service to allow consumers to adjust priority of service as one incentive to use you after you've done your price hike, that's fine. But don't play games and try to force the consumer to pay indirectly instead of directly; it's more expensive, and screws up the incentives. Your incentive should be to provide a working network with full access to all content.
Compromise is surrender on an installment plan. Once you start compromising your principles, the other side just keeps asking you to compromise.
I'd didn't see anyone looking for negotiation as an accepted outcome of this process.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
So people can request certain fast lanes and AT&T can simply deny them under some litany of legalese? I think not!! Net neutrality was a founding principle of the internet and it should be here to stay. Fuck AT&T and it's joke alternative!
The notion that Netflix should be prioritized over say online gaming traffic is ignorant. Not because online gaming is more important but because online gaming is requires good latency or low ping times, whereas Netflix doesn't at all. If they want to prioritize throughout for Netflix, that would make sense, but really only if they plan to deliver greater than blu-ray video quality, it does not however need great latency, waiting 2 seconds for your show to start is of no consequence, but waiting 2 seconds for every single movement or action attempted in an online game is unusable.
There should be no compromise when it comes to our rights.
Never make a deal with the devil.
I take my cues from the two major U.S. political parties. There will be no compromises. Better for America to go down in flame than for my rivals to gain any sort of victory
Even most of the posts here seem to miss the point that they are trying to keep the argument framed in terms of particular sites like Netflix. I think if they had said something like "allow individual consumers to ask that some applications, such as streaming video , receive priority treatment over other services", then it might be a reasonable attempt at a compromise. As it is, it's a sly bit of marketing to mask the desire to extract money from direct competitors. The last thing they want is the focus to be where it should be--content providers and service providers should not be the same companies.
How about laws that force internet providers to not be owned by, or produce content at all. Better yet, make it so that the company that owns the infrastructure doesn't even provide internet access, but instead sell their access to homes to other companies.
I'm not sure I'm understanding this, because I have no idea what the difference is supposed to be. People are saying, "We don't want you to throttle Netflix, trying to extort extra money out of both Netflix and the consumers for faster access." And then AT&T says, "But what if we throttle Netflix first, then wait for consumers to complain, and *then* extort money out of Netflix and consumers for faster access?"
Isn't that exactly the same thing?
therefore i vote to have netflix in the slow lane
Last time: Lets sodomize you.
After: Lets colostomize you.
We already have this differentiation - it is called high speed internet. If I have to pay more to use over the high-speed internet that I already paid for then it is anti-competitive.
It doesn't cost much to flip bits in a wire. They are just looking to justify even more aggressive gouging. Again, this approach gives a framework for them to independently bill to be placed on a lower cost tier, and allows them to set prices depending on customer.
Seriously - they are asking permission for economic bigotry. A bit is a bit is a bit. It shouldn't mater whose bit it is - I paid for a certain volume of them to be able to arrive at my house. This is AT&T wanting to tax .
This assumes that the large telecoms (like AT&T) are going to bargain on an equal basis with their customers.
Anyone with even a shred of sanity will laugh themselves silly over the notion.
The Net Neutrality movement is a collective bargaining tool. Because individuals have exactly ZERO power to influence their telcom provider. And AT&T KNOWS this. Keeping people as individuals in this instance allows them to hide their malfeasance.
Moreover, even if they had any intention of playing the prioritization straight, they're going to try to put a per-MB/GB price structure into place.
This offer should be given the "fuck off" it deserves.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I buy line with specific bandwidth cap and use services I want up to connection's capacity.
What this means is that an ISP such as AT&T will build a list of services to throttle (most likely competitors in other areas like voice and video) aka the SLOW LANE. What probably happens next is that AT&T offers pricing to become "FASTLANED" aka makes their ransom demands. If a throttled service pays this fee then they will go on a list for consumers. Consumers will then have the option to pay to enable the "fast lane" for that service.
This creates the illusion of making a service faster... but if they hadn't slowed it down in the first place they couldn't make it any faster. Their switches, their links, the speed of light, none of these things got any faster so by logically flipping a switch. The only way to make things faster by logically switching a switch (assuming no configuration incompetence) is if you weren't slinging packets as fast as you could in the first place.
If it's immoral or illegal, don't negotiate.
This looks like smoke and mirrors. It looks like they're proposing a compromise to dazzle the American people with fancy words that amount to the same thing. That's an immoral strategy--they've been told no, so they're rephrasing the same proposal to sound like something else so as to deceive everyone--and such behavior should bring a prompt end to negotiations.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Since I pay your exorbitant gangster rates for 150Mb/s service don't I already pay for a fast lane? I don't care where those bits come from, just serve them to me at the speed I pay for.
And before you complain about congestion... Isn't that why you have me saddled with bandwidth caps?
Maybe ISPs should start looking at tiering service hours. I pay with 100% bandwidth for utilization during the day, 75% for utilization between 7p-11p. If I schedule a download for middle of the night I get charged 25% for each bit transiting at that time.
My opinions are completely my own and do not reflect those of any entity I may be associated with - including the voices
It's just yet another way of spinning the same thing. For there to be faster queues of traffic there have to be slower queues of traffic. To be able to guarantee you can put a service in a faster queue, it has to have been in a slower queue in the first place.
As soon as there is ANY form of allowing ISPs to do anything but fling all traffic as fast as they can (within the bounds of the link speed being paid for) there is the groundwork for the ISP's to hold priority service for ransom, both charging to be put on a list for consumers to choose for a fast lane and to charge consumers again to make that selection. Even though consumers already pay to have all their traffic in the FASTEST LANE.
"... we love you people. We want to be your best friends. Now, how about this ..."
The basic problem here is that ISPs should either act like common carriers and not discriminate based on content, or be held fully accountable for all content they carry and be subject to lawsuits.
Maybe if you knew anything about networking you would know that if the pipe can handle the bandwidth, and you actually get what you pay for, you don't have latency issues.
So if I trick you by making it sound like it was your choice to start prioritising traffic we won't need to pass any laws because you would have invited the vampire inside. Vampires are really friendly after you invite them inside.
here's my counter-offer :
Internet is FREE (as in beer and as in born) and you jugheads pay US for the privilege of presenting advertisements for our consideration.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
u-verse ROI is anemic to netflix traffic. you can pay now or later, but you will pay.
But it could be re-worked to act like this:
1) Build out infrastructure to give all customers speeds of 500 MBPS
2) Sell service to customers for speeds upto 300 MBPS. Make it clear that is what you are offering, at that price. You never advertise any speeds higher than 300 MBPS.
3) If however people are using content from approved fast lanes, you enable speeds upto 500 MBPS for content from those people.
4) Make a rule that if they ever choose to adverise speeds of over 300, they can no longer get paid for their fast lane service (and must pro-rate the money back if it was pre-paid).
THAT is something that most people would accept. Among other things, it would let the company upgrade their service much quicker if competition started coming around.
Of course, it would end up costing the ISP's a LOT more money than they make on the 'fast lanes', as actually have to BUILD the fast lane into their entire network, something they don't do and don't plan on doing.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or at least data demand would if it could. Seems to me the focus should be on improving bandwidth and speed throughout the system rather than focus on prioritizing today's relatively low resources. In 20 years data transmission will be 1000x where it is today.
Start migrating away from AT&T to... Whatever else you can get. If you can't get anything else, get a mobile plan with tethering and stop using the internet for frivolities (YouTube, Netflix, torrenting etc). Spend your internet subscription on some books, or a good game to enjoy with friends (I don't mean Monopoly or Connect4; There are some *amazing* board games out there). Get a hobby. Do anything which doesn't require the internet. Most importantly, though, tell AT&T that you've left because of their stance on how the internet should be used.
Money is the only language that talks in (so-called) capitalism. SO CUT THEIRS OFF.
It's like they're saying "Okay, you win. we'll do it our way."
and yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
Did you actually think that by setting the QoS on your router you were getting better end to end service??? Unless the QoS is propagated to the ISP's network and all of the devices between you, the ISP, and the destination (such as Netflix) it doesn't change a thing outside of you house. QoS on your home router prioritizes the traffic on *your HOME network*, not the carrier network. More precisely, it prioritizes the home networks contention for the WAN.
If you think that the latency issues are on your home network then why would you care what the carrier does with the traffic once it leaves you house? Seriously, I think you over estimate what QoS on your home router does. And the fact that you got a 5 insightful rating proves others don't understand either.
Oh, I work for a company that builds the transport equipment for ISPs and carriers and I can assure you that your home router does not negotiate for network bandwidth.
--- Tolerance is the axiomatic "virtue" of those without convictions ---
... then you arent paying attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069/
ATT manges the CPE inside your home... to include QoS.
There's a lot of "weasel wording" here. I hope the WSJ posts a follow-up that clarifies this a bit.
Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns," said AT&T in its filing.
This isn't "preserving" a power, it is granting them a new power. But saying "preserve" sounds softer, and more compromisey. Neutrality requires that they always stay neutral, not just sometimes stay neutral. That's the definition of "neutrality."
AT&T's idea would still allow for commercial deals between companies. But they would have to be arranged as the result of one or more subscriber requests; the ISPs couldn't offer fee-based prioritization just because they wanted to.
So all that has to happen is one naive subscriber complains that Netflix is too slow, and then everyone else's Netflix would be moved to the "slow" lane and this one person is one the "fast" lane. As for the "just because they wanted to" part, there is no other reason to have fast lanes. It is purely so the ISPs can make more money without having to upgrade their infrastructure. No one else would want them to do that.
"I am encouraged that people are coming up with creative solutions and not going to the extreme yes-no position," said Nuala O'Connor, president and chief executive of the Center for Democracy and Technology.
I don't understand this statement. Neutrality isn't negotiable. ISPs should not be filtering, altering, slowing, listening, or anything like that. There is no valid reason for them to do so. Proposing that they can do it, but only on Tuesdays, or only if someone asks them to, or only if they think the content is illegal, or only if the user is using up too much bandwidth -- none of those are compromises. They are excuses.
Cue Comcast (or its representatives, either by training or of their own hair-brained ideas) deciding that some kinds of traffic are not legitimate and refusing to stop downgrading them. Because if you're using X kind of web traffic, it must be for Y common illegal use of that traffic and not just because it's the best technology for what you're doing. According to most ISPs, there are no legal uses of peer-to-peer or fully anonymized web traffic. How nice the days must have been when those were the only kinds of traffic that really taxed their bandwidth, and they could get away with throttling them as some kind of internet vigilantes.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
I would like for them to prioritize whatever I am accessing at the time I am accessing it.
Then mark "whatever [you are] accessing at the time [you are] accessing it" (HTTP, VoIP, etc.) as interactive, and mark your torrenting as bulk.
AT&T installed the first splitter in their SF hub, recall that? Room 641A?
AT&T is the most dishonest company in the telecom industry, an industry with no few dishonest corporations.
There is no way that anything AT&T proposes could be good for consumers of their services. As AT&T is approaching monopoly status again, giving them any benefit of the doubt is a really bad idea.
easier said then done. most of us rely on Internet for our work. and many times we only have 1 real choice.
I use a local wifi company that charges $50/month/2mbps uncapped. i called Verizon, they said it's at&ts area. I called AT&T they said it was comcasts area. I call comcast, they say no it's Verizon's area.
well whos fucking area is it. and shouldn't that be collusion. why can't they all service my fucking area. it's a god damn mess as it stands right now. I love my current ISP, I just wish I had the option to get faster than 2mbps. but it'll do for now.
Yeah. Unfortunately they're my only even remotely viable option.
I'll have to move if I want anything else.
A couple years back, my landlord booted Comcast and brought in some fly-by-night Satellite/DSL reseller (Suite Solutions).
Comcast kept them tied up in court for about a year but ultimately lost.
So I jumped to Clearwire. It was okay for web browsing and light gaming. But I also need my connection for an IP phone and the connection quality just wasn't there. (The nearest tower to me is north and east, I live on the SW facing of my building, so even when I FORCED my modem to connect to the nearer tower, I'd DC about 15-30 minutes later and come back up on the tower 4 miles south of me, getting 1 bar. Imagine a phone call where you only get every third or fourth syllable. That's what my call quality was.)
I'm in a valley, so LOS wireless isn't an option. I can't install any hardware on the building either.
So I'm stuck with crappy AT&T DSL or paying those jackasses at Suite Solutions to resell me one of AT&T's shittier, older lines for $5 more a month.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
See, the problem with this is AT&T is the network. That's it.
It's none of their damned business what content companies and services I use. Their job is to give me a network pipe to access the internet.
This is just propping up a business model where they can say "Nice Netflix you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it". They want the right to do more rent-seeking from new services.
If AT&T and the other ISPs hadn't built a model based on over-subscription, and avoided investing in their infrastructure to actually meet the capacity they claim, they'd be able to do this.
But instead they like to pretend they're selling you a good service, when in reality they are selling you a service which is woefully underpowered and hasn't been upgraded.
Every one of these companies advertises their big awesome service, which you can stream all sorts of HD and do all sorts of cool things .. but the reality is they don't have the infrastructure for people to use the service as it's been advertised. So, in theory someone somewhere might get the same awesomeness in the commercial .. but in practice, that's not what they're really selling.
ISPs should just be made common carriers, and told that they don't get to try to charge people extra for the services they already claim to have sold them.
My cable company advertises about how much awesome HD content I can get. But in reality, when you watch the HD channels, they're all heavily compressed to the point that in some instances you can see more digital noise than anything else. I can tell straight away I'm not really getting 1080p all the time, I'm getting a heavily compressed version of it.
So, when all of these companies start talking about ultra HD, or their shiny new wireless network, or anything else ... I automatically assume that what they're selling is not what they're claiming, and they're going to degrade the quality of it and claim that's how it's supposed to work.
It's like buying a car, only to find out that the claimed performance isn't anywhere near what they said, and that if you actually wanted that you need to pay extra. It's false advertising.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Consumers shouldn't have to pay you more for you to do your job properly and deliver all content at the same speed.
Yes, lets use the example of a bulk data transfer getting priority over low bandwidth latency sensitive gaming. Wait, doesn't priority only matter when there is congestion? Why is there congestion? Are they saying there is congestion on their internal network or do they mean they have congestion in the links to the other networks? If the congestion is in the external links, how do they propose "priority" to affect unrelated links?
How about they just deliver what they sell? F*ck "up to", they need to get rid of that legal loop hole. Our car gets "up to" 40mpg, but you'll never see more than 1mpg in normal usage.
Exactly this. This isn't a compromise. This is yet ANOTHER way for AT&T to Double-Dip and get money from both service providers and the customer.
AT&T can charge Netflix extra money for making a "Fast Lane" available on its network. Then, it can turn around and let the customer "choose" to pay an extra $20 a month to actually USE this "Fast Lane". Rinse and Repeat with every type of service you can think of: YouTube, Twitch, online gaming, Skype, etc. Soon the customer could have an extra $50-100 tacked onto his or her bill every month. Huge win for ISPs.
I can see the advertising now! Subscribe to three fast lanes and get a 20% discount on your bundle!
fine fine, we will sell you a dumb pipe. 640Kb is enough for every one right? WHAT you want more.... ok fine but 4Mb is where we draw the line
so they can understand. MONEY CANNOT AFFECT THE PRIORITY BIT. you can sell Netflix all the 10-gigabit ports you want. but the priority bit stays at 1 or 2, just like all the other basic internet traffic on your network. just like the packets you send to the home customers.
understand it now?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"We're gonna shoot you in the knee... but now you get to chose which one."
This strikes me as the same kind of compromise constantly suggested by gun regulation groups. You quietly compromise away one right after another for 100 years with absolutely no give from the opposition. Maybe you truly believed compromise was in everyone's best interest. Then when you say enough your the bad guy for refusing to compromise!
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
This proposed "compromise" does not actually strike some middle ground, it just changes who pays for the prioritization. Who's to say that ISPs won't slow the "regular lanes" down so much that customers will be forced to buy bandwidth for specific websites. This also allows for abuse such as slowing all websites down to the slowest speed possible (dropping 99.99% of the packets) and saying "we're not blocking it see we're letting one packet through" them. Additionally, this wold allow them to artificially block websites, again, claiming they are still allowing a connection to them because they are not dropping the 0.001% of packets sent and not allow a higher tier connection speed, something that could easily happen with comcast, as they sell television content just like netflix.
"AT&T said, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes."
Nice try.
First, the ability to "enter into individual negotiations" for your IP packages to be treated one way (slow) or another way (fast) is ENORMOUSLY deceptive language for killing net neutrality.
To deconstruct this twaddle , the word "ability" is used so that rejecting this "offer" (snort) makes it seem like you';re turning down an ability in favor of what? a disability? Being forced to "negotiate" for your packet's speed is not an "ability" . It's the threat that, unless you pay or if you oppose us politically, we'll kneecap your packets.
Secondly, it is NOTHING but fast lane / slow lane practices repackaged into doublespeak. What are the
"individualized" (another gratuitously positive-sounding word) "negotiations" (if you call being strong armed by non- value producing, rent seeking monopolists "negotiations" ) except demands for payment for delivery of your packets at prices other than the price "negotiated" for the same delivery of other companies and individuals packets?
You know what this piece of corporate press release dressed up as a Slashdot article REALLY says? We're winning, and not by some small measure either. ATT is looking over the battle field and they see they're being completely routed. The writing is on the wall for them nad they're desperately trying to "negotiate" and "compromise" their way to a victory over a free as in freedom internet, because they're not going to carry the day using the normal mechanism of Congressional campaign bribes , er I mean support, and astroturfed "citizens movements"
Your letters to your Congressional representatives are totally and completely one sided, as was the public response to the FCC. Congress has NO WAY to give them what they want without shredding whatever credibility that institution has left as the People's House. The cost of defying the repeatedly expressed will of the American people on this issue would not just be toxic for generations to any party who gives in, it would also threaten the legitimacy of the institution itself. How much more can the American people take? No one wants to find out.
Takeaway from this piece of corporate PR trash?
KEEP WRITING CONGRESS. IT"S WORKING.
So the fast lane slow lane has been broken out into "individual
I would like a 1000 terabyte per second up/down connection, with no filtering or fastlanes, for one cent a month. No? How about a compromise... meet me halfway?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Because institutions and large family companies are things of the past. Just as corporations have no loyalty to their employees and vice versa, company management and shareholders have no loyalty to the corporations. The idea of building up a company that will be around for years depends on participants that have some stake in the game besides just money.
It's easier to shoot for short-term gains and pay for government intervention (or just drop the company altogether) when things go south than to build a solid foundation and have to take the hit when your company underperforms. Even private companies now are just built up to the point that they can be bought out.
It ends up being the same damned thing.
It would mean rich people get better internet than not rich people.
Fuck you AT&T - you don't have the right to even think about touching the traffic in this way. We the people will sue you out of existence if you try.
You're making several wildly inappropriate assumptions
So are you.
4. Japan and America (and each individual State) have completely different regulatory environments and philosophies. No shit we have different outcomes.
This is what is was getting at with the "population density is not the problem" argument and this is ultimately the root of our problem here.
The population density of different countries is a moot issue. There's no need for rural Montana to have gigabit fiber in order for me, in one of the largest US cities, to have it. Why is uncapped gigabit fiber for the cost of two pizzas unavailable in major US cities when it's available in rural Japan?
If this happens, that means WoW can negotiate better terms than say... FFXIV. Both are MMORPG's but their server/datacenter arrangements are centralized differently.
This is a pretty transparent proposal to immediately cap speeds, then approach platforms for extortion money based on user demand.
In short, it's exactly the same thing. The words have changed, but the idea about what to do with the cables is the same.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Why trust one of the companies that stole nearly two billion dollars to upgrade their infrastructure so that everyone could have a 45 Mbps FTTH connection?
and am soooo pleased to be rid of the other ISPs I've been stuck with in the past.
And of course *the moment* Google rolled out in this area, a bunch of other ISPs magically offered a competitive 1Gbps fiber plan as well.
Too late—you had me. And you pissed me off. And now I'm gone.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The issue is STILL that they want to control ANY aspect of the connection between my terminal and the content provider, based on 'negotiated' rates. They still think they are in charge of something other than a Goddamn fat pipe.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
"IT'S A TRAP"
Break them up again for anti-trust.
The United States government is such a corrupt fucking joke. I can't wait until the revolution starts.
The ISPs want the ability to create SLOW lanes and charge more for the others.
AT&T is feeling the pressure. Sounds like we need to keep pushing.
They blinked.
who pays.
The goal is to not create barriers to entry for evolving applications.
If the customer asks and then Netflix pays, that would be bad
because a startup might not be able to do that as well as an existing company.
If the customer gets a bit of fast lane and gets to decide where it goes, then this would be good.
It's not clear is the proposal is the first end run around the intent of net neutrality or the second customer empowerment.
ATT actively worked against the Internet in the Net's early days. ATT is a traitor to American and consumer and business interests. ATT has helped make America an Internet backwater compared to other developed nations. ATT is a member of the "Internet thieves club" that includes Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, etc.
if geeks like it, then it's probably a bad idea for the general population.
I'm sort of baffled about why there is such low-level discourse on this topic. Can someone explain to me in some way that makes logical sense why there SHOULDN'T be "QoS" for the big tubes of the internet? Call it fast lane or slow lane: whatever. In every other walk of life, there is prioritization of some things over others
- i don't ship everything at the post office using the same "speed of service"
- i use QoS for packets on my LAN
- i return emails from my contacts before those from non-contacts
- i use different amazon web service instance sizes for different tasks
so, why shouldn't the internet work the same way? can someone please help me figure out why so many seemingly smart people scream murder when anyone proposes something (packet prioritization) that seems so completely logical?
i would LOVE to have my voice over ip have lower latency than my bittorrent traffic. and i'd be willing to pay more for THOSE packets to make it that way.
please don't reply saying that the corrupt telephone companies will screw it up... just tell me why my utopian concept is wrong... tell me why every packet being treated the same way is smart. because in all of the above cases (and pretty much all other tasks i can think of), prioritization/triage/binning is a good thing.
and before you say it, no i have no connection to anything internet.
Making net neutrality a little bit "not neutral" sounds an awful ot like they want to make your sister a little bit pregnant. it's either neutral, i.e. it treats all traffic and all content equally, or it's not neutral, i.e. some content is more equal than others. I don't want my favourite alternative content getting marginalised because it got out-voted by NetFlix consumers. It's the weird and wonderful stuff that people put out there "just because" that makes the internet more interesting, culturally valuable, and worthwhile than TV.
1. Turn on computing device.
2. Use a Web browser, online game, torrent client, or engage in other Internet activities, creating a temporary fast "tube" in which bits are sent between the consumer and the ISP at a speed comparable to other developed countries.
FUCK AT&T
Here's a compromise for AT&T: serve everyone as a utility or common carrier, but offer an optional alternative as an Online Service Provider, like AOL or Compuserve back in the day. Customers can choose which they prefer, with a price drop for the latter due to advertising and corporate subsidy. If they truly believe that this sort of metering and customer-side QOS control is what their customer base wants, let them have it as an optional service and see just how many people sign up.
So, what they are saying is: We want to be able to keep charging for something you already pay, you can just waste your time fighting each other, to decide who's gonna pay, instead of fighting agains the illegal payment idea...
I shouldn't work with anyone with a IQ > 2... but I don't have big expectations for the masses.
i don't ship everything at the post office using the same "speed of service"
Okay, now imagine that you pay for overnight shipping on all packages you send, and only once every blue moon do you actually get the speed you paid for. We *already* have this with their "up to" bullshit. They just want to tighten the valve even tighter and charge us even more.
Or how about why all kinds of phone companies offer "unlimited data" but it's a fucking lie EVERY SINGLE TIME?
Find and replace "net neutrality" with "stop fucking around and provide exactly what you agreed to--no more, no less."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
so, why shouldn't the internet work the same way? can someone please help me figure out why so many seemingly smart people scream murder when anyone proposes something (packet prioritization) that seems so completely logical?
Probably because the guys at the top making all the money will decide which categories "we" "want" and there is zero chance of us actually coming out ahead. It's most expensive for them to transmit video? Bzzt. No more video. Now what's the next-most expensive thing? VOIP? Bzzt. No more VOIP.
It's like SecureBoot. There's nothing wrong with the concept *in theory;* the entire problem is who is in charge of the system.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF