Slashdot Mirror
AT&T To "Pause" Gigabit Internet Rollout Until Net Neutrality Is Settled
An anonymous reader writes AT&T says it will halt its investment on broadband Internet service expansion until the federal rules on open Internet are clarified. "We can't go out and just invest that kind of money, deploying fiber to 100 cities other than these two million [covered by the DirecTV deal], not knowing under what rules that investment will be governed," AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson said during an appearance at a Wells Fargo conference, according to a transcript provided by AT&T. "And so, we have to pause, and we have to just put a stop on those kind of investments that we're doing today."
Why should we upgrade when we don't really have to?
Yeah, right, AT&T. You were totally about to give us awesome internet but the big bad government stopped you? Please.
Subject says it all.
of only they had some competition in this country.
FCC chair was appointed despite KNOWING he was in bed with the ISP toll booth industry. Obama waits until after the election to BEGIN his "crusade"...
and guess who balks because he can't be replaced right now? America is surprised AGAIN? Full disclosure, I voted for the guy twice, lesser of evils.
Fuck me, fuck us all. The delay until the GOP senate takes over, these backroom corporate power deals... This is NOT what ANYBODY VOTED FOR!
We have only ourselves to blame for letting the system get this bad.
AT&T. I would hope Comcast or someone would take this news and announce they'll be expanding service to try to edge out AT&T, but we're much more likely to just end up and an announcement from Comcast that they'll do the same thing.
----- obSig
That'll mean more competition, that's fantastic! Can't wait!
Remember the dial up days when we had a whole bunch of ISP's to choose from?
Price competition? Service competition? This is incredible!
...shrugs.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Really, what they're doing is trying to blackmail, "you don't get superfast broadband unless we get out way!" It's despicable.
You used the phrase 'despite knowing' but I think you meant to say 'because'. Obama has a very bad habit of appointing foxes to guard the henhouses. I voted for him twice myself. It's not like his opponents would've been better, though. *sigh*
AT&T has found a new excuse to not invest in their infrastructure.
I'm not an AT&T customer, so I can only assume that AT&T does not ask its customers to pay for bandwidth (e.g. it gives its services away for free), and AT&T relies on content providers for all of its profit? That's the only situation I can imagine where such behavior makes sense.
They were never going to widely deploy 1Gbps anywhere, in the first place. They had stated to share holders that their capital expenditures would hardly go up to implement this in 35 cities, meaning they weren't really going to be doing very much anyway, other than uncapping existing fiber from dsl speeds.
http://www.dslreports.com/show...
The investment climate won't change so entirely that this investment will be a poor one. I'm quite sure they can always find a way to monetize their product.
This seems more about politics and political pressure than about any solid business reason.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
I guess that stopping deployment will cancel some of those exclusive franchise agreements and create openings for municipal or less dominant providers to fill the void. I for one hope that AT&T "pauses" more deployments. And their use of the word "pause" is rather funny in that they haven't deployed hardly anywhere yet. It's just strong armed media manipulation is all.
We pay for infrastructure expansion with our taxes, and ATT is legally obligated to spend that money as mandated. Considering that they are blatantly telling us that they refuse to do that, I think an audit is long overdue.
As far as anyone can tell they just promised it in markets to dampen municipal efforts to build out their own or aid potential competitors. They might as well promise not to fire their deathstar.
There's no way Obama didn't purposely delay to ensure net neutrality is dead. The nation gives a clear mandate to the opposition party, and then Obama suddenly starts stumping for net neutrality? He's killed it completely and utterly.
AT&T doesn't want re-classification, so they're making it seem like infrastructure costs will be increased by it.
It seems to me that by remaining under TItle I and being able to throttle user data for arbitrary reasons, they would incur higher operational costs to support that capability. Re-classification under Title II could require them to allow packet transit without throttling or other arbitrary "management." It would also require them to sell (not give away) service in non-discriminitory ways.
So, this is just sowing FUD to get those who really want decent (read: Gbit connections) internet access to yell at the politicians, who are bought and paid for by the lobbyists, that pretend to represent their electorate, rather than those they consider their constituents (the ones who pay to keep them in office).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Rephrased, AT&T just confirmed that their financial plans including deliberately breaking the would-be net neutrality rules. I mean, if they weren't, it wouldn't affect their plans at all.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Let the feds roll out the infrastructure, just like they did with the interstate system. It's their obligation anyway. It's why we pay taxes.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Municipalities are sure to be reading Slashdot and seeing the light at the end of the fiber. Who needs AT&T anymore anyway? They're a bank now too right?
"We're going to stop doing that thing that we've been promising for years that we were gonna get around to doing one of these days, but never actually got around to doing, because OBAMA"
It's sad, but adding "Obama" to any argument has become the modern day equivalent of the "Chewbacca Defense", and has been used to rationalize some profoundly stupid decisions. Even sadder, because it seems to work.
I'm a moderate (r)epublican, and it's *lonely* nowdays. The intelligent ones liked David Frum have been muffled or sidelined. Meanwhile, the Wingnut Brigade as personified by Ted Cruz is always on the lookout to shoot the public in the foot for the sake of rich people.
He killed it when he appointed Wheeler to head the FCC. He was unanimously approved, meaning very deep non-partisan pockets were behind him becoming the FCC chairman. That should scare everyone considering how grid-locked and partisan congress has been over the past couple of terms.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Let me be the first to welcome Google to these 100 cities!
While it is very easy to poke at AT&T for this decision, it is also a very understandable position to take. AT&T doesn't know what the laws or rules are going to be after the fact. We are probably not going to get true Title II net neutrality, and quite frankly, 80 year old law really shouldn't apply to something that is fundamentally more complex than a telco or OTA network, and applying the same kinds of laws to the internet providers is legally and technically stupid. There are a variety of very good reasons why Title II, or Title II-like laws are a very, very bad idea for the internet.
But basically AT&T's logic is sound. They don't want to roll out a huge upgrade when they have no idea of the legal regime they will be operating under. And there decision is understandable and rational.
I loved this comment, and the one above it.
If they want to keep making money and not get trounced by the competition, they will eventually stop their bluff/tantrum and come back to play ball. Remember that their only current, likely avenues for growth are broadband and mobile, and mobile is probably very slow, if not at a stand-still. They can only pull this off if they no longer want to grow at a significant rate.
You can say that their competitors could do the same thing if they become Title II, but someone will choose to take the growth even under the regulation while the competition stands still.
The headline rephrased for truth:
AT&T confirms its future business plans depended on being able to double-dip subscribers AND content providers for payments.
or perhaps with the correct context:
AT&T confirms its future business plans depended on being able to shake down content providers for bandwidth subscribers already pay for.
It's not like his opponents would've been better, though. *sigh*
So... don't vote for either of them. What the hell is wrong with you people?
They both show how utterly moronic it is to buy into the false dichotomy of republican vs democrat. A vote for an evil scumbag is a vote for an evil scumbag regardless of which of those two worthless parties you hate more. Vote for someone you actually like instead of being an idiot.
Iran is a sovereign country. If they want to build nukes, that alone is no reason to harass them like warmongers.
I find it funny how you're so against regulations, but you have no problem with the US playing world police. Do you also claim to want small government, while proposing that we steal people's money to fund your wars?
...You know the rest.
It's the Public Utility issue. Their profits become whatever the government will allow.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
1) execute the AT&T executives
Among others.
If you want a CPM-10V guillotine blade with TiCN coating, I can get one for you.
Durability, because it's gonna get a lot of use.
--
BMO
You would have to be pretty stupid to think that this matters a damn.
Be a shame if something happen to it.
I would love to see Government (Federal, State & Local) start providing high-speed internet to its citizens, the same way there are municipal water companies and power companies.
Perhaps they could embed the signal on the power lines.
Seems to me that if ISPs want to selectively favor content, they should be held responsible for *any* content passing through their systems. Start throwing their execs in prison for distributing whatever illegal material passes through, and watch how fast they scramble to be classified as common carriers.
Loading...
I would have gone ahead and not bought it now but I guess I will have to wait until AT&T stops doing the nothing they are once again trying to blame on someone else.
So, let them pause the gigabit rollout. Then Google can come in and beat them to the punch. Arrogance and greed has a way of being thwarted by karma.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/...
If I were a Mayor of a city that AT&T serves; I would respond by saying that this will mean the city will need to start rolling out it's own gigabit network now.
AT&T can't complain that the city is competing with them, if AT&T isn't providing the service in the first place.
Of course. Which is why they (among others) support blocking municipal broadband networks.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
They have to determine if their profits will be rapacious or merely obscene. It's important for the beancounters to be able to classify these appropriately under the Rapacious or Obscene General Ledger codes!
I'm saying that starting a war because another sovereign country chooses to build nukes is just warmongering nonsense, and especially so when you already have tons of nukes of your own. Just refusing to deal with them is fine.
With Project Lightspeed ( aka their DLS rollout ). I say call them on their bluff.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Are you saying that if we mandate net neutrality, AT&T will close up shop and blow away in the wind? Two birds one stone! Let's make this happen!
Unless what he is actually saying is there's a scenario involving the regulations where they would not roll out fiber at all.
In that case they would fall behind others, in fact I would go one further and say the comment he made is petulant.
In which case the corporations are getting dangerously comfortable with having their way.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
With all the times many people on this board have said the same thing, you would think more people would catch on. But we just keep getting "lesser of two evils" crap.
Hey, the nation gets the government we deserve.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Thanks for putting the truth behind being The First Honest Cable/Telco Company
Wow! Great deal! Sign me up! Does that come with an extended warranty plan? Gosh I hope so!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
the false dichotomy of republican vs democrat
The parties, and their politicians, have strikingly different platforms with strikingly different historical outcomes. That's a fact, even if they're just right-of-center and slightly-more-right-of-center. But hey, feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you justify not voting in national elections.
Vote for someone you actually like
I do whenever possible, as in California's state and local elections and especially our open primaries. Unfortunately, tactical voting is the rational choice in US national elections. The new redistricting committee and open primary legislation have changed that for California, but we're going to be stuck with tactical voting nationally until several more states pass the national popular vote law, open the primaries, and create their citizen's committees to draw the House districts. Actually, the Democratic presidential primary is already open, which is another difference between the parties.
.: Semper Absurda
You should help work to pass citizen's redistricting, national popular vote and open primary legislation in your state. California has done all three, but until more states follow suit, tactical voting will continue to be rational in national elections.
.: Semper Absurda
Voting for evil scumbags *cannot* be called "tactical." Most people do not have anything that resembles a strategy; instead, they simply vote for a candidate running for a specific party without doing any research whatsoever or putting one bit of thought into it. Calling that "tactical voting" is a huge joke.
Voting for evil is unprincipled and irrational. People create self-fulfilling prophecies for why others cannot win, and do not realize (or even think about) that even if third parties don't win, enough votes can send a message to The One Party candidates.
I don't support national popular vote. It doesn't do what we need. And the electoral college isn't just a good idea, it is one of the lynchpins of the Constitution. Without it, you might as well disband the Senate too, since that isn't proportional representation.
Or how about, all the members of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and the President and Vice President all get into one big group, have a bill introduced, and everyone votes on it en masse. If it's voted for, it is law and constitutional, since the three branches have all agreed. If it is voted down, nothing similar can be brought up until the next government election.
That makes as much sense as national popular voting.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Because his opponents were worse and no third party has any chance of winning thanks to the first past the post system used in American elections.
Nonsense. Voting for evil would still be disgusting even if third parties had zero chance of winning. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. How is any candidate ever going to win if no one ever takes a chance? It might be low, but giving up just brings the chances down even further. In addition, they don't even need to win in order to send a message to the two scumbag parties.
See what good it accomplishes.
We have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, unfettered border searches, all sorts of warrantless surveillance, constitution-free zones, a ridiculous number of corrupt government agencies, draconian copyright laws, DUI checkpoints, rampant warmonger, and all sorts of unconstitutional nonsense. What good has voting for republican or democrat scumbags ever done? None. It's idiotic. I'd say you deserve all of this, but unfortunately, I'm suffering the consequences of your foolish choices too.
"False dichotomy" as in "there are more than two choices."
The parties, and their politicians, have strikingly different platforms with strikingly different historical outcomes.
Bullshit. That's only true if you concentrate on a select few issues. When it comes to getting us into war (or bombing other countries and saying it's something other than war), or violating the constitution, both parties are largely the same. You have The One Party to thank for the TSA, the Unpatriotic Act, citizen assassinations, the NSA's mass surveillance, unchecked corruption in government agencies everywhere, and a host of other freedom-violating nonsense. They're the same in pretty much all the ways that actually count. The economy is a truly minuscule issue. Both parties refuse to shrink military and defense spending as it should, and when someone shrinks it *slightly* (nowhere near as much as it should be), whichever party didn't make the decision gets angry. Both parties are in on the "The terrorists, child molesters, and other bogeymen are going to get us!" scam, as well.
But hey, feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you justify not voting in national elections.
I strictly vote third party, because there are next to no good candidates in The One Party.
Unfortunately, they delegated that responsibility to AT&T (among others) and now AT&T is saying they're not going to spend the money we gave them on what we gave it to them for.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And hyperbole cannot be called "rational."
.: Semper Absurda
And the electoral college isn't just a good idea, it is one of the lynchpins of the Constitution.
I guess you don't see the logical fallacy here.
.: Semper Absurda
Winner-take-all systems inherently favor a binary political system. Until the reforms I mentioned, and perhaps others such as proportional representation, are implemented, tactical voting will remain rational (at the national level). Follow the next several elections at the local level in California, I think you'll be surprised.
.: Semper Absurda
Nothing I said was hyperbole. Most voters are mindless and do no research whatsoever. Fact. Voting for evil scumbags is irrational and unprincipled. Fact. Voting for third parties can send a message, and not doing so because it's unlikely they'll win creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fact. Merely outputting facts is not irrational.
The economy is a truly minuscule issue
Says someone who has probably never been unemployed for any significant amount of time in his life. Do you really think any of the issues you're ranting about mean jack diddly squat to someone who is worried about making the next mortgage payment or putting food on the table? In the words of a former United States President, "It's the economy stupid."
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The fact that ISP's are taking the holier than thou stance of how they will stop building out and "creating jobs" sickens me. The Telecom industry didn't create the prosperous interconnected world that we live in today, innovators and content creators did. Without content and the interconnected devices we have today, there is no need for the infrastructure.
We have a government that continues to protect old business models because they have been bought to the detriment of we the consumers. The ISP's today are "passively throttling" competing content providers by refusing to participate in the network model that got us to where we are today because they want to milk additional revenue that they frankly are not entitled to. If the ISP's require additional revenue to build out their network so that they can deliver what their customers request from the Internet at large then they need to pass that cost on to the consumers. The idea of requesting or initiating party pays is well established in telecommunications but now ISP's want to disregard the fact that without their customers requesting the data, it would not be sent. The idea of the Internet is that anyone can connect and offer up content without having to become a 3rd Tier ISP themselves just to connect to every network. Many of them partner or create CDN's to make their services better and reduce the impact on ISP's.
There may be 100's of thousands of jobs at ISP's but there are many times more that have been created by Internet enabled innovators and content creators. Those are who are "too big to fail". We should not be trying to protect an oligopolist broadband market and the relatively small number of jobs it represents when 100x as many jobs are possible if we keep the Internet free and open.
Says someone who has probably never been unemployed for any significant amount of time in his life.
Wrong. And Irrelevant to the validity of my statement.
What matters in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is for the government to follow the constitution and respect your fundamental rights. Other things come after that. People apathetic/hostile towards freedom (the people who got us into this mess) tend to disagree. If you honestly believe the mass violations of our fundamental liberties by the government are less important than money, then your priorities are screwed.
I really don't see the point in discussing political science with someone that dismisses the economy as a "truly minuscule issue." All I'll say on the subject is that the United States Constitution is is interpreted by human beings, like any other document. In the case of our political system there are nine authoritative voices on the subject and to the best of my knowledge none of them are commenters on Slashdot. If you dispute the current interpretation you're welcome to crack open one of the boxes to be used in the defense of liberty. They go in this order: soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
For the record, I don't regard my liberties as less important than money; I was simply stating the fact that it's hard to care about liberty if one is starving to death. The economy matters even in non-democratic societies, have you ever heard the expression "bread and circuses?"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
They go in this order: soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
The first three are already being tried. The last one is pointless, since without enough support, you're screwed anyway. If you have enough support, you may as well just use the ballot box or something.
For the record, I don't regard my liberties as less important than money; I was simply stating the fact that it's hard to care about liberty if one is starving to death.
Maybe. But my point was that people see the economy as more important than liberty, and that's the problem. All these politicians mainly talk about is the economy, rather than the things that affect our fundamental liberties.
What logical fallacy is that?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It's simple - Google has paused, or at least scaled back their gigabit roll-out, so when combined with the uncertainty of net neutrality (and the new ip broadband regulations) they have too. Why build out what their competitors can use, if the biggest threat isn't building out?
Uhh - look at the wireline coverage maps. Verizon and AT&T don't compete almost anywhere. Legacy Ma Bell breakup. They compete against the cable companies in their own territories.
I'm not clear why anyone cares about "net neutrality" anyway. We don't need more Internet regulations. Heavy regulation is what got us into this mess anyway.
See, around my ways we have net neutrality enshrined in law and anything else would be seen as not just more regulation but as regulation.
Net neutrality is by design the epitome of no regulation.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
sounds like there will be no "pause" in "investing" in lobbying and influencing policymakers.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Here is a list of solutions to non-problems of the Internet:
Clipper Chip (1994) - "those terrorists will encrypt where the bomb is!"
Communication Decency Act (1996) - "a.s.b. will destroy our country"
Net Neutrality (2013) - "I think my Netflix is too slow, so let's make some crazy rules about it, even though I have no idea about the realities of modern ISP interconnections and protocols"
This too will pass...
if they dont supply me with gbit, someone else will. their loss.
You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.
You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.
Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy and sell elections. And you know the saying, if you aren't the customer, then you are the product. You aren't buying an election from them? Then you are the product.
The real message is: "We're not going to roll out anything new or better unless we can charge premiums for access to it."
The last one is pointless, since without enough support, you're screwed anyway.
And you'll never garner enough support so long as you remain woefully ignorant of how our system works. You rant and rave about "fundamental liberties" and the manner in which the Government supposedly has trodden upon them but your examples are laughable. DWI checkpoints? TSA? Seriously? Do yourself a favor and Google 'compelling state interest' and 'strict scrutiny.' We have more than 200 years of case law that determines the manner in which the Constitution is interpreted; you may disagree with the manner in which that case law has evolved but your opinion there is no more valid than mine, or any other American citizen for that matter.
Maybe. But my point was that people see the economy as more important than liberty, and that's the problem. All these politicians mainly talk about is the economy
The economy wins elections. That's a simple fact. People vote their pocketbook. You may find that regrettable but it's a fundamental fact and no amount of ranting about "The One Party" is going to change it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
but your examples are laughable.
If those egregious violations of the constitution are laughable to you, then you desire a government with near-unlimited power that can search anyone to check whether or not they're criminals simply because some authoritarian judges have decided that it is a "compelling state interest" or whatever other nonsensical justification they use at the time to rewrite the constitution.
DWI checkpoints? TSA? Seriously? Do yourself a favor and Google 'compelling state interest' and 'strict scrutiny.'
If you honestly think that searching everyone to check their criminality is anything less than a serious violation of the constitution, you are anti-freedom. The "case law" you speak of is nothing more than government thugs giving other government thugs more power. The courts are not always right, and in fact have been wrong many times. Too often, they side with the government instead of siding with the people as they should.
The only way to fix this is awful situation is to get judges to finally uphold the constitution on issue after issue. It won't be fixed by citing their previous (incorrect) justifications and giving up. Appealing to authority will not help you here.
And I've heard pretty much all arguments for DWI checkpoints and the TSA. There is nothing you or any judge could say that would make me accept egregious violations of our fundamental liberties. To make it clear: I understand perfectly how our system works; it's working poorly at the moment, and a number of problems need fixing. Recognizing that our system is violating our rights with the unjust consent of the courts != being ignorant of how the system is working.
Of course, I noticed how you also glossed over all the other examples like the NSA's mass surveillance and made it sound as if my complaints were limited to the TSA and DWI checkpoints. There's even more than what I listed too, of course.
The economy wins elections. That's a simple fact.
Yes, I'm aware. Why would I complain if I weren't? This is the sort of thing that makes the title of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" an absolute joke.
I'm not appealing to authority; I'm attempting to explain to you how it actually works in the real world. My personal opinions on these issues are irrelevant. What matters is how the case law has evolved. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to learn about that. If you took the time it would enable you to make a better argument against those things that you disagree with. As it stands you know enough to be dangerous and you're just another random person rambling on the internet. I'm not taking you seriously, never mind the people who are in a position to steer the ship of state in the direction that you think it should go.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not appealing to authority; I'm attempting to explain to you how it actually works in the real world.
Okay, seriously, stop. If the problem didn't exist, I wouldn't be complaining. I know the problem exists, which is why I am complaining.
What matters is how the case law has evolved.
If case law says that the first amendment means that the government can assassinate citizens for any reason, then case law is... wait for it... wrong. And of course, the only way to fix this is to challenge it. Judges do sometimes rule against precedent.
Did you know that water is wet? That's about as useful as telling me that the system is not how I would prefer it to be.
If case law says that the first amendment means that the government can assassinate citizens for any reason
Good thing the case law doesn't say that then. *eye roll*
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not clear why anyone cares about "net neutrality" anyway. We don't need more Internet regulations. Heavy regulation is what got us into this mess anyway. You know why there's no competition between ISPs? Because in most places, it's flat-out illegal. Fix the market and the market will ensure net neutrality never matters.
I suggest you look up who owned the US Internet backbone in the early-mid 90s before you claim "heavy regulation" got us into this mess.
Oh, you weren't aware that the government (via the National Science Foundation) owned the US Internet backbone back in the 90s and privatization got us to where we are now?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Longmont Colorado is rolling out a municipally owned fiber network as a utility, with fiber to every home and business. The cost for 1 gigabit symmetric is $50/month.
Read it again: Municipal Fiber at 1 gigabit symmetric for $50/month, if you sign up in the first 30 days. It will probably be $60-100/month after that.
All of America's modest sized cities can do this, it is neither technically nor financially difficult. For a city of 90,000, the bond was $42 million, requiring only 30% uptake to break even. Uptake beyond that simply shortens the payoff and turns everything into community profit, lowering all utility bills.
State regulation created by lobbyists could not stop the Longmont project, and seven more Colorado cities voted in November 2014 to do the same. Montrose CO has already voted the same as Longmont. Boulder voters voted an overwhelming 84% YES to overcome the Colorado legislature's laws preventing them from doing this.
AT&T is afraid of Municipal competition, and they should be. Comcast did not even speak at the Longmont City hearings, though they were there. CenturyLink did speak, and threatened both the Mayor and City Council of Longmont.
"Longmont will pay the price!" - CenturyLink
CenturyLink really did say this. Over and over and over.
Once up a time when Russia left a United Nations meeting in a tiff, the rest of the nations quickly adopted resolutions they could not veto. America's cities should do the same while AT&T has left the room.
Every single city where AT&T has "paused" should pick up the Municipal Fiber mantra. The point is not to make AT&T come back to the table. The point is to tell them "you may go away now, you have extracted enough of our community blood while returning nothing."
Please do this, you must do this: tell your City Council what Longmont, CO, Chattanooga TN, Cedar Falls, IA, Wilson, NC and Lafayette LA are doing. The plan is simple, own all of your own utilities, with fiber paving the way for lower bills all across all utilities, while keeping the money in your own community.
Taking action is remarkably easy. If you don't, you have no one to blame for your ISP choices.
No you're thinking of Eastasia. We've only been at war with Iran since about 1938.
You miss the point. Don't worship case law.
And you miss the point. I worship anything. I'm simply rolling my eyes at how badly informed you are regarding our judicial-political system. In order to change something one must first understand how it works.
We're done here. Feel free to have the last word, I know you won't be able to resist one more reply.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not sure you should attribute to malice/planning what could very well be complete, blithering, lazy, cowardly incompetence.
We'll find out in the next decade what people within the president's circle attribute it to.
I suspect H. Clinton will be more competent and you'll be able to safely claim malice when she does all the same crap as Obama.
AT&T's competition is Comcast/TWC - which are distracted by a touchy-feelie orgy of merging. The Comcast/TWC merger involves the combined entity throwing off certain customers (like the entire state of Michigan), either to a minor competitor or to a made up placeholder company (Greatland Communications) which will outsource all of it's operations. Comcast/TWC isn't going to be competing with anyone while it's either planning for the orgy, or deeply engrossed in it. It'll probably be two years (or more) before AT&T needs to compete again.
This is just an excuse to lay back and collect rent on grossly substandard service. The ISP equivalent of an absentee landlord for properties in a poverty stricken slum.
I've been hearing through the rumor mill for a while that Verizon actually *wants* to sell a curated internet experience. I can't say if it's true or not, but lawsuits over content would be a really fast way to make that a reality.
I'm not clear why anyone cares about "net neutrality" anyway..
You'll care when they try and charge you extra to watch youtube or Netflix. Facebook? Oh that's heavy traffic that, surcharge. I'm not clear how anyone could be against net neutrality, basically you're saying your happy to pay more, not for extra but to not have your service artificially restricted for no better reason than you're happy to pay more.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I'm simply rolling my eyes at how badly informed you are regarding our judicial-political system.
No, you just keep repeating the obvious: That our judicial-political system doesn't work like I would like it to or reach the right conclusions. Something I'm clearly aware of.
I'd rather have that than the BS backroom deals than we have now. People won't stand for ISPs that nickle and dime them for watching video streaming services. On the other hand, people will put up with having to pay 2 bucks extra per month to Netflix and Hulu.
This is a Post Scriptum
A downside of having internet service be a public utility may be NO ONE wants to spend more than the absolute minimum to get into the business. It would be kind of like agreeing to buy a rent-controlled apartment, as an investment, to rent it out.
The government will have to figure some way to reward contribution of infrastructure so there are still some inducements for capitalist investors to create exciting new things.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Dude, that was Pacific Bell.
SBC, the In Soviet Russia, Internet logs onto YOU company, bought Pacific Bell in 1997, and then SBC bought AT&T in 2005 and took its name. So now Pacific Bell is part of AT&T.
Just plan on your gigabit being 100% open to all content. If that doesn't appeal to you then don't build gigabit and stop talking about it because you're wasting everyone's time.
And the electoral college isn't just a good idea, it is one of the lynchpins of the Constitution.
The statement asserts without argument that the electoral college is a good idea, that it is of fundamental importance to American constitutional democracy, and that any "lynchpin" of the Constitution is automatically good. All three components are assertions without arguments, but only the last is a (logical) fallacy.
The electoral college may or may not be good, but it can't be good just because it appears in or is central to part of the US Constitution.
.: Semper Absurda
Most voters are mindless and do no research whatsoever
That's hyperbole. If you said most voters are simple-minded when it comes to elections, and do little research beyond what's presented by the media (in the "debates," etc.), then I would agree.
Voting for evil scumbags is irrational and unprincipled
It's hyperbole to refer to rational actors entwined in complex sociopolitical systems as nothing more than "evil scumbugs" no matter the outcome of any individual decisions of theirs. Really, it's just black-and-white, emotionally motivated thinking rather than any kind of rational attempt to place them into some kind of ethical framework. It's also hyperbole to assert that voting for an evil scumbag is always irrational, since even evil scumbags might have interests which dovetail with yours (either because you are evil, or by simple coincidence).
Voting for third parties can send a message, and not doing so because it's unlikely they'll win creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This, I agree with. However, just because it's rational to vote for a third party (whether to send a message or otherwise), does not make it irrational to vote differently. I vote one way because I live in California, but I might vote differently if I lived in, say, an Ohio swing district.
As it happens, I did vote for third parties exclusively during the open primary, and then did so whenever possible during the election itself. For some offices, my vote only sent a message, and in others I thought there might be a real chance of electing the third party candidate. Now, if there had been a real chance that a politician who might directly affect my personal freedom were to be elected to one of those offices, I would have voted in the way most likely to defeat that candidate. That would be rational, and so would a decision to vote for a third party anyway (either on principle or just to send a message).
Merely outputting facts is not irrational.
It certainly can be, if you do so without reason. Not to mention the fact that "fact" has a long history in English of being used to describe discrete pieces of information which may or may not be true.
.: Semper Absurda
How would everyone feel if every carton of a dozen eggs at the grocery store only contained 7 eggs? And the grocery store manager said that the farmer was not paying the store, so it was OK to not provide all 12 eggs as written on the carton?
Now, I am the customer of my ISP. They advertize speed tiers, and I choose to pay for one of them. I am paying for that speed grade to access the internet at large. This is an INTERNET Service Provider, after all, not an INSERT_BRANDNAME_HERE Service Provider.
I expect to be provided the speed grade that I pay for, under contract, for anything within my ISP's boundaries. I understand that my destination may pay for a different speed at their end. But I do expect to receive what I pay for on my end.
Some cray situation where everyone at my ISP downloads something very large at the same time might have some impact, but this should be a statistical rarity, with my ISP building enough infrastructure to have a very high statistic of meeting its side of my contract with them. If they cannot, or do not plan to do this, then they should reconsider their advertizing and what speeds they offer.
To make i ta matter of policy to not deliver on their side of our contract is problematic. If they offer in their advertizement a 50Mbit/s speed tier, then they should do their utmost to deliver on that. To artificially degrade that is counter to their advertizement of 50Mbits/s speed that their customer signed up and contracted for. To do that for the reason of "because I said so", just isn't right. I paid for a dozen eggs, yet you feel no expectation to give me more than 7 in this example.
I just don't see how that can continue in the long run. Eventually, more and more people are going to notice some eggs missing, and start wondering why they are paying the price of a full dozen eggs to get that. Once the masses realize the problem, there's going to be a huge outcry and demand for things to be made right as they seek out an honest grocer. I truly wish the dishonest one would be held accountable, but surely they have planned for a fine someday and are making sure that this future business expense is already being passed on to their customers today, yesterday, and the day before that.
I think the Half Fast advertizements going on right now are somewhat ironic...
That's hyperbole.
Nope.
It's hyperbole to refer to rational actors entwined in complex sociopolitical systems as nothing more than "evil scumbugs" no matter the outcome of any individual decisions of theirs.
Again, nope. If a candidate votes for evil policies like mass surveillance, the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, etc., then they are, to me, evil. No way around it.
It's also hyperbole to assert that voting for an evil scumbag is always irrational
Okay, fine. If you're on the side of evil, it's not irrational, since you're getting exactly what you want.
This, I agree with. However, just because it's rational to vote for a third party (whether to send a message or otherwise), does not make it irrational to vote differently.
Voting for The One Party candidates is absolutely, positively retarded at the very *best*, and additionally irrational if you don't support evil. This is just a fact.
It certainly can be, if you do so without reason.
Rarely are things done completely without reason. Certainly not the case here.
OK, I thought you would go with that first one being the logical fallacy, since it is simply an opinion stated as a fact. But you let it go.
The second one though is a basic statement of knowledge. Without the compromises between the large, populous states and the small, non-populous states, the Constitution would have never been finalized, much less signed or ratified. This statement doesn't need an argument, unless we are in a class discussing the crafting of the Constitution. The fact that the electoral college was one of those necessary compromises is why it is a lynchpin. But, again, you let this one go.
You focus on something I never said. I did not assert, or even imply, that all lynchpins were automatically "good". I never said any lynchpin was good, simply because it is a lynchpin. Pointing out the importance of something, within its own context, does not mean I think it is a good thing. In fact, if I don't like the Constitution, and wish it had never been ratified, than logically I would consider its lynchpins to be "bad", since they allowed it to come into existence. Yet this is what you consider a logical fallacy, a line I never said, and don't necessarily agree with in principle.
I'm not saying this to pick a fight or insult you. It just is how it is.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
And the electoral college isn't just a good idea, it is one of the lynchpins of the Constitution.
The causual implication is pretty clear there in my opinion, but I guess it's just a misunderstanding then.
.: Semper Absurda
At this point you're just trolling - I'm sure you actually know the difference between fact and opinion.
.: Semper Absurda
No problem. I do see how that sentence could be read too deeply. But honestly, I do think the electoral college is a good idea. And, unrelated to my opinion about it, it is a fundamental aspect that allowed the Constitution to be finalized and ratified.
There are many people on the right who have that attitude of "Well, it's in the Constitution so I'm in favor of it." But, of course, they have selective support for other parts of the document. Or would not say it if an amendment were passed that specifically allowed/mandated a program they don't like, such as a national health system. Their argument of "It's not in the Constitution" would have to change to "I don't care what's in the Constitution", since they would still be opposed to that program. I consider that group to be 'Constitutional fetishists', because they have that perverse reverence for the document, but only in the form they accept.
Anyway, I apologize for sounding like a dick in that last post. Good to hear another viewpoint here.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I like how NONE of the corporate owned media is saying that the internet WAS regulated under title 2 back in the day, and it KICKED ASS back then. I like how none of the corporate owned media is mentioning how awesome it was back in the dial up days since the phone companies HAD to lease their lines. I like how no one mentions the plethora of small independant ISPs we had, how real competition kept prices sane, and how even today you can probably find a couple of dial up ISPs in your neighborhood (shudder).
The internet prospered under Title 2. Put it back there.....
Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs sometime. Food is pretty low on the pyramid, and liberty is higher. It's LOT easier to get people interested in basic freedoms when they're not desperately worried about finding a job or losing their home or getting health care.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not trolling, and I know the difference between fact and opinion.
I just think it's a fact that voting for worthless scumbags who support the mass violation of our rights and the highest law of the land makes you ignorant of the value of freedom at best, and a hardcore authoritarian at worst. If you're a hardcore authoritarian (as so many people are), then yes, I suppose The One Party provides exactly what you want.
Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs sometime.
Look up Thing I Agree With sometime. It proves my point.
Some things are worth giving your life to protect. "Give me liberty or give me death." and all that. You speak of something different than what I speak of, anyway. I am saying that freedom is what should be considered most important in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." You are saying that it is *difficult* to get people to care in a situation where they are worried about their financial situation. I would say they should care regardless.
I am well aware of the reality of the situation (that most people don't actually give a shit about freedom); you don't need to inform me.
If AT&T can't be sure they can charge for the additional bandwidth provided by these higher speed links, and if they can't be sure their current users will pay for the higher speed .. how can they pay for the expansion? Sounds like a no-brainer to me, and I don't blame them.
Water company: "We were going to lay a new 8" water line into the neighborhood, but the town wouldn't give us permission to increase the water service charge."
State: "We wanted to add a third lane to the Interstate, but the Feds wouldn't promise to help fund it. And the taxpayers won't let us raise gas taxes for thru-state traffic that doesn't even buy gas!"
Of course don't miss a chance to take a cheap shot at AT&T.
Anyway, I apologize for sounding like a dick in that last post. Good to hear another viewpoint here.
Thanks for being civil. I also apologize for probably coming across as patronizing. Most people I know actually support the popular vote laws, so it's also good to hear other opinions.
I do think the electoral college is a good idea. And, unrelated to my opinion about it, it is a fundamental aspect that allowed the Constitution to be finalized and ratified.
I definitely agree with the second part of the statement - and historically, I don't think there can be much argument on the point. However, while I don't see an inherent value in the indirect election system (especially today), because the Constitution allows states to determine how their electoral college votes are apportioned, it's important to separate problems caused by the states versus any caused by the electoral college itself as laid out in the Constitution.
I do see two issues with the EC itself. These are 1) the increased value of votes from less populous states and 2) the potential for states to undemocratically appoint electors (e.g. in the past some states had legislatively appointed electors). While the latter of these is probably irrelevant today, I'm not convinced that the president should be elected geographically, especially given that the House and Senate already are.
Outside the EC as laid out, I think the winner-take-all system for EC votes established by most states has some poisonous results for American democracy, especially the irrelevance of 'safe' states to the president. Presidential politics becomes distorted by an extraordinary focus on the interests of citizens in a few states, which denies safe-state voters presidential representation while encouraging swing-state voters to vote tactically rather than as they please (the issue which got this discussion going).
I think that (state-level) national popular vote legislation might be the simplest means to resolve these problems, without any need for federal legislation or changes to the Constitution. To clarify, the national popular vote legislation can be paraphrased as: "once states representing more than 50% of the electoral college votes have passed similar laws, then this state will give all of its electoral college votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote."
In any event, given that the electoral college and popular vote have only disagreed four times so far, I would say that any potential problems with the electoral college system are much less pressing than House district gerrymandering (probably the most important issue in American democracy today).
.: Semper Absurda
Um, I didn't say anything about proving my point. It's an illustration, an attempt to shortcut a fairly long explanation.
And then you say that people should care about what you care about, not giving an explanation why.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Um, I didn't say anything about proving my point. It's an illustration, an attempt to shortcut a fairly long explanation.
Didn't really help. Values have little to do with needs. It's possible to value something more than your life.
And then you say that people should care about what you care about, not giving an explanation why.
I would think that people would care about freedom, especially in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Apparently that's rather unreasonable. But then, shouldn't we stop pretending to care about freedom?