AT&T Says Net Rules Must Allow 'Paid Prioritization' 390
suraj.sun writes "AT&T said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting its ability to engage in 'paid prioritization' of network traffic would be harmful and contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet."
Re:how fitting (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, Crowley sliced off the important bit.
Re:how fitting (Score:5, Informative)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. -- Aleister Crowley
François Rabelais [wikipedia.org] wrote that already in the first half of the 16th century in his book "Gargantua", chapter LIV.
That is what paid prioritzation means (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that is exactly what "paid prioritization" means. AT&T wants to charge Netflix for prioritized packets. Unless Netflix ponies up, then AT&T will downgrade, or eliminate, Netflix traffic.
AT&T calls it paid prioritization. You call it quality of service fee (possibly tongue in cheek). I call it double dipping.
Re:The point of net neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
AT&T says ISPs should be able to alter service levels based on how much the internal endpoint has paid or what preferences the internal endpoint has expressed. These are perfectly compatible and both make perfect sense.
Want to access youtube.com from urISP? That's an extra $10/month. Don't worry though, we comply with the law since we aren't charging youtube.com for that premium access.
Even if it is just: Youtube.com unthrottled: $1/month it's wrong.
Re:The point of net neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Because these assholes are trying to wall garden the internet itself, which is contrary to the very existence of the internet.
Re:Fuck you AT&T (Score:1, Informative)
Isn't there some way to let companies experiment with offering non-neutral service in such a way that it's unlikely to Ruin Everything?
No, there isn't. Neutrality of bits is what makes the Internet work. Take that away, and it's just like all the failed non-neutral networks that came before.
In any case, nobody's trying to experiment with anything here other than double-dip pricing schemes. It's an outrage, not a business innovation.
Re:The point of net neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
This is what is frustrating about this debate.. the telecoms have done an amazingly effective job at getting misinformation out there about what re-establishing these rules would do. So no.... bringing back the old rules will not cause torrents to bump VOIP off... there is nothing stating that VIOP traffic, or any type of packet, can not be prioritized for bandwidth, and there never was. Completely made up talking point that the industry pushed into the discussion that people keep parroting.
Re:Fuck you AT&T (Score:3, Informative)
I completely agree that for 90%+ of the people that use the internet, they just don't care. they need to be able to get: a random email providers inbox page, youtube.com/, theweathernetwork.com and likely MSNBC/whatever news site comes up on IE by default these days at a "reasonable speed". As long as they don't have to sit and wait for youtube video's to buffer, they feel their internet is "fast enough".
I must admit that I'm a little surprised that nobody's put together an internet package that optimise's Advertisement request speed. that would single handedly speed up internet connections for 90%+ of the "average users".
Re:Actually.. (Score:3, Informative)
So it would be more accurate to say a subset of ISPs, the ones who also owned lines, the ones that are relevant to the NN discussion, some where common carriers and some were not.
Aren't these the idiots (Score:1, Informative)
Aren't these the idiots who tried to steal BSD unix from the University of California at Berkeley? Aren't these the guys who were found (with prejudice) guilty of stealing tens of thousands of lines of software created at the University of California at Berkeley? Aren't these they guys who sold what little of unix they owned to another company for a low price (because they did not actually own that much) and begged the judge to keep the final ruling sealed? That these guys actually deal in any way with technology appears to be an accident. They sure keep getting it wrong! What happened when they were split up January 1, 1984 should be forced upon all phone companies offering digital services. There should be a minimum of 7 internet service providers competing in every region. If they offer x amount of bandwidth for x per month, I should get that. It does not matter what I do with it, but I should get x per month. Its normal (and reasonable) to pay a fee for using more than x per month, but what I do with the bandwidth I buy from them is my business, not theirs.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2, Informative)
As it is, it's not uncommon for me to be able to pull less than 700Kb/s down on my "up to" 10Mb/s connection, which is, in my opinion, disgraceful. 3Mb/s as a guaranteed minimum would actually be a blessing.
The issue isn't so much that they advertise the [generally unattainable] maximum; it's more that they don't advertise or adhere to any minimum speed or QoS metrics.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)