Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Re:how fitting (Score:2, Informative)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves ( 236787 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:05AM (#33435088)

    Yeah, Crowley sliced off the important bit.

  • Re:how fitting (Score:5, Informative)

    by Haxamanish ( 1564673 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:16AM (#33435206)

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

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

  • by iYk6 ( 1425255 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:17AM (#33435218)

    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.

  • by IndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:24AM (#33435316)

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

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

  • by cHiphead ( 17854 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:33AM (#33435424)

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:55AM (#33435764)

    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.

  • by jythie ( 914043 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:07AM (#33435956)
    Returning to common carrier rules would not prohibit prioritization of traffic based off types, so VoIP and such would still get the bandwidth they need.

    This is what is frustrating about this debate.. the telecoms have done an amazingly effective job at getting misinformation out there about what re-establishing these rules would do. So no.... bringing back the old rules will not cause torrents to bump VOIP off... there is nothing stating that VIOP traffic, or any type of packet, can not be prioritized for bandwidth, and there never was. Completely made up talking point that the industry pushed into the discussion that people keep parroting.
  • Re:Fuck you AT&T (Score:3, Informative)

    by ( 1265320 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:21AM (#33436158) Homepage
    personally, when moving multi GB files over VPN links (often VM's between sites for testing) I find the remote sites with T1's unbearable. (13,583 seconds, or 226 min, or 3.76 hours to move 20GB via a T1) we've partnered up with a local ISP and started moving customers over to 100Mbps pipes on the private network, and 10Mbit per site gateways for general access. (204 seconds, or 3.4 min, or 0.06 hours to move 20GB via a 100Mbit line)

    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,, 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)

    by jythie ( 914043 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:26AM (#33436248)
    Depends on where you want to draw the lines. DSL suppliers used to be classified under common carrier with the ISP component being decoupled. Cable never was. A few years back the FCC allowed DSL based ISPs to combine their business into a single unit, which was not covered.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:52AM (#33436652)

    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)

    by eggy78 ( 1227698 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:58AM (#33436740)
    If I could get TWC to guarantee 3Mb/s with "up to" 10Mb/s (which, with TurboBoost or whatever it's called, they might as well call it "up to" 14 Mb/s, since I can hit that speed about as often as I can 10Mb/s), I'd probably be pretty happy with that.

    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.
  • by zerofoo ( 262795 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @12:23PM (#33437128)

    I recently changed my iPhone plan on my work account to include the ability to tether (I don't want to jailbreak my work provided phone).

    The choices were 2GB "DataPro" plan with tethering ($45) or a 2GB "Enterprise" plan with tethering ($60). It wasn't clear on the web-site what the differences were so I called AT&T.

    After three transfers I finally got to someone who could explain the difference. The guy told me that the "Enterprise" plan is for users connecting to their own mail server - not a google/yahoo/hotmail type service.

    I asked if they would actively block my connection to my mail server on the "DataPro" (non-enterprise) plan - and he said no - not yet. I asked if he would support (somehow) my connection to my mail server on the "Enterprise" plan, and he said no I'm on my own.

    So AT&T is charging more for an "Enterprise" data plan and not giving ANY additional service - they only reserve the right to break your connection to your own mail server on a non-enterprise data plan.

    Fuck those guys. We are leaving them the minute iPhone goes to Verizon, or some other carrier. Are we to trust this company with ANY policies regarding network fairness? No way.


At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to the number of pens that person is carrying.