October 20, 2009 6:57 PM

I love how they phrase it that the FCC will \"regulate\" the internet, making it sound like such a bad bad thing. Oh but AT&T and them can regulate it all they want and its good for us? Please.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

consciousj

October 20, 2009 7:56 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: What a ridiculous \"we're the little guy under attack by Big Brother' good-guy positioning piece of propaganda.

Net neutrality forever.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheUncleBob

October 20, 2009 7:36 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: To be fair, if AT&T makes up some regulation I don't like, I can go to Verizon.

If the FCC makes up regulation I don't like, I'm screwed.

$\"user-pic\"$

henrygates

October 20, 2009 8:02 PM

@TheUncleBob: The FCC is not regulating the Internet. at&t is twisting the truth. The FCC is preventing service providers from throttling websites, customers, and limiting or denying access to users. They are regulating the Internet to prevent at&t from regulating the Internet, if that makes any sense.

$\"user-pic\"$

copious28

October 20, 2009 7:52 PM

@TheUncleBob: In most places, you will only have one or possibly two providers. I have AT&T and Comcast. There is no competition.

$\"user-pic\"$

MinorAnnoyance

October 21, 2009 5:42 PM

@copious28: Same here... in fact I'm not sure AT&T can provide internet in the building I'm in.

A large number of us are stuck with monopolies or near monopolies and have to taqke whatever they dish out. I would rather see some limits on what they can and can't dish than have the Internet go the way everything else has gone in our so called free market society.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 7:41 PM

@TheUncleBob: Except that AT&T and Verizon will tacitly set up the same kind of lopsided regulations that will help them screw the customers all willy nilly. (See: SMS).

$\"user-pic\"$

TheUncleBob

October 20, 2009 8:05 PM

@MostlyHarmless: @copious28: But, at least with the service providers regulating their services, there's at least a *chance* of competition.

If the FCC makes the regulation - then there's only one set of rules.

$\"user-pic\"$

Mr_D

October 20, 2009 8:41 PM

@TheUncleBob: I think the past several months have taught us how well letting companies self-regulate has worked.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

October 20, 2009 8:30 PM

@TheUncleBob: Says who? Please explain the \"*chance* of competition\" there will be.

All the FCC wants to do is make the current system into law. This was never an issue until AT&T and Comcast started talking about giving certain content priority on their networks. Meaning, Yahoo can cut a deal with AT&T so that Yahoo Mail comes to you faster than Gmail will. If you don't see a problem with that, I dunno what to say....

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

October 20, 2009 8:24 PM

@TheUncleBob: So you're saying that you'd rather have the companies regulate what you can look at and how fast, rather than big scary government rule that says \"don't mess with access to the internet.\"

By that logic, you're also opposed to the government enforcing the right to free speech.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 8:12 PM

@TheUncleBob: But whats the chance of that competition? Looks less than 1% given the history. I'd rather have a government regulation that says \"do not mess with anything unless under very exceptional circumstances\" rather than a phoney chance of \"competition\".

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 8:44 PM

@MostlyHarmless: It's the matter of companies like AT&T and Comcast dictating and controlling what people can or cannot do on the internet. I'm not a fan of excessive regulation, by government or by private companies. But I'm paying $54 a month for internet speeds that are not up to par with what was advertised because the company supplying the connection controls the speed. And they won't tell me why they're slowing my speeds, and they won't give me any solutions, except to tell me that I can upgrade to a higher tier of internet.

What's my alternative? Verizon, who will do the same?

I have doubts as to whether the FCC can actually enforce net neutrality. The problem is torrenting - some of it is actually legitimate, and I think most of it isn't - just like no one wants to be punished with slower speeds, no one wants to be punished for not torrenting by allowing net neutrality rules to open the floodgates for torrenting. ZDnet proposed an Abilene network that was exclusive to torrenting, but it even acknowledged that that was a ways off from being done, and that in the meantime, someone has to figure out how to keep those who download movies illegally from slowing everyone else down - after all, if you pay for internet just as I do, but you're using it to do illegal things, why should I be punished?

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 8:58 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: It is a fair point, but torrenting aside, there are now LOADS of places where one could legally transfer gigabytes worth of data over a space of a few hours. Illegal torrents are a pain, yes, but they are no longer as big a % of internet traffic as they once used to be.

The problem with ATT's supposed \"we are doing this for you\" line is that they'll go much farther than just throttle torrents, and will conveniently open a way for them to charge for more and more things we take for granted right now. (See: Airlines) And unlike airlines, they will do all this while it does not cost them anything extra.

I'd rather just nip this in the bud and take the collateral damage on the torrenting business right now, and root for a better system of tackling illegal torrents.

[I'd suggest digitally signing legal torrents, but that is about as effective as writing \"see id\" on the CC and hoping it will stop a determined thief.]

$\"user-pic\"$

AnthonyC

October 21, 2009 1:15 AM

@MostlyHarmless:
Moreover, if network providers are advertising honestly, it shouldn't matter what other users are doing. They should be able to provide their advertised speeds for the number of customers that have purchased those speeds. If they can't, they should have to stop signing people up until they've fixed the problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 9:40 PM

@MostlyHarmless: I agree. It's a nasty thing but I think torrenters are the minority. Something needs to be done about them but it would be more beneficial to stop gouging people while working on a solution to illegal activity.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 7:06 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: Yeah. That irks me to no end. \"SAY NO TO REGULATION!!! Good now how bout you pay extra $$ for accessing Wikipedia to look up the definition of regulation? Oh and sorry, you cannot look up the references in wikipedia. We do not allow subscribers access to dissenting information.\"

It is also funny how people are against government telling the ISPs to NOT tinker with the network... because that would be tinkering.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 7:07 PM

@MostlyHarmless: Gotta love big brother baby bell. Though they're all sort of conglomerating again.

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

October 20, 2009 6:59 PM

\"If [the FCC] is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly . . . . Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines, and other information services providers.\"

This is gibberish. Search engines don't transmit content; they can't, for instance, block torrent files. Only the tube owners like Comcast and AT&T can block or discriminate against content.

Until those search engine providers (cough...Google...cough) start launching voice applications that won't let you call certain numbers.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Brontide

October 20, 2009 8:10 PM

@NeverLetMeDown: Google Voice is an overlay service, it is not in a position to block anyone's calls unless the user wishes it.

1) No one is censoring those numbers since you can still call them directly.
2) If termination fees were neutral then this would not be a problem ( AT&T was one of the pioneers of termination fees ).

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

October 20, 2009 8:36 PM

@Brontide:

Hey, I agree with you on the termination fees, and so does AT&T - all the major carriers would love to switch to bill and keep, but the rural telcos are dead-set against it, since it's a huge cash cow for them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nitrokart knows CPR and took that guy's wallet

October 20, 2009 7:54 PM

@NeverLetMeDown: You mean the numbers that are too expensive for Google to pay when they are providing a free service, compared to AT&T which is a paid service?

Get your facts straight.

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

October 20, 2009 8:04 PM

@Nitrokart knows CPR and took that guy's wallet:

I do have my facts straight.

So, if AT&T made DSL free, they could limit access to certain sites? How about if they charged $0.01/month? $1/month? $10/month

At what point does not being net-neutral cease to be OK?

$\"user-pic\"$

moofie

October 21, 2009 5:54 AM

@NeverLetMeDown:

\"So, if AT&T made DSL free, they could limit access to certain sites? How about if they charged $0.01/month? $1/month? $10/month

At what point does not being net-neutral cease to be OK?\"

At the point that a search engine somehow becomes a backbone data carrier. Which they aren't, so they don't, so your point is intentionally dense, or you're crazy.

Next up, apples are not giraffes!

$\"user-pic\"$

rjhancock

October 20, 2009 7:49 PM

@NeverLetMeDown: Except Google's voice application enhances existing phone lines by allowing one number to contact many as well as many other features. Since they provide it free, they have the right to restrict where you can call.

You PAY for a dial-tone and expect to call any number available. Google Voice is free and thus certain restrictions generally apply.

Second, the numbers they block, generally charge $2/min to access.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

October 20, 2009 7:48 PM

@NeverLetMeDown: \"Search engines don't transmit content; they can't, for instance, block torrent files.\"

While it is true that search engines can't block torrent files, they can remove the web page from their search engine database which is effectively the same as blocking it. The difference however is that search engines typically do not \"de list\" sites except at the request of a government body (aka China), or if the search engine believes that the website is trying to \"game\" the search engine to yield bogus seach results.

$\"user-pic\"$

Darrone

October 20, 2009 7:01 PM

Since I didn't see the link above, you can post your comments about Net Neutrality here:

[openinternet.gov]

Maybe we can tip the scale over AT&T employees.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

October 20, 2009 7:50 PM

@Darrone: I wonder if openinternet.gov receives high priority on AT&T's network?

$\"user-pic\"$

lemortede

AT&T is the toll road that I have to pay to use. Google would be the store on the other side of the toll road.
Who is AT&T to tell me that I cant shop there.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

October 20, 2009 9:02 PM

@lemortede: Great analogy! I'm going to steal it when explaining net neutrality to friends/family who don't grasp the issue clearly. \"Imagine paying a toll to travel a road, but being informed that you can only stop at the clothing and grocery stores. If you want to stop at a liquor store you have to pay a higher toll first.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

zentec

October 20, 2009 9:37 PM

@Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (now with less Monster...:

You have to pay a higher toll, and so does the liquor store.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

\"join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet\"
\"Internet regulation is bad for consumers\"

That's right, big business knows what's best for you because they ALWAYS have your best interests in mind(sarcasm).

\"Why disrupt a market that's working so well?\"

If the government didn't incorporate CAFE and safety standards on automakers, cars would still be getting 10 miles to the gallon and not have airbags.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

MooseOfReason

October 20, 2009 8:52 PM

@Blueskylaw: And if the government hadn't mandated that all cell phones had cameras on them and weren't the size of a shoe--no wait, they didn't.

What do you base that on, anyway? \"If the government didn't [step in],\" that technology would be in the dark ages?

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

October 21, 2009 1:26 PM

@MooseOfReason:

They put cameras in phones as a revenue generator. You would upload photos to your e-mail account and they could charge you for it.

Usually the simplest answer is the correct one.

$\"user-pic\"$

RvLeshrac

October 21, 2009 2:56 AM

@MooseOfReason:

The majority of the cellphone features you talk about came from Europe and Asia, not the US.

And certainly not from any of the people complaining about net neutrality.

$\"user-pic\"$

GearheadGeek

October 20, 2009 9:17 PM

@MooseOfReason: There is some truth in the statement about cars... European car manufacturers made huge advances in safety that the US companies intentionally ignored because the changes and equipment cost money. It's only been in the last 15 years or so that the safety features of cars have become a big selling point in general, previously it was limited to certain models or marques. The CAFE thing isn't so clear. US manufacturers at one time had quite a few economical models, but the Horsepower Wars drowned out the frugal choices. Still, even at the peak of the muscle-car era you could buy a Dodge Dart with engine choices from a fuel-sipping Slant6 all the way up to a guzzling 440, for example.

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world.

This is so not true. The US has some of the highest wireless prices in the world, with very little device selection. Almost every phone I've purchased has come from overseas because they weren't offered by any US carrier. We also have some of the slowest and highest priced broadband access in the world.

13 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Radi0logy

October 21, 2009 3:04 PM

@nakkypoo: \"The US has some of the highest wireless prices in the world\"

This always makes me look at people like dramatic hamster. I pay $42 per month for 1300 minutes, unlimited Internet (that can tether to a laptop), 1000 texts, first incoming minute free, free picture mail, and a couple other things I don't use. Show me a plan that beats that, anywhere in the world, and I will gladly agree that the U.S. sucks for cell service.

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

October 21, 2009 6:26 PM

@Radi0logy: Show me where to sign up for this magical plan.

$\"user-pic\"$

Radi0logy

October 21, 2009 7:35 PM

@nakkypoo: Well, first you go back in time two years when Sprint was offering it. Then you sign up for it. I'm not certain that something comparable is or is not currently out there on the market, all I know is that with some perseverance and patience I got an amazing plan, and I don't believe for one second that others couldn't get something similiar as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

October 20, 2009 8:34 PM

@TheFuzz53:

1. US mobile revenue per minute is way below anywhere else in the world - about 5c/minute, vs. 10-20c in Europe and about 25c in Japan. Now, in fairness, some of that is due to a higher portion of revenue being spent on non-voice applications in non-US markets, but still.

2. US mobile subscribers do use their phones much more than people in other countries (all those nights and weekends add up). Avg US sub uses 800+ minutes/month vs 150-200 in Europe.

3. Innovative services and devices? Well, not so much.

4. US customers do (in general) have more providers to choose from that in most markets. I have 5 that actually own networks (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and MetroPCS), plus resellers. Most European markets are 2-3 providers.

October 20, 2009 10:07 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

@NeverLetMeDown: Honestly, selection of devices and services in the US is abysmal. You can't get a decent data-only plan in the US. Data-only runs about £20 per month in the UK. Thanks to carrier-locks most customers in the US are limited to the phones their carrier sells, this is especially true of Sprint and Verizon -- which use CDMA. Take a look at [www.expansys.com] for an idea of the services and phones available in Europe. Take a look at eBay for phones available in Asia. The US seriously lags in hardware, plan choices and services. It's embarrassing.

October 21, 2009 12:45 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

@nakkypoo:

I looked through expansys, and I didn't really see anything that I'd prefer to an iPhone. That being said, you're quite right about CDMA - it does reduce the range of handsets offered. Even if there weren't carrier locking, though, the range of handsets would be less, since the CDMA market globally is much smaller than GSM, so fewer handset manufacturers see the business case in making a CDMA version of their handsets.

Unlimited data-only is about $50 here, which definitely is above UK rates.

We can all take comfort in that US rates are definitely coming down, and likely pretty fast, given how aggressively Sprint and T-Mobile are cutting prices.

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

October 21, 2009 3:37 AM

@NeverLetMeDown: My point really was that there's a much larger selection of devices, and plans and services outside the US. They may not be anything you or I want, but they are available.

I think rates are coming down in part because of the threat of regulation. Phone companies want to say \"you don't need to regulate us, we're already being competitive on our own!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

dragonfire81

October 21, 2009 5:21 AM

@nakkypoo: I wonder if it would help or hurt if the U.S. switched to GSM only and we got all providers on board with the same network technology. Most of the world uses GSM. Do other countries have CDMA providers as well?

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

October 21, 2009 5:45 AM

@dragonfire81: The GSM / CDMA problem is more-or-less solving itself as the world moves to 4G. 4G devices will be interoperable worldwide.

Oddly enough, Verizon seems to be the one US operator that sees the writing on the wall for net neutrality and they are making a concerted effort to have their wireless network open to any device. I believe they're also the first to move to 4G.

$\"user-pic\"$

magus_melchior

October 21, 2009 6:30 PM

@nakkypoo: All the network neutrality moves won't matter if Verizon continues to lock-down its devices.

They're hyping their new Android-based phone (using, bizarrely, a similar ad style to Sprint's Palm Pre-- i.e., keep the audience in the dark about the details), so we'll see whether they change their tune here. If it takes off, I'm betting that WebOS-based phones are hosed.

$\"user-pic\"$

GearheadGeek

October 20, 2009 9:22 PM

@NeverLetMeDown: When you're comparing those minutes used in the US vs Europe, are you comparing minutes actually used? Or minutes paid for? Remember, in Europe one pays only to originate calls, where in the US most plans burn your minutes either for receiving or originating the call.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jeff-er-ee

October 21, 2009 9:32 PM

@GearheadGeek: Same in SE Asia. There, per-minute rates were around 2-3 cents per minute for originated calls, and inbound calls free, the last time I checked (about 6 months ago when my wife was there). Much cheaper than the U.S.

October 21, 2009 12:37 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

@GearheadGeek:

It's per minute actually used.

$\"user-pic\"$

DoubleEcho

October 20, 2009 7:46 PM

@nakkypoo: I agree - I'm surprised that wasn't in the rebuttal. That is utter bull; They obviously haven't been to other countries (especially Japan) where cellular and broadband are on a whole different level. Hell, Japan was the first country to roll out 3G! Meanwhile, my cable internet has a whopping max of 16mb/2mb in my area.

$\"user-pic\"$

mizike

October 20, 2009 7:16 PM

@nakkypoo: There was a recent report from Harvard that ranked the U.S. out of the top 10 when compairing the internet in ~30 developed countries. The report explicitly stated net neutrality and open access rules (ie., allowing other companies to lease use of phone and cable lines at reasonable prices) would need to be enacted in order for the U.S. to move up.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 7:05 PM

@nakkypoo: Seriously!
Though some regions in the US have it better than others. I'm paying $54 monthly for a 5mbps connection that rarely tops out at 700k transfer speeds (though dslreports tests out at 5mbps no fail) and my boyfriend in Michigan is paying $49 for a 20mbps connection that routinely downloads at 5MBps) /cry

I want to live in finland, where internet is a RIGHT!

October 20, 2009 10:24 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

dorianh49

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: When you say that your connection rarely tops out at 700k transfer speeds, do you mean 700 kiloBITS (Kb), or 700 kiloBYTES (KB) (kiloBYTES is what Internet Explorer reports when you're downloading a file)? Because 700KB equals 5600Kb, or roughly 5Mb.

Similarly, if your boyfriend is paying for a 20mbps (megabits per second) connection and is downloading at 5 MBps (megabytes per second), as you wrote, he is actually downloading at 40Mbps.

Remember, a byte is 8 bits. A kilobyte is 8 kilobits. So, a megabyte is 8 megabits.

$\"user-pic\"$

P=mv

October 21, 2009 2:06 AM

@dorianh49: It is still impressive that he is getting better than he is paying for. I'm paying for the fastest plan AT&T broadband sells (Don't ask me why. *grumble*) and I rarely get faster than dial-up, if I get access at all.

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

October 20, 2009 8:20 PM

@sparkypinball:

\"Americans have the worst selection of services in comparison to the rest of the developed cell world. Anybody who says any different is flat out lying to you.\"

Really?

T-Mobile in Germany charges E120/month ($180/month) for unlimited voice, 3k SMS, and 100 MMS, on a 24 month contract. You can get the same services for $130 from AT&T, or as little as $50 from Sprint. You do get the iPhone for E1 for those prices, so you save about $300 there, but over 24 months, you're looking at spending $4300 for the iPhone in Germany vs. $3400 in the US.

$\"user-pic\"$

Skipweasel

October 20, 2009 7:56 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: You pay HOW MUCH? For around that here in Telford in the UK I get telephone, around a hundred TV channels and a 10mbps connection.

$\"user-pic\"$

sparkypinball

October 20, 2009 7:36 PM

@nakkypoo: That is EXACTLY what I was thinking!

Americans have the worst selection of services in comparison to the rest of the developed cell world. Anybody who says any different is flat out lying to you.

We can not access the internet from our phones without paying a ridiculous amount of money to do so. We can not watch TV on our phones. The Cameras are toys, and unsuitable for taking great images. The list can go on and on.

Last time I was in asia and checking out my friends cellphones, I was absolutely amazed at what their phones can do!

They can watch TV on their phones, take 12 megapixel pictures with an actual camera (with settings to adjust!), pay for things by swiping their phone against a vending machine, or bus/subway reader, they have the full internet on their phones, and over here, we are still gooing \"Ohh...ahh\" at iphones that have touch screens!

It seems that phones are intentionally neutered by the provider (read:Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc) before they are sent over to the US. Seriously, check out the specs of whatever model phone you have against the international, non US homepage, and see what got cut for the american audience.

I just got a Nokia E71 for my wife off eBay, and it came from Hong Kong. Standard features on it include a retractable telescoping Antenna (!!!) so that she could watch TV and listen to the radio, as well as 2 sim card slots (one for over here in the US, another for making cheap international calls).

Try getting that standard over here on an E71. Watch the puzzled sales people tell you that it doesn't exist.

$\"user-pic\"$

u1itn0w2day

October 24, 2009 5:00 AM

@sparkypinball: You got it .

There really isn't that much selection since the competition basically has to rent the physical plant that was built when the cry baby bells were a government sanctioned monopoly. They might have their own cable but it's restricted by the paths and/or rights of ways the cry baby bells obtained when they were a monopoly . That includes poles,manholes and office space .

The problem is that the competition can't cover the area the cry baby bells do/did . The old Ma Bell basically got what they wanted being the only telecom with relative ease being the only game in town .

The only way the public can truely benefit from the network they in essence gave permission to be built even if it was decades ago is to control costs and the ISPs/telecoms . This is true of ATT especially since they have had a nationwide network since the break up of 1984 since they choose the long distance end of the telecom business . ATT stands a much better chance to get a piece of the pie if a download in New York is from a server in Los Angeles especially when competing againt a local or regional carrier/provider .

The same can be said of the public airwaves that operate with in the same frequencies and frequently use the same towers for their network .

The problem which in reality might never be achieved is that there is not true competition . There needs to be true ALTERNATIVES or alternate methods of getting internet or telco service . By land your coverage is more or less the regional bell operating company's network . By air the airwaves are regulated as is the tower coverage . The only competition I see is a network built or based on satillites or microwave since they can be directed more easily .

And even then unless all of your usage ORIGINATES with your single provider all these different companies/telecoms/isps will have to accept interconnectivity or using the competition's as part of the business INCLUDING cost and regulation .

October 21, 2009 12:45 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

gover57

@sparkypinball:
\"Americans have the worst selection of services in comparison to the rest of the developed cell world. Anybody who says any different is flat out lying to you.\"

Take a trip up to Canada, and try our services -- you'll get screwed even more by the lack of service and teh crappy prices...

I'd like it if every cervice provider was required to give you the bandwidth they've sold you - it says 5Mbps, then it should be there all the time, not hovering around 600-700kbps...

We get blackberrys before you guys, but we had to wait a year after you to get iphones, and the rest of our phone lineups are crap too. generally locked down by the carriers, and charged through the teeth. try comparing the proces to what you guys get in the states makes us sad. there's no real competition up here - all the companies keep thier prices in line with each other, so you get screwed with prices no matter where you get your phone/internet from.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

$\"user-pic\"$

October 21, 2009 5:24 AM

@sparkypinball: The thing is, there is no model, global or otherwise, of the E71 from Nokia that boasts those features. The actual world version of the E71, available as an unlocked device to American consumers, differs from the carrier-locked E71X in a couple of ways (no front-facing camera for video calls, no FM tuner for the radio) but it's essentially the exact same device (save for the E71X running S603FP3 while the unlocked model is stuck at S603FP2). What you bought is a NOKLA, the famed Asian KIRF handset maker... see here: [jv100.en.ec21.com]

I hope you didn't buy it thinking it was the real thing. I'm sure it'll work fine, I just don't want to see anyone get ripped off.

$\"user-pic\"$

jamar0303

October 21, 2009 2:36 AM

@sparkypinball: Uh... that's not a real E71 you got. Retractable antenna? Dual SIM slots? You got a well-made fake. It works nicely enough, but...

@DoubleEcho: YES. I import phones from Japan for this reason. Even though the newest models are locked down to prevent internet use, they're getting popular enough that one Japanese carrier (NTT docomo, where you get a 50% discount on your bill for signing a 2-year contract and a loyalty discount that tops out at 25% after 5 years of switching with them; stack them with the fact that roaming counts as part of your plan minute bucket and something that will kick the pants off any American provider) is planning to enter America as an MVNO to shake up the market here.

$\"user-pic\"$

yagisencho

October 20, 2009 7:25 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already:

I'm paying that for 1.5Mbps/256Kbps.

=(

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

It can be done through a personal email account ...

Yeah, just to make sure the FCC doesn't figure out this was an effort organized by AT&T and directed at AT&T employees.

I like how they're phrasing it as \"Don't regulate the Internet!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 7:03 PM

Nice takedown Alex. I like the (recent?) trend at Consumerist to issue point by point rebuttals and explanations in response to propaganda pieces. Keep up the good work.

Of course, some jerk will now HAVE to accuse the consumerist of being a socialist POV pusher and for good measure will go on to ask the government to gtfo his internetz. Of course, the said person will do that over the Internet... which was developed by...?

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 7:08 PM

@MostlyHarmless: SOCIALISM! AL GORE! SOCIALISM! OBAMACARE!

Did I forget anything?

$\"user-pic\"$

Verucalise (Est.February2008)

October 20, 2009 8:52 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: HITLER! SOCIALISM! LEOPARD THONGS! ORANGES W/ CHEESE!!

.... sorry, got carried away.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 7:12 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: GLOBAL WARMING! PANTS!

Cause Al Gore invented pants as well.

I am all for the FCC to do this if they can actually enforce it, and do it well. I'm overall against excessive government tinkering and regulation, but that's mostly because I know better than to think government can do everything effectively. I've still got doubts that it can actually enforce all of the things it wants to do, but I think there are a lot of people, like Jeff Bezos, who can help push for it.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

October 20, 2009 8:46 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: Speaking of Jeff Bezos, doesn't that signature laugh of his drive you nuts?

Eh, I'm a big fan anyhow.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 7:06 PM

America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?

Broadest range of innovative services...I must be going crazy with how much online streaming I'm doing - oh wait, Cox throttles bandwidth and slows me down when I want to watch something.

Lowest prices...because paying $50 a month for internet is awesome! If it's going to raise prices (which I doubt) then at least we know we're getting what we're paying for.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Verucalise (Est.February2008)

October 20, 2009 8:53 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: I pay $49.95 for SATELLITE internet. You wanna talk slow.

$\"user-pic\"$

qwickone

October 20, 2009 7:08 PM

My company (a fairly large bank) did this very same thing. It assumed that our personal interests were in line with those of the Bank and ask that we write letters to our Congressmen to that effect. It really made me mad

October 20, 2009 10:21 PM

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@qwickone: This is similar to any company where an executive posts a set of values on the wall and expects their employees to align themselves with it. If you have to tell someone their values, then the implication is that they don’t hold them, and if that person unquestioningly accepts your values, then why are you employing an obvious idiot? I have yet to determine if this is the result of selfishness or cluelessness.

$\"user-pic\"$

the_wiggle

October 21, 2009 5:04 AM

@AstroPig7: both. hypocritical as well. how many of those execs & companies actually ADHERE to those posted values?

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

October 20, 2009 7:26 PM

@qwickone: I have seen this kind of thing at a few employers where they have some political axe to grind or candidate some exec likes.

I really don't think pressuring employees to be ad hoc lobbyists for a company is appropriate. I would hope the telecom union might have an issue with AT&T's letter.

There needs to be some sort of wall between an employer and the employee in political matters. I think federal employees already do. It is this.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Something similar for regular workers needs to be put in place. Your employer has no business telling you who to vote for or what your opinion will be on a policial issue.

Probably the worst abuse of this kind of crap was the owner of a company I worked for stopping by my desk to give me his sales pitch for his candidate and then ask me who I was voting for. No pressure there.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

October 20, 2009 8:00 PM

@bohemian: There is nothing really wrong with this as the link is ony for a blog entry to allow the FCC to solicit informal comments on NET Neutrality regulation. None of this can be used for rulemaking, and is simply the FCC complying with Obama's push for a more open government.

The internet has a way of identifying corporate shills and refuting their arguements, and in a quick look, it appears as if this situation is no different.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 7:11 PM

@qwickone: Technically they would be. Of course, that would only be true if the profits are passed on to the employees on all rungs as well. I wouldn't bet on it.

$\"user-pic\"$

qwickone

October 20, 2009 8:00 PM

@MostlyHarmless: Not really. I mean, I support the organization in general, but I don't drink the Kool Aid. I think some things are being done well and others are not. I also have interests that are not 100% in line with the company. I don't think that's unusual for any employee.

$\"user-pic\"$

incident_man

October 20, 2009 7:12 PM

I dropped AT&T long distance and cell phone service because I found out via MSNBC that they're one of the companies that are allowing the gov't to spy on Americans without a warrant, now they're pulling this crap. I guess there's no limit to AT&T's scumbag efforts--kinda like Wal-Mart telling their employees not to vote for Obama last year.

$\"user-pic\"$

2 replies

October 20, 2009 7:13 PM

A employer CAN NOT impose a political stance upon any of it's employees.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

incident_man

October 22, 2009 2:46 PM

@2 replies by: It was reporrted late last year that Wal-Mart hourly employees had to attend mandatory meetings held by managers and higher-ups where they were told not to vote for Obama and if they did, that Wal-Mart would have to trim down their workforce because Obama would push for the Employee Free Choice Act. Even though it's illegal, Wal-Mart still did it.

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

October 20, 2009 8:37 PM

@2 replies by:

Um, yes it can. Some states have laws prohibiting it, but there's nothing in Federal law prohibiting an employer from saying \"I'm firing you because you're a Democrat.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

the_wiggle

October 21, 2009 5:03 AM

@NeverLetMeDown: bingo. jsut like there's nothing prohibiting them from firing you for refusing to comply with their agenda or for posting anything negative about them or their agenda.

p0wn3d to say the least is the worker.

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

October 20, 2009 8:28 PM

@2 replies by: Nope, but if they happen to see you as a signatory to a comment in favor of net neutrality, I'm sure that would have no bearing on your employment there.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 7:20 PM

@2 replies by: It's not imposing, its requesting. And being very very misleading at that.

$\"user-pic\"$

YOXIM

October 20, 2009 7:33 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: They're doing you a favor by telling you what to believe.

$\"user-pic\"$

vastrightwing

October 20, 2009 7:23 PM

All I ask for is truth in advertising:
Don't advertise \"internet\" when what you mean is web based email and browsing.
Don't advertise \"unlimited\" when you mean limited.
Don't advertise \"speed boost\" when you mean throttling back.
Don't advertise \"fast\", when you mean less than 10 MBPS.
Don't advertise a maximum speed rating when in reality, it will almost never be realized.
Don't advertise a low limited time price and raise it months later.
Don't sell metered bandwidth when you won't allow me to monitor my own usage.
Don't inject your html into my browser.
Don't steal all my urls and sell my personal data.
Don't hijack my browser to your ad landing page.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

the_wiggle

October 21, 2009 5:01 AM

@vastrightwing: the perfect list.
perfect i tell you.

thanks :)

$\"user-pic\"$

LostAtoll

October 20, 2009 7:23 PM

Wow, awesome AT&T. Once again you surprise me with your level of schmuckness. How about you just do your job and serve data. It's what you're paid to do, and if you can't handle it, another company will. Net neutrality ftw!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

LostAtoll

October 20, 2009 7:25 PM

p.s@LostAtoll: p.s. I'm using the iphone on tmobile, and i tricked you suckers into dropping the termination fee.. haha.. god i hate you.

$\"user-pic\"$

InsertPithyNicknameHere

October 20, 2009 7:25 PM

\"[I]f it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly... Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.\"
That's like saying that we need to apply the same standards to the makers of office chairs as we do to the makers of car seats and restraint systems. They may look superficially the same (both are a place to park the gluteus muscles), but they serve very different functions.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 7:28 PM

@yagisencho: If it's any consolation, they only take $10 off if you go down to dsl speeds thru cable, which is basically what you have.

I hate brighthouse. So overpriced.
Shouldn't have to pay $110 for cable + internet. Not even a phone!

$\"user-pic\"$

Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!

October 20, 2009 7:31 PM

Gotta be loving that Astroturf! Thanks, greedy health insurance companies and our political overlords! Now, there's not even any pretense of legitimacy about these \"grassroots\" groundswells of support.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

October 20, 2009 8:36 PM

@Duke_Newcombe (now with 50% more feigned interest): It's not astroturfing, but point well taken.

They're trying to use the fear card that the healthcare industry is using. Regulation is bad. \"You don't want the government telling you what to look at, do you?\" When the actual rules would do the exact opposite. So thanks Beck, Bachman, and Limbaugh, you've made government regulation the new 9/11, an excuse to oppose anything.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 8:47 PM

@ARP: What's interesting to me, anyway, is that I can see why people would be opposed to net neutrality - but I think more good can be done of it in small steps. Moderation is key. I don't care to protect companies like AT&T - it's in my best interest to get the best service I can for my money, and isn't that something that Beck and Limbaugh should agree with? I think these guys dislike the regulation side of it - and I can see that, because I'm wary of regulation too, a lot of times. But in this case, I don't think it's excessive. It could get excessive, but hopefully there will be a balance achieved.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 7:36 PM

@Duke_Newcombe (now with 50% more feigned interest): Methinks you don't understand what Astroturfing actually is. Astroturfing is when a company tries to advance its agenda through supposedly \"grassroots\" means - this is AT&T talking to its employees directly. It is very, very misleading in its email, but it isn't trying to advance its cause by setting up a nonprofit agency that opposes net neutrality. It doesn't direct employees to a website that it has set up, it's directing them to a government website.

AT&T is not hiding behind any grassroots movement here - it does not like net neutrality, and has made it very clear that it as a company, opposes it.

And what the heck does health care have to do with AT&T?

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 7:45 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: Yeah, people confuse Astroturfing with all sorts of things.

This is not astroturfing, but cuts a bit close. It is somewhere between astroturfing and Comcast stuffing the panels.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

October 20, 2009 7:33 PM

AT&T is so bad that they actually make Comcast look good sometimes and I hate Comcast.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 7:44 PM

@Naame: I'm pretty sure that Cox, Comcast and all the other ISPs are generally opposed to net neutrality - it's just that AT&T is one of the first to actually say it to its employees, and because of the internet, it's public now!

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

October 20, 2009 8:14 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: Yeah, I know. I am speaking beyond net neutrality though. I heavily dislike most of the telecoms and ISPs for the same reasons especially when it comes to net neutrality, but even though I dislike all of them I am disgusted more by AT&T than any of them for several reasons.

IMO, AT&T is the worst when it comes to anti-competitive business practices and customer service. Just as a small example, I can call Comcast and get to the rep I should be speaking with in under 10 minutes at just about any time of the day and I normally only need to be transferred once if any times at all. It takes me at least 45-60 min to the same thing with AT&T and I get transferred 5-6 times on a regular basis even for the most simple issues.

If actual quality of service and competitive prices were a factor and this industry allowed for new competition to arise easily then most of these telecoms and ISPs would have been stomped out a long time ago...especially AT&T.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheFuzz53

October 20, 2009 7:54 PM

America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?

That is the biggest crock that I have ever heard.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

October 20, 2009 7:56 PM

America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world.

Bwah ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Hee ha ha ha. Hee!
Oh. Wait. They were serious?!
Oh, that's just sad. Just so s-a-a-d. Do their moms wash their lying mouths out with soap when they visit?

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 20, 2009 8:10 PM

@Trai_Dep: it is /blockquote.

Smug expression, glasses, condescending behavior, inability to spell even the most basic of html tags... lemme guess - you must be a liberal.

$\"user-pic\"$

Radi0logy

October 21, 2009 3:49 PM

@MostlyHarmless: Hey, that seems familiar...

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

October 21, 2009 3:53 PM

@Radi0logy: Hey, its the Consumerist Meme of the Week!

October 21, 2009 12:39 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!

@MostlyHarmless: Damn you, Radiology! Your snarkiness and curmudgeonly traits are fouling Consumerist like goat dung in a half-filled Waddi.

October 21, 2009 12:50 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!

@Duke_Newcombe (now with 50% more feigned interest): Let me beat you all to it:

\"Snarkiness, poor spelling of foreign words (\"Wadi\")...I must be a liberal.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

DoubleEcho

October 20, 2009 7:57 PM

Does anyone have an email address for Jim Cicconi? I'd love to reply to him and tell him how broadband and wireless in the United States stack up to other countries. Basically, we're down here, and they're waaaaayyyy up there.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nitrokart knows CPR and took that guy's wallet

October 20, 2009 7:59 PM

I think I'm speaking for everyone when I say:

AT&T...you suck.

$\"user-pic\"$

Coyote

October 20, 2009 9:12 PM

I agree with all your points but the last. Google, yahoo, etc can and do filter content. Do a search for \"any movie\" notice \"torrent\" isn't even on the first page. Yet if you use auto-complete, or just run google stats on it most movies and games will of course list movie+torrent as the top return. While this isn't 100% filtering it is still skewing their own results to cater to some agenda.

$\"user-pic\"$

HogwartsAlum

October 20, 2009 9:35 PM

I'm really mad right now because my AT&T DSL is down; don't know if it's the modem or a line problem, but wireless wasn't working and not even directly connecting is working. I have to take off tomorrow afternoon to wait for a tech, and I told both the CSR and the broadband CSR I was bawling to on the phone that every day I don't have Internet, Billing WILL deduct from my balance.

Heh, I told them I stick up for them on the interwebz (yeah, I know, suck-up!), but if they cap me, restrict me or can't get this fixed, I guess I'll have to find something else. I won't pay so much to have my searches restricted, because I HAVE to do research on some pretty weird stuff for books.

They were surprised when I used the word \"retention.\" >:)

$\"user-pic\"$

ReverendBrown

October 20, 2009 9:47 PM

I'm pretty well sick of all the FUD surrounding net neutrality. Most of the folks I deal with on a daily basis will give the ol' deer in headlights look if I were to discuss it. There's large corporate interest and propaganda on both sides of the fence, some going so far as to mask as \"grassroots\" movements, and it just turns my stomach. I can't wait for this to be done with and put behind us.

October 20, 2009 10:28 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

StanTheManDean

\" but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers. \"

Absolutely damn right.

$\"user-pic\"$

vaporland

October 21, 2009 2:31 AM

The amazing difference between the original American Telephone and Telegraph / Bell System and the scumbag AT&T of today is mindblowing. The original AT&T was a monopoly, but did have excellent customer service and call quality.

They had to, because Public Service Commissions were watching their every move.

The telephone companies have done their best to kill \"copper wire\" phone service because it is still heavily regulated. They like pushing internet and cellular service because the pricing is not regulated by public utility commissions like the old copper wire service.

Unfortunately, the USA has the worst cellphone service, the highest prices, the poorest choices and the most abysmal customer service in the world.

When I lived in the Caribbbean four years ago, I had better and cheaper internet service from France Telecom than I can get in a Denver residential neighborhood today...

$\"user-pic\"$

WebUser

October 21, 2009 4:59 AM

My burning hatred for AT&T seems to only grow stronger with time. From their poor service quality, exasperating customer service, self-serving lies, and now their \"Holy Crusade\" to save the Internet. Grrrr. At least it motivated me enough to go to www.openinternet.gov and share my position.

(this message sent over an AT&T pipeline)

$\"user-pic\"$

ninjatoddler

October 21, 2009 5:03 AM

AT&T at their finest. Similar to the Comcast thing from last year where they flooded the hall with paid sleeping employees for the net neutrality conference.

October 21, 2009 11:32 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

unojack

well i guess i know who my company sides with in this matter... \"content blocked...\"

October 21, 2009 11:33 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Foneguy

I used to work for Verizon and they did the same thing. Participation was voluntary, however it was always through a corp website so they knew who was supporting them. I am sure that Comcrap, and many other companies do this as well, as long as it is voluntary, no issues. It is up to the employees to understand what they are supporting.

$\"user-pic\"$

globalman

October 21, 2009 3:12 PM

The Tier 1 providers couldn't get their other peers to pay to use their lines, so they want to pass the burden of the cost/charge down to the users. Ironically, most of these lines were developed and installed using taxpayer monies (subsidized), but now are making money for the companies. There's even plenty of dark fiber (a working connection, just not in use right now) that could ease the burden of the congestion, but it's not used as it wouldn't have enough customers for it to be profitable.

Remember that phone companies used to rent phones out and that you couldn't connect any \"non-network\" approved devices to the telephone line? It's one gimmick after another with these guys-

$\"user-pic\"$

Thricebanned

October 21, 2009 3:16 PM

I'm happy to see www.meatspin.com has made it to the Consumerist.

$\"user-pic\"$

vladthepaler

October 21, 2009 6:58 PM

Frusterating. The only reason why this is even an issue is the government's condoning of monopolies in the high speed internet business. If they required tele/cable/fiber owners to lease their lines to competitors, customers would be able to choose an ISP that has policies they like... ATT could block torrents and Comcast could charge google a fee to let their traffic through and customers who don't like that could switch to American Neutral Network (or whatever) to get the service they want.

Because there is so little competition, the few existing companies take advantage of their customers' lack of options and enact unfriendly policies and charge high prices. So there appears to be a need for legislation like net neutrality. But net neutrality laws are only necessary because monopolies are allowed. If net neutrality laws are enacted, the few high speed internet companies will find other ways to screw their customers.

Please, stop worrying about net neutrality and focus on getting some competition into the marketplace.

$\"user-pic\"$

aloe vera

October 21, 2009 7:24 PM

I wanted to send this to you guys but didn't have the balls. I'm scared of my employer, and I need my job.

October 21, 2009 10:27 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

Hm. It's almost like they didn't pay attention to the reaming United Healthcare got for pushing their employees to campaign against health care reform based on, er, what it'd mean for the company.