jim
2008-01-31 01:20:18 UTC
"AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of pirated
content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer protocols,
which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network connections for
many of its customers." -
http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_3-6226523.html
Really?
AT&T has never even tried a metered solution. Why not charge people for the
amount of bandwidth that they use? That's fair (even if unpopular among us
P2P users).
"I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said Tim
Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit. "AT&T
spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they wouldn't
have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And now they want
to do it."
I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They
make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3Mb/s DSL line to
check email and text message their friends than they would if the users were
actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged accordingly.
This isn't about bandwidth usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered
solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in
net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network. After all, if Charter can
invent a 150 MB/s cable modem, surely AT&T can get us to 15 MB/s.....can't
they?
To further understand the disingenuousness (is that a word?) of AT&T's
comments, just look at their financials.
Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET PROFIT in
2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33Mb/s common
lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while maintaining rates.
(Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of
*reported* profits for yourself.)
Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3Mb/s DSL line, and then
throttling it so that I am not getting the 3Mb/s I am paying for?
I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and
just see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action
lawsuit to "stem the flow" of this behavior by AT&T and others.
I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the chance
to look into it. What attorney wouldn't?
What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are overburdened?
REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?
jim
content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer protocols,
which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network connections for
many of its customers." -
http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_3-6226523.html
Really?
AT&T has never even tried a metered solution. Why not charge people for the
amount of bandwidth that they use? That's fair (even if unpopular among us
P2P users).
"I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said Tim
Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit. "AT&T
spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they wouldn't
have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And now they want
to do it."
I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They
make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3Mb/s DSL line to
check email and text message their friends than they would if the users were
actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged accordingly.
This isn't about bandwidth usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered
solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in
net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network. After all, if Charter can
invent a 150 MB/s cable modem, surely AT&T can get us to 15 MB/s.....can't
they?
To further understand the disingenuousness (is that a word?) of AT&T's
comments, just look at their financials.
Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET PROFIT in
2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33Mb/s common
lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while maintaining rates.
(Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of
*reported* profits for yourself.)
Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3Mb/s DSL line, and then
throttling it so that I am not getting the 3Mb/s I am paying for?
I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and
just see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action
lawsuit to "stem the flow" of this behavior by AT&T and others.
I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the chance
to look into it. What attorney wouldn't?
What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are overburdened?
REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?
jim