SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
1 edit
2 recommendations |
"Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?What a load of crap. More like "Ways of making even more money off our customers and others".
Since Net Neutrality is dead, the wireless carriers are able to freely screw us over and over again to their hearts content.
..and since when is data, not data? Is one particular type of data different than another type of data? | |
|
| ndwbr join:2003-07-10 Atlanta, GA |
ndwbr
Member
2014-Jan-31 2:29 pm
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?Also, if the data is encrypted, how does the carrier know what type of data it actually is, unless there is now no such thing as encryption?! | |
|
| |
2 recommendations |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by ndwbr:Also, if the data is encrypted, how does the carrier know what type of data it actually is, unless there is now no such thing as encryption?! Easy. Encrypted traffic incurs the highest toll of course. | |
|
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by nothing00:Easy. Encrypted traffic incurs the highest toll of course. Yep. Precisely. | |
|
| | | Dodge Premium Member join:2002-11-27 |
to nothing00
OpenVPN operates on HTTPS. Are they going to block HTTPS now? I'm sure Google (that doesn't even have HTTP anymore) is going to be super happy about that, as well as a lot of companies. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK 1 edit |
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 6:56 pm
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?They will simply decide that your HTTPS traffic is "excessive" (read: More then normal) and therefore add you to the highest toll charge group. | |
|
| | | ndwbr join:2003-07-10 Atlanta, GA |
to nothing00
The whole concept of charging by the byte/megabyte/gigabyte for bandwidth is a crock of shit. When they do this, they're comparing data to, say, water, that is, something there's a limited quantity of which they must purchase in order to deliver to you. There is an unlimited amount of data and you're just using the pipe. Whether the pipe is operating at full capacity or just a trickle should be the same cost per month! | |
|
| | | | |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by ndwbr:The whole concept of charging by the byte/megabyte/gigabyte for bandwidth is a crock of shit. Treating any byte differently in any way, for any reason, is the threat. Do it to all or do it to none. | |
|
| | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to ndwbr
I don't necessarily disagree regarding metered connections. However, the pipe is not infinite. Thus usage-based-billing at least makes SOME sense. Charging a penny for an HTTP request vs. a nickle for a RTP video/audio packet is where ATT's patent filing suggests they might be heading. | |
|
| | | | | |
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Jan-31 3:36 pm
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?No, it makes no sense at all. The pipe is, in fact, infinite because capacity is only a point-in-time measure; with the next point-in-time that capacity is created anew--infinitely with every successive point-in-time forever and ever (as long as the network is operational). Data uses the bandwidth, but it doesn't use it up. | |
|
| | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?I agree capacity is not "used up" but until infinite point-in-time capacity is available (or at least practically infinite so that everyone can have as much as they want/need at any given point), there are finite limitations. While I don't believe we need UBB to prevent bandwidth Armageddon or for ISPs to make profits, at least there's some rationale for it. Charging different amounts for different bit patterns that consume the same point-in-time bandwidth is just about as close as you can get to organized crime. | |
|
| | | | | | | Rekrul join:2007-04-21 Milford, CT |
Rekrul
Member
2014-Jan-31 6:57 pm
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by rradina:I agree capacity is not "used up" but until infinite point-in-time capacity is available (or at least practically infinite so that everyone can have as much as they want/need at any given point), there are finite limitations. While I don't believe we need UBB to prevent bandwidth Armageddon or for ISPs to make profits, at least there's some rationale for it. No, there isn't, and there's one simple fact that proves that there's no rationale behind this other than increasing profits; They'll let you use all the data you want if you're willing to pay extra. If your city has a problem with traffic congestion on the roads during the morning and evening rushes, does it make sense to place a limit on how many miles a person can drive each month? Of course not, because all those people are still going to go to work and come home at the same time each day and the roads will still be congested. Furthermore, does it make any sense to tell those drivers that they can drive as much as they want if they're willing to pay more? How will that do anything to alleviate congestion? The only way to eliminate congestion is to add more bandwidth. If they were using the extra money to add more capacity, it might be justified, but they're not doing that. Instead the money goes into their pockets while they whine that people are using too much bandwidth. It's like a buffet restaurant having seating for 200, but only buying enough food to feed 50 people. | |
|
| | | | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?Don't shoot the messenger. I don't like UBB either but there is far more rationale for it than charging by bit patterns. Regarding roads, it is usage based. If you drive more, you buy more gas. Every gallon of fuel has taxes and you pay more than someone who drives less. Despite the way roads work, that doesn't mean we need UBB for HSI. I believe capacity will be added and we'll reach an equilibrium where the monthly fee won't be high enough for folks to care how much they use vs. someone else. However, right now there are some folks screaming because they are light users and think their bill is too high because they subsidize others. The providers also fear an equilibrium because it means they'll be stuck in a no growth rut. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
housemouse13 to Rekrul
Anon
2014-Feb-2 11:33 pm
to Rekrul
No they just build bigger roads and it comes out of your tax dollars. you can only have so many customers on one connection/backhaul or whatever type of technology the isp is using before the network becomes too congested. That data may not run out but it's not always going to be available when there's network congestion and bandwidth that isn't available when you need it isn't acceptable to most customers so isps have to add new connections to add additional bandwidth. That costs money so as long as we as consumers expect bandwidth to always be available to us when we need it then it's perfectly reasonable to charge for usage. I'm speak from the perspective of an isp charging a monthly rate for a 10mbps connection or something similar. If you're referring to data on a phone then that's a different story. If those users going over their monthly usage are actually causing congestion on an access point then charging more is reasonable, otherwise they're just passing on the operation cost of having to have the extra available access points to cover the number of people that statistically go over their monthly data usage. | |
|
| | | | | | | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to rradina
said by rradina:I agree capacity is not "used up" but until infinite point-in-time capacity is available (or at least practically infinite so that everyone can have as much as they want/need at any given point), there are finite limitations. While I don't believe we need UBB to prevent bandwidth Armageddon or for ISPs to make profits, at least there's some rationale for it. Charging different amounts for different bit patterns that consume the same point-in-time bandwidth is just about as close as you can get to organized crime. And different billing for different traffic should certainly not be legal sadly right now it will be legal unless things change. After all the Wawa cannot charge 3.05/gal for 87 octane to a driver in a Civic and then charge 4.05/gal to someone in an SUV. No they have to have the same rates per octane for all customers. ------------ Personally the only way I will ever support metered billing is if the prices are reasonable (as in nothing like the per gig rates they want today, Would need to be pennies on the gig to be fair pricing). But also very importantly their meters would have to be 100% accurate and strictly regulated by weights and measures just as power, gas and water are. If they want to be metered they should be treated like any other metered sale. | |
|
| | | | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?But we do charge commercial traffic more in terms of license fees and diesel has far more taxes than gasoline.
I'm with you regarding broadband but we should be careful drawing too many conclusions between roads and HSI. | |
|
| | | MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to nothing00
said by nothing00:said by ndwbr:Also, if the data is encrypted, how does the carrier know what type of data it actually is, unless there is now no such thing as encryption?! Easy. Encrypted traffic incurs the highest toll of course. And automatic & immediate inspection by the NSA. "Your data is important to us. Black helicopters & flashbangs are standing by." | |
|
| | | |
to nothing00
Hopefully all traffic will eventually be encrypted. | |
|
| | | |
TechStudent to nothing00
Anon
2014-Feb-2 4:16 pm
to nothing00
Then almost all traffic could fall under this. Very few websites don't do some kind of encryption. Google, Facebook, and any website (should be) you have to login to. They would have to do deep packet inspection through a kind of proxy, or in other words they are invading resonable expectation of privacy. Which does exist even for the internet, just really hard to prove if it is or is not done. | |
|
| | | |
to nothing00
said by nothing00:said by ndwbr:Also, if the data is encrypted, how does the carrier know what type of data it actually is, unless there is now no such thing as encryption?! Easy. Encrypted traffic incurs the highest toll of course. Unfortunately, one of the difficult things about encryption is that it's geared towards looking like random data, evenly distributed over all possible values - so the only way to charge extra would be to charge extra for unidentified data, which could just be a game being played or a file being downloaded, especially considering that some types of compression(!) have about the same amount of entropy as encryption, making it difficult to tell the difference between the two (except maybe with extensive amounts of testing, but considering that the data needs to be handled quickly I don't think they'd have enough time for this). So charging more for encrypted traffic would be difficult, unless said encrypted traffic was identified beforehand (i.e. understanding a specific protocol that implements encryption). Unfortunately, banks and other institutions use encryption to serve their HTTPS based sites, so if the ISP was charging their clients more for using their sites, I would assume they would not be happy about this. Skype, Steam, and many other proprietary services use encryption, with the underlying protocol being proprietary - if the ISP were to reverse engineer the protocol being used, I'm sure that legal action could be taken here. Not to mention, considering that the protocols used by them can use more specific versions of encryption (instead of SSL/TLS's encryption negotiation), removing the need for negotiation of encryption, being able to determine that the data being sent is encrypted would be difficult. So, most likely, the ISP would have to implement a "whitelist" of sorts - any data using a protocol that isn't on the whitelist costs n credits, whereas data using a protocol that is on the whitelist could cost n/2 credits. Even in this case, ISPs would not be able to tell the difference between encrypted data and nonencrpyted data, and would charge the same amount for both if it didn't recognize it. Still, the entire concept is utterly stupid. | |
|
| | | |
IndirectCell to nothing00
Anon
2014-Feb-3 8:02 am
to nothing00
I was wondering the same, that means they must enforce more openly data, and maybe Outlaw encryption.. wich of corse is what they ultimately wants. | |
|
| | | |
Horacio Sim to nothing00
Anon
2014-Feb-3 8:03 am
to nothing00
Isto é sempre a mesma coisa. Os politicos é que são os culpados. Se fossem todos era trabalhar... | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
I can see it already:
"Sorry you have run out of credits"
If you watch this 30 second commercial, we will give you 100 credits....
Of course ignoring the fact the commercial is "bandwidth intensive"
So what are they going to do with multicast, charge the 100 users 100 times...
When will this stop. I guess AT&T making more profit than ExxonMobile isn't quite enough. Wireless spectrum is the new black gold... | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
I read about this on another website and someone there made this comment:
This has to be made illegal right now.
There is no such thing as "bandwidth abuse". Everyone has different uses for the internet. There is no such thing as an average person's usage, there is no way to know what future usage will be, there is no such thing as using too much or using too little.
Their whole plan is to find a way to meter usage so they can charge more which makes no sense at all. The costs for running and ISP are fixed and do not increase with usage.
They have to pay to build the network to peak usage, pay to run the wires/fiber to your house, pay for the switches, pay for the routers, pay for the techs to run it, and pay for the electricity to run everything no matter if you never use your connection or if you run your connection full speed. The price for the network is exactly the same if you never use your connection or if you constant use it.
AT&T is trying to scam Americans. | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
its like tv paying for channels (or sites) you use and blocking the rest effectively breaking up the internet to more lacarte like cable tv and at that point im done with the internet | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
said by SimbaSeven:What a load of crap. More like "Ways of making even more money off our customers and others".
Since Net Neutrality is dead, the wireless carriers are able to freely screw us over and over again to their hearts content.
..and since when is data, not data? Is one particular type of data different than another type of data? Really simple to answer your question. I work for AT&T in the Uverse department. We have a way to monitor services such as file sharing (P2P basically) networks, and network traffic. If you are pulling a constant stream of data for months, what the company does is creates a watch on said account. From that point, the company determines whether the traffic is abuse, or normal based on the downstream amount of the traffic. If you're on say a 12MB/s Down and 1.5MBs up link, and you're constantly pulling anywhere from 10-11.5 down, and pushing close to 1.3 to 1.4 up, then obviously you're doing one of 2 things... running a file server, or you're on a P2P network. In this case, AT&T will invoke whats called the Data Piracy Act, in that they feel like your account is either transmitting and/or receiving pirated material based upon the bandwidth usage of your uverse account. So yes, they can block your data, and the only way to unblock it...call Uverse Technical Support and have it unblocked... | |
|
| | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?I actually run a family-wide VPN network and we're all interconnected by a Linux router. That way sharing photos of the kids or the massive slide collection I have is simple and easy. Plus, it's within our secure network, so no one can snoop in our privacy. If I wanted to print a picture to my mom's printer 150mi away, I could.
So, if I'm pulling 11mbps constantly and pushing 1.3mbps, I'm automatically flagged as a pirate? Wow. They're paranoid. | |
|
| | | |
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?Pushing 1.3 mbit around the clock is a lot more that photos of kids and print jobs. You can fib all you want to your ISP be us DSLR people think differently. | |
|
| | | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by Eagles1221:Pushing 1.3 mbit around the clock is a lot more that photos of kids and print jobs. You can fib all you want to your ISP be us DSLR people think differently. Maybe not 24/7, but some pictures can get rather huge (~20mpxl). Plus, 1.3mbit isn't much (~130KB/sec with overhead) . | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
If they implement this I'm jumping ship immediately, and I hope others do as well. I refuse to be involved with a service provider who would destroy core principles of the internet for a few extra bucks. | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
But it's video so it's bigger in the pipes. It's just like a pound of feathers is lighter then a pound of led. /s | |
|
| | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by ATTVZW :But it's video so it's bigger in the pipes. It's just like a pound of feathers is lighter then a pound of led. /s Wrong. Video = Data. Audio = Data. Data = Data. If you eat your 5GB chunk viewing Video, it's still data. Everyone uses data differently. This is punishing how you use your allotment that you paid for. | |
|
| | | |
waldojim
Anon
2014-Feb-3 8:03 am
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?WOOOOSH! | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
This is what the death of net neutrality means. It's not just a way to attack their existing competitors, but to gain control. Any source of data they don't know about already they can apply a blanket detriment to. | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
said by SimbaSeven:..and since when is data, not data? Is one particular type of data different than another type of data? Yep. Big networking companies cache local copies of big media servers' data. So, when you stream a popular youtube video over your AT&T connection, the video data may be originating from a local AT&T-controlled server. If you visit my personal vlog and watch it, that's coming from *my* server and AT&T has to go fetch it and deliver it to you from Chicago. | |
|
| | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: "Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System"?said by spin :Yep. Big networking companies cache local copies of big media servers' data. So, when you stream a popular youtube video over your AT&T connection, the video data may be originating from a local AT&T-controlled server. If you visit my personal vlog and watch it, that's coming from *my* server and AT&T has to go fetch it and deliver it to you from Chicago. It still has to come from A server. If they have to cache the data all the time, then the data isn't up to date and can be worthless. No different from building a caching proxy server and storing it locally.. then updating it every hour. | |
|
|
Yeah, this is gonna work.Guess nobody told them about encryption. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2014-Jan-31 2:49 pm
Re: Yeah, this is gonna work.Want to use encryption? You will be charged the maximum amount of credits for trying to subvert our greedy scheme. | |
|
| | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: Yeah, this is gonna work.Or your shiny new phone comes with an NSA AT&T app that inspects the traffic after decryption and rats on you. | |
|
|
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Jan-31 2:31 pm
"Abuse"..."anything which causes us to spend the money paid to us by our customers in order to provide our customers with the service they're paying for."
(Yeah, that'll work.) | |
|
WHT join:2010-03-26 Rosston, TX |
WHT
Member
2014-Jan-31 2:49 pm
Can We Say "Prior Art"?"A user of a communications network is prevented from consuming an excessive amount of channel bandwidth by restricting use of the channel in accordance with the type of data being downloaded to the user," explains the patent."
That process has been around for years. It's called throttling per .. err, mind just went blank. Carry one. | |
|
|
en103
Member
2014-Jan-31 2:53 pm
Should be called 'double dipping'How many fees / places can we possibly collect from (they'll find them all). ?
So lets see... We went from flat/unlimited to capped 'because of user abuse' for a very small percentage.
to
Minimum bundle + overages to 'keep the volume in check' (and make more profits/commoditize)
to
Minimum bundle + overages + application type charge ???
I think I'll have to tunnel my traffic over SSH to my nearest proxy. | |
|
YDC join:2007-11-13 Hewlett, NY |
YDC
Member
2014-Jan-31 3:00 pm
How much did this post cost AT&T??The limits are in sight. Soon the Internet will go away in favor of a public Internet over radio frequency. We called it HAM or CB once upon a time. Now we could add servers and interactivity with AIRWEB sites. Repeaters and groups could catch on quickly. Data and voice together, without fees? Wow! Oops .. I forgot to patent that... wait a minute.. be right back.. | |
|
| |
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Jan-31 3:13 pm
Re: How much did this post cost AT&T??Breaker, breaker... come back... I see big trouble in the little china shop of horrors ( <-- see, total traffic confusion convergence).
Well, there's still balloons above our white-space mesh. (or what that mess?) | |
|
| | YDC join:2007-11-13 Hewlett, NY |
YDC
Member
2014-Jan-31 3:42 pm
Re: How much did this post cost AT&T??10-4 big data hog coming round the bend good buddy. Keep your ears down! | |
|
|
wkm001
Member
2014-Jan-31 3:12 pm
Penalized for using the service we are paying for?I'm glad the people sitting in a dark windowless room at AT&T are earning their pay. I hope they feel dirty each pay period.
So, the carriers keep jacking up the speed to try and differentiate from one another. Now all of the sudden when we use the full speed of our line it is wrong. Anything under 20% of the line speed shouldn't penalize us. For my 50 Mbps Comcast connection, anything under 10 mbps wouldn't count.
The average person still doesn't know the difference between a megabyte and a gigabyte. Now they will need to know all this other stuff! Give me a break, this will be impossible for the average person to understand.
Maybe it will create more jobs for the companies that make routers. | |
|
|
Worst company in the U.S.I just canceled my wireless service with them and as soon as Mediacom gets off their ass and builds out our area I'll be AT&T free for life. | |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Until Illegal, This is Perfectly LegitimateIn the absence of rules, AT&T is obligated to increase shareholder wealth. Although we all think UBB and traffic based billing (TBB) is better associated with Biff Tannen (Back to the Future), unless the FCC/Congress crafts a rules or a miracle tech breakthrough vastly improves the competitive landscape, stuff like this is going to happen. | |
|
| |
Re: Until Illegal, This is Perfectly Legitimatesaid by rradina:In the absence of rules, AT&T is obligated to increase shareholder wealth. Although we all think UBB and traffic based billing (TBB) is better associated with Biff Tannen (Back to the Future), unless the FCC/Congress crafts a rules or a miracle tech breakthrough vastly improves the competitive landscape, stuff like this is going to happen. You are absolutely correct! However, AT&T seems to forget that they are obligated to keep their customers happy or the shareholders won't be happy for long. There is a fine line they have to balance, but AT&T seems to be short sighted due to being over concerned with the investors. In the long term this will come back to haunt AT&T. | |
|
|
I wonderwhich costs more? Netflix torrents voip providers | |
|
houghe9 join:2008-02-27 Lexington Park, MD
1 recommendation |
...i asked in another thread and so i will ask again here. how many of you would dump att and bs to go back to just standard 5mbit dsl with no cap? frontier buying all of the copper might be the best idea yet...i can watch netflix with 5 mbit dsl and do a lot of other things too and if i can do it while at the same time saying screw verizon and att i will do it. in fact i would pay double just to say screw you att and verizon.
google looks like they ar eworking on something too that will just tear these guys a new one. all google has to do is to move one of those barges right off coastal cities and start sucking those customers away will at the same time running fiber to the midwest. | |
|
| ••• |
1 recommendation |
Anon1587
Anon
2014-Jan-31 4:31 pm
Been riding this train for yearsWith the explosion of growth the Internet in the past decade, the numbers of advocates who'd speak out and fight tooth and nail for everyones equal access rights seems to pale ratio wise to those who see this all as one big toy.
Like everything great in life. Government, mindless consumers, and Greedy Corporations with their bastard shareholders are going to ruin something great...AGAIN. | |
|
lgk @icentrix.com |
lgk
Anon
2014-Jan-31 4:31 pm
leavei will jump ship when the implement this and this would also be grounds to get out of a contract. | |
|
|
AT&T goofballsJeez AT&T are idiots. Bandwidth over-users are AT&T's best customers. AT&T's big fail is not figuring out a more clever way than a "penalty" to monetize these valuable customers.
Whats even more ambiguous... is AT&T talking about file-sharers or are they talking about the 8 to 10 person families watching 10 Netflix streams at one time? Big difference there in bandwidth over-users. | |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2014-Jan-31 4:33 pm
Innovative!In a world where caps and throttling are necessitated by abuse and the limits of physics (wireless), its great that AT&T is working to give us options, and protect the user from those who would overwhelm the common channel.
Adaptive, credit/quota-based throttling, and/or toll-free data will yield more choice for the consumer, and enable many to watch their coveted streaming video without meter-anxiety. | |
|
| ••••••• |
|
ripoff?patent a way to rip off customers? AT&T must be all over that...
It must be said that telcos are not looking good in the consumer's eyes this year.. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 6:55 pm
Data is Dataat&t has plans. Oh yes, they do. They see you have money they have yet to take from you, and they want to fix that.
Even better they patent it, so that they can license this "Technology" to others and bend you over even if you boycott at&t till they day you die.
No good will come of this. | |
|
| ••• |
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Hopefully send the bill to Netflix and not consumersWhen a cable provider offers a video service over their lines and Netflix offers a competing video product over those lines then they should have to pay. I'm not against Netflix's product but they should play by the same rules as any other video provider. I read on a blog that the FCC may consider doing this. If I pay $100 per month for DirecTV, then Netflix should be charging similar prices. The difference in price is DirecTV has to maintain infrastructure like AT&T does. Netflix is nothing more than a server farm and an internet connection.
It's like me and a couple of my friends starting an alarm business and allowing competitors access to our facilities and resources without compensation. It's like if I have my fleet of installers and monitoring station but my competitor sells discounted preprogrammed DIY kits that connect to my monitoring station, that is unfair. At least with the alarm company I can decline the business relationship, AT&T/Comcast/Verizon can't refuse Netflix. | |
|
| •••••• |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 7:23 pm
Everone who uses at&t services should shut them off.Continuing to fund this evil corporation just contributes to the problem.
Death to at&t. Seriously. Die. | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 7:41 pm
T, you're out of control!. | |
|
|
|