RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Of course they can
"while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action."
The FCC is never at the mercy of prior acts. They'll either just decide it was a bad idea and repeal the rule or Congress will pass a law prohibiting its enforcement. "Concessions" are even wimpier and have no basis in law.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
1 edit | can't trust AT&T
this just reinforces the view that you can't trust AT&T |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
2 edits | Well, isn't that nice?
Did we expect actual protection from the Telco FCC dept.?
Citizens/consumers -0-
Telco douche-bags -4- |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Yet another example...
Of the best government lobbyist money can buy at work.
Seriously, let's get a bunch of concessions, strip them of any real force and make them time limited.
Yeah, nice concessions.
--
Prove it... |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
2 edits | Hogwash
While AT&T did offer some additional concessions to squeeze through the AT&T BellSouth merger, Kevin Webach (via Techdirt) points out that the post-merger statements by Republican commissioners hint that they may not require the company to actually adhere to them. According to the statement, Tate and Martin believe that "while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action. Thus, to the extent that AT&T has, as a business matter, determined to take certain actions, they are allowed to do so."
Which is a load of bullshit because of the letter of commitment the telco filed with the FCC wherein it promises to to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 30 months thereafter the Merging Closing Date.
According to AT&T's letter, the merged company:
"… commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. This commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth's agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."
Whatever fantasyland Tate & Martin are living in, they cannot simply ignore the stipulations spelled out in the 20 pg concession letter they filed with the FCC as a condition for approval.
Addendum
Consumer effects of AT&T/BellSouth Merger
--
The Toll
|
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to morbo
Re: can't trust AT&T
Verizon messed up on me many times... what would make me think at&t is any different ? |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Typical...
Pure speculation, which is all the net-neutrality "problem" is these days.
Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...)
Adam |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Of course they can
I agree. If the FCC really cared about concessions, then we'd all have Fiber run to our homes, as per the Telecom Act of 1996... |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to Alpine
Re: Typical...
said by Alpine  :Pure speculation, which is all the net-neutrality "problem" is these days. Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...) Adam Right. Pure whining and no problem whatsoever. Let's just wait until after the telcos and/or cable cos. start extorting money for unimpeded content on the Net, and then we can worry about it. The subject matter is just all hypothetical anyway. I don't mind telling you, Adam, that ignorance like yours is spectacularly breathtaking. Have you ever actually had any thoughts independent of Fox News?
--
The Toll
|
|
kcir
join:2005-07-30
Butner, NC | reply to Alpine
Why the worry of net neutrality ? There is real broadband competition, right? If you can't get what you want from one provider go with another...  |
|
mrbill66
@cox.net
| as a Utility service
This is why the burden of wires and cable ownership should be removed from the Telco and Cableco and rolled to a nationwide Utility comp. This co. sole purpose would be to maintain, manage, upgrade wire, cable, fiber to the home (all Homes) . We would then pay a minimum "maintenance fee" for the wire.
Then ATT and Verizon, Quest, Comcast, Cox and any noobie could compete nationwide with their offerings without merging to gain customers. Heck we might even get direct offerings from the Studios bypassing what are now gatekeeper known as wire holders. Maybe CBS or Fox or Universal wants to offer me something or some service directly from them. But that is why the Telcos, Cablecos pay big bucks to keep the wires under their control. ACCESS is CONTROL...plus billions to lobbyist for congress bribes.
What a concept. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Of course they can
agreed.
The ILECs didn't pay too much attention to the 1996 law, why would they pay attention to anything they don't like? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Alpine
Re: Typical...
said by Alpine :.... Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...) Adam actually, you're absolutely right. Telecom and broadband in the U.S. is screwed for many years to come because of the policies of the FCC.
We may as well shut up and bend over, 'cause it ain't gonna get better anytime soon. |
|
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Enough Said
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1167683···=opinion
Net neutrality is nothing more than concessions for Google, Microsoft and EBay with large paid lobbing staff. It is the small guy that will be hurt because the big boys can hog all the bandwidth they can get and pay the same rate as somebody like small mom and pop business that uses less than %1 of the capacity. |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | If you dont like a company....
...dont stay with them. With two cable companies and a whole bunch of dsl companies I could switch every few months until i found something I liked. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to richardpor
Re: Enough Said
said by richardpor :» online.wsj.com/article/SB1167683···=opinionNet neutrality is nothing more than concessions for Google, Microsoft and EBay with large paid lobbing staff. It is the small guy that will be hurt because the big boys can hog all the bandwidth they can get and pay the same rate as somebody like small mom and pop business that uses less than %1 of the capacity. Well if a Wall Street Journal opinion says that NN is just a "shakedown," mind you -an opinion written by, for and of the corporations on Wall Street- then it MUST be true! Yessiree, Bob. Absolutely, positively the truth, praise Jaysus, hallelujah!
And all them silly groups agigtating for NN are just a buncha hippie libruls who don't know nuttin' bout the ways of the Wall Street world. If it's profitable for Wall Street, then it MUST be good for consumers!
--
The Toll
|
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to richardpor
How is the 'small guy' hurt by net neutrality? The small guy is the WINNER with net neutrality. It guarantees that their traffic is just as important as google and microsoft. They get what they pay for. If they buy a T-1, then then get 1.5mb/sec of traffic. If they buy a 100mb pipe, then they get 100mb of speed. Where in the world do you get the idea that google, or ebay, or microsoft BENEFIT with net neutrality?
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to Dagda1175
Re: If you dont like a company....
said by Dagda1175 :...dont stay with them. With two cable companies and a whole bunch of dsl companies I could switch every few months until i found something I liked. Yeah, and pay early termination fees up the ass, or be banned from service for switching around with such gay abandon. But, do feel free to pick from ILEC, ILEC reseller like COVAD or Earthlink, and/or, of course, the local Cable monopolist. Pricing is pretty much the same for all choices; unless bundles are offered, then add the unnecessary added fees for unwanted services. Quality of service is almost guaranteed to be deficient regardless of choice. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to Dagda1175
said by Dagda1175 :...dont stay with them. With two cable companies and a whole bunch of dsl companies I could switch every few months until i found something I liked. You have completely missed the point. If one or two entities control access and bandwidth in tiers, as they have proposed to do then ISP is largely and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your ISP does not control what you see or how fast you can access it.
If you put up a website, your ISP will not send you a letter and demand that you pay X for Y access to your site based on their pricing structure. However, the telcos and cable cos. will do precisely that if they get their way and become the de facto gatekeepers of the Internet.
The basic idea is to double dip. Telcos want Google et al. to pay X amount to ensure access to their site is not impeded, meanwhile collecting monies from consumers for access to the pipes in the first place. This is the smokescreen the WSJ opinion writers don't want you to know. And most consumers aren't able to think past their noses when it comes to NN.
--
The Toll
|
|
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Hattiesburg, MS
| reply to major marco
Government is not the answer.
said by major marco :said by Alpine :Pure speculation, which is all the net-neutrality "problem" is these days. Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...) Adam Right. Pure whining and no problem whatsoever. Let's just wait until after the telcos and/or cable cos. start extorting money for unimpeded content on the Net, and then we can worry about it. The subject matter is just all hypothetical anyway. I don't mind telling you, Adam, that ignorance like yours is spectacularly breathtaking. Have you ever actually had any thoughts independent of Fox News? Your notion that the government is the answer to all your problems is "spectacularly breathtaking." Yeah, government knows how to get things done in an efficient manner. That is freaking hilarious. If you're not happy with the policies of your provider, choose another one. Get a clue, buddy. |
|
