dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
reply to jjeffeory

Re: I dont get it

Well AT&T sells you access to their network which they paid for. AT&T should be able to reserve the right to restrict anything they might feel impedes the performance of their network. Whether that means impeding the physical or financial performance, that decision should be up to them. Whether you agree with that decision is not the issue here. Just because they sell access does not mean the users have the right to do whatever they want.

I know it's fashionable to bash telcos and large corporations, but there really are 2 sides to every story.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.


Necronomikro

join:2005-09-01

said by shaner:

Well AT&T sells you access to their network which they paid for. AT&T should be able to reserve the right to restrict anything they might feel impedes the performance of their network. Whether that means impeding the physical or financial performance, that decision should be up to them. Whether you agree with that decision is not the issue here. Just because they sell access does not mean the users have the right to do whatever they want.

I know it's fashionable to bash telcos and large corporations, but there really are 2 sides to every story.
It's not about impeding the performance of their network.

Analogies suck, but since you insist.

It's more like paying for internet from your cable company, then they refuse to let you watch youtube, because it 'provides a competing service, and a company shouldn't be expected to facilitate their competition'.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

1 edit
reply to shaner

No, I got it, but that analogy isn't great. For one thing, at&t is selling access to the internet, NOT their network or content on their network per se. This is what got them to their market share in the first place. What they're trying to do now that there is an established market is to "change the game". The market would not have been there had it been a closed network like they want to do. Look at AOL. They had a close network and it was small until they opened up to the internet. Soooo, really the ISP are conduits to the larger internet. That's how I see it anyway...



toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
reply to shaner

You typed this message in and I downloaded it.

Should you pay me now?

There are 2 sides....



Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.

join:2006-07-23
reply to shaner

I agree with your point Shaner. That said, I doubt Skype is damage AT&T's network, I just agree that since it is THEIR network, they should be able to make the rules--it's only logical.


clickie8

join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
reply to shaner

Skype uses a paltry 6 kB of data throughput, so the restriction can't be about network performance, especially since AT&T touts video streaming in their own ads about their network.

If they are worried about financial performance, then what you're saying is that AT&T should be able to restrict anything that they can't make additional money in providing the service. That means good-bye to Google Maps, because they have their own service. Good-bye to email, because they too have their own email. Whatever AT&T wants to make money on above and beyond the $30 per month, they should be able to cut off, charge extra for and eliminate any consumer choice.

How 1950's. Here's your email, here's your mapping, and here's your big black bakeline phone that you can only get from the phone company.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Fox McCloud

said by Fox McCloud:

I agree with your point Shaner. That said, I doubt Skype is damage AT&T's network, I just agree that since it is THEIR network, they should be able to make the rules--it's only logical.
So if AT&T wanted to restrict access to websites geared towards African-Americans, Latinos, Gay and Lesbians or women's groups should they be allowed to, because it's their network?

The answer is no, because while it is their network they are subject to regulation, since they are using public airwaves and public rights of way.


Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.

join:2006-07-23

said by fifty nine:

said by Fox McCloud:

I agree with your point Shaner. That said, I doubt Skype is damage AT&T's network, I just agree that since it is THEIR network, they should be able to make the rules--it's only logical.
So if AT&T wanted to restrict access to websites geared towards African-Americans, Latinos, Gay and Lesbians or women's groups should they be allowed to, because it's their network?
Yes, they should be able to do all those things--I might not agree with any of that, but they have the right to do that, since again, it's their property.

The answer is no, because while it is their network they are subject to regulation, since they are using public airwaves and public rights of way.
only within the current paradigm--airwaves are no different than land, and should be treated as such; sadly, Mr. Hoover didn't like this idea, thanks to influence by special interests.


theduderz

@rr.com

1 edit

so if att wants to charge you for using http on your phone because it's "slowing their network" it's fair? Are you kidding me? skype is voip which is data, and i pay 30 bucks a month for unlimited data. it's false advertisement by its definition and thats why fcc stepped in. open your eyes and start thinking buddy, noone will do it for you.