 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to shaner
Re: I dont get it said by shaner:Why isn't AT&T (or any other carrier) allowed to restrict what applications access their network? I mean sure, be honest about it, but why should they be forced to carry a semi-competitive service which has the possibility to eat into their revenues? Maybe AT&T should bill Skype for the data traffice their "free" service uses. Sounds like you drunk the same Koolaide that the telco execs did when they were talking, loudly, about Google (et al.) should have to pay them for use of their pipes to deliver content to the telcos' customers.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
 shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Yeah, I certainly don't mean to drag up net neutrality arguments.
I was more thinking that allowing Skype onto their network didn't damage their physical network per se, but it does do damage to their financial network.
I guess I'm asking why AT&T can't restrict access to their network by competitive forces?
--
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. |
|
| said by shaner:Yeah, I certainly don't mean to drag up net neutrality arguments. I was more thinking that allowing Skype onto their network didn't damage their physical network per se, but it does do damage to their financial network. I guess I'm asking why AT&T can't restrict access to their network by competitive forces? So, should Comcast & AT&T be able to block access to netflix and youtube for their residential broadband customers, since they provide competing services? |
|
| reply to shaner
said by shaner:I guess I'm asking why AT&T can't restrict access to their network by competitive forces? Simple answer: Because they are a dumbpipe and just don't know it yet. |
|
