dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast

1 recommendation

reply to JasonOD

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

I'm going to have to agree with this and, hence, go against the mob.

Who owns the network? Who owns FaceTime?

These are both critical questions when considering any argument RE: net neutrality.

In answer to my own questions, the former is AT&T and the latter is Apple. So, if it's their property, and I as a consumer agree to use said property per certain terms and conditions (and assuming that these conditions are legally applicable), then I am beholden to the property owner for so long as I agree to be bound by said terms and conditions.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

You have it all wrong.... If customers pay for 1 iPhone and 1 monthly subscription the customer is entitled to a seat in the boardroom. /sarcasm off

If you don't like a companies policy you can always leave when your contract is up. You can bitch and moan all you want but if you keep paying your bill they are going to assume you are a happy customer. They are in the business of making money and if they don't see a change in revenue then they are going to assume that they are on the right track. Until people get off their lazy asses and start leaving companies over stuff like this they are going to keep doing this stuff.

Right now Sprint has unlimited data for the iPhone and Verizon and AT&T has caps. Verizon and AT&T are the two biggest wireless carriers so it appears in numbers that people are happy with caps. If there was a mass exodus to Sprint from both carriers you can bet that AT&T and Verizon would notice and they would react accordingly.

It will never happen because consumers are too lazy and unwilling to make any kind of sacrifice to change the norm.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to maestro7
Thats like saying it's okay if they force you not to be able to use the phone app because you are on plan so and so.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to battleop
Though I would agree with you on some levels, I will whole heartedly disagree with you on the underlying message that says they are doing the right thing if they remain so large.

For the most part only AT&T and Verizon have good nationwide coverage, especially over Sprint and T-Mobile. This has been said over and over by many here that use their services and have used "competitors". So with that in mind it really isn't a matter of just switching to another carrier and it really isn't that they are so big because they are "better".

If all things were equal and you can get Sprint, T-Moble, AT&T or Verizon with the same services quality all over this nation then 1 of 2 things would happen: 1.) Verizon and AT&T would actually compete and have lower prices along with unlimited data / voice / text. or 2.) Sprint and T-Mobile would be eating Verizon's and AT&T's lunch.

Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. Right now we have 2 companies that own a vast majority of the market because they own a vast majority of the spectrum and coverage of the country. Therefore those 2 companies do not compete with one another nor with any smaller competitors. Instead, they coexist and extract as much as regulations and their monopolistic market control will allow without being officially labeled as such or as companies in collusion.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
You mean for the most part verizon has good nationwide coverage.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to maestro7
I would understand restricting this for grandfathered "Unlimited" customers (and I'm one of those customers).

However, for customers paying for blocks of data, I think the FCC should strictly enforce net neutrality. If I'm paying for a specific quantity of data, I should be able to use it however I want. I shouldn't have to pay extra for tethering or FaceTime. There's no excuse other than gouging to force people to switch to a share plan for this feature.

I get your argument that it's their business, but sometimes the government needs to step in to prevent outright consumer abuse. Remember when we were required to rent a landline phone from the phone company? Remember when we used to have to pay per TV connected to cable? (Oh, wait...)
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast
reply to Metatron2008
I never said that anything was OK. I merely stated who owned what and therefore said property owners have certain intrinsic rights to their property, which means that a renter of such property cannot demand those same rights, unless the property owner allows it.

If I owned my own wireless telephone network, and I knew that certain devices tended to "overstay" their welcome on the network to the point that there were imminent, potential ramifications to others who were similarly on my network, then I have the right (as the owner of said network) to restrict usage based on those products/services that tend to have a bigger "overstay" potential.

Also remember that this isn't *blocking* usage, this is *restricting* usage. Then again, perhaps if enough people find such restrictions harmful enough to their general usage and enjoyment of network rental, perhaps the owner of said network will relent and make a change.

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast

1 recommendation

reply to djrobx
Sorry -- I'm too much of a libertarian to need to go to the government every time I think that a business is potentially harming my enjoyment of their property.

More practically, once again, AT&T (in this case) isn't actually *blocking* anything; they're *restricting* the usage of a service on their network to certain categories of usage (say, wifi, or to certain blocks of data, versus unlimited).

Yet, as I've said before, maybe there'll be enough of an outcry that AT&T will eventually relent on their current policy, which is meant to protect their property.

For me, yes -- I'm on an unlimited plan as well, and when I receive my iPhone 5, I know that my "throttled" limit goes to 5GB (even though all my past monthly usage shows I never go beyond 2GB). I think the idea of using FaceTime over the cellular network is a waste of two things: time and bandwidth.

First, you have to get sender and receiver set up to do the call, then the network has to be clear enough to ensure that the reception is decent enough to even carry on the call for the duration of the call, and then to stop it.

For my wife and I, it's so much simpler to either text each other or make a plain, old, telephone call. But maybe that's just us.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Skippy25
Just because one has better coverage than another does NOT give some "group" like Public Knowledge or Free Press the right to demand crap like they do. Neither of them are in it for the public, they're only in it to make the bank off the consumers that donate and who ever gives them $$$$.

ATT has ever right to require this just as they require you to have a certain data plan to use tethering. Those customers don't like it, tell them not to buy the new iPhone from ATT.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
I and a vast majority of those that know what Net Neutrality is would strongly disagree with you on both the FaceTime and tethering apps.

These companies should do nothing more than provide you the service, how you choose to use it is your business. And before you try to pull the lame and BS "network management" card, they have all the network management they need with caps and overages on wireless connections. How quickly you use your allocated time is not their business. As long as you are willing to use it and pay for more through the system they setup, then it is not their concern.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to hottboiinnc
They already charge you for the data, with hefty overages. If I've bought the data they shouldn't be able to restrict what I use the data for.

It infuriates me when people say things like vote with your wallet or they can screw customers all they want.
These are laissez faire capitalist arguments, which have been repeated a ridiculousness amount of times in all tech forums since 2008, the situation isn't even considered, just the same right wing mantra repeated over and over.

In economies of scale, utility providers, monopolies or duopolies free market idea's simply don't work. Most people need better coverage than T-mobile or Sprint provides, so most people are stuck in the AT&T/Verizon duopoly whose prices are for all practical purposes identical, as they don't want actual competition, and they actively buy up spectrum to prevent any real competition from forming.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to battleop
Good points. Of course the sacrifice to the norm here is the extra money that the customer pays, or of they go to Sprint, a less robust network. However, if enough people went to Sprint, they'd have enough money to expand their network to match at&t/Vz if they wanted to do that instead of giving it to the shareholders.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to maestro7
Welcome to the world of business where the government defines how you may conduct your business whether you think you as an "owner" have a right to do what you will or not. They can tell you when, how and even if you can operate your business.

And lets not forget, they lease the spectrum from the government, they actually own nothing.


clemcon

@sbcglobal.net
reply to battleop
You heard it here first: as soon as Sprint's 4G LTE network has a sizable foorprint the unlimited plans will start disappearing or expect a rate increase. Unlimited data on 3G...who cares. Here in MI, only 1 market has 4G - Grand Rapids.