AT&T claims net neutrality is oppressive

[WhiteTara]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1728087/at-t-claims-net-neutrality-oppressive

US TELECOM AT&T has come out in support of Google's contention that wireless communications are different than wireline Internet services.

Last week Google and Verizon agreed on a deal that left wireless communications free to be carved up by telecoms operators and tiered for commercial exploitation. Given Google's stance as a supporter of net neutrality, it has faced widespread criticism and even had 100 or so demonstrators outside its doors claiming that it had sold out.

snip

AT&T said that policy makers can help by "protecting wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations", which it claims is "vital to the continued growth of the industry". Or in other words, net neutrality will limit the profits it can extract from wireless services.

The bare-faced cheek of the company calling net neutrality 'onerous' is a disgrace and simply goes to show how much AT&T and the like care for their paying customers. As we and many others had predicted, Google's deal with Verizon has opened the floodgates for telecoms operators to make ridiculous claims in order to destroy net neutrality and promote their own agenda of what AT&T termed 'continued growth'.

It should also be noted that AT&T's statement made no reference to how its network performance affects its subscribers. Rather it reads like a sob story, except that it's being told by a company that raked in $123 billion in profit last year alone. µ

:grr:

[lpbk2713]

1. Color me surprised.

I'm just as surprised as when I heard about the goppers opposing gummint healthcare. :eyes:

[dkf]

2. Being locked into a crappy carrier is also oppressive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. except to the carrier.

Which is the whole idea.

[xxqqqzme]

8. Ain't that the truth.

April, 2011 I am finally free of AT&T. WORSE service EVER. I usually do not know someone called me until I get the little ring tone that I have voice mail.

[LiberalFighter]

3. There is no reason why we should be concerned about any company's continued growth...

especially when:

they have been subsidized;
and the business they seek to capitalize on was the result of government creation;
and they actually mean continued growth for the express purpose of creating more wealth for themselves but not their employees.

[derby378]

5. Let alone the fact that some technologies become obsolete over time

For instance, how many of your car stereos today still have 8-track tape players?

[derby378]

4. Whine, whine, whine...

Sounds like someone doesn't want their customers using iPhones to surf DU.

[liberal N proud]

7. They must be allowed to be greedy

Corporations are people too!

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Every cell provider charges $30/month for data services.

"onerous net neutrality regulations"? Fuck you, AT&T.

[WhiteTara]

10. only $30? Mine is $60!

and that is the basic plan...Verizon is the ONLY service I can get where I live, so I am totally grateful, but simultaneously jealous that my bill is $60 and yours is $30.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. I refuse to pay $30.

I've been tempted to get one of those newfangled phones, for their voip capabilities but I don't want to pay the $30 data surcharge on top of the $40 regular phone bill. Opting for the wireless tether thingee is more expensive yet.

[unhappycamper]

12. Net neutrality is oppressive because they can't charge for it.

They will do anything to suck the last drop of money out of you.

[WhiteTara]

13. indeed

the users may have an independent life and the corp can't have that!