Home  ›  News  ›

AT&T to 'Pause' Network Investments in Net Neutrality Fight

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 16 replies

Go ahead T-bone

Zpike

Nov 12, 2014, 11:31 AM
And explain to us how AT&T's customers are at fault and how it's a good thing that AT&T wants to kill net neutrality and how the government should just stay out of it and let AT&T continue its monopolistic market abusing practices.
...
mobilemadness

Nov 12, 2014, 12:48 PM
It's because our government is ran by big corporations. They "donate" or bribe politicians to vote in their favor on laws. AT&T and Verizon are both against net neutrality. Why wouldn't AT&T build out their network either way? Right now net neutrality is currently in effect, so why not build out their network? It's not like it's the other way around where "fast lanes" are the rule and AT&T risks losing those premium fees if that setup ended and it went to net neutrality. Basically they should build out their network and then if net neutrality ends, that'll just be a bonus for them. I think the real reason is they want to buy Direct TV and don't want to spend money in other areas until that deal is done.
...
Zpike

Nov 12, 2014, 11:24 PM
>>Why wouldn't AT&T build out their network either way? Right now net neutrality is currently in effect, so why not build out their network? It's not like it's the other way around where "fast lanes" are the rule and AT&T risks losing those premium fees if that setup ended and it went to net neutrality.

The point you're trying to make here is that what AT&T is doing doesn't seem to make sense because they don't currently have a financial stake in a world without net neutrality.

Although, I totally agree with you, let me shine some light on AT&T's motives. AT&T recently filed patents for the technology they plan to use to install these internet fast lanes and to bilk consumers and content providers as many times over as possible for del...
(continues)
...
thejonnotjohn

Nov 13, 2014, 11:35 AM
there are currently no internet "fast lanes". that is what net neutrality IS.
...
Zpike

Nov 13, 2014, 11:48 AM
Why even chime in? You have net neutrality exactly backwards. Go read up on the subject and try again.
...
Jellz

Nov 13, 2014, 12:49 PM
A little more constructive:

Net neutrality says all Internet traffic is treated equally (no fast/slow lanes).

Net neutrality IS NOT A LAW. IT IS NOT A REGULATION. IT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED.

Right now, the FCC is CONSIDERING net neutrality options, but they tried before and failed on the grounds that they don't have the authority to create and enforce those rules.

So the companies with a stake in net neutrality not passing (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) are heavily lobbying and otherwise throwing fits to try and block net neutrality from happening.

More information you might have an easier time understanding: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
...
planethulk

Nov 13, 2014, 9:47 PM
You seem to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.
You also seem to have a misunderstanding about net neutrality yourself. Att/Vzw and ISPs do not want to charge customers more for 'fast lanes'. They want to charge companies like Hulu and Netflix. Personally, Im against this as Hulu and Netflix would certainly raise their prices for the customer in response. If you or anyone else think there would not be a sizeable consumer,backlash for,doing such things, you are safly mistaken. That is how the Free Market works. I also thonk it is odd how you claim in other posts to be pro free market, but somehow justify government intervention and also refer to capitalists in a disparaging way. Ted Cruz penned an OpEd today in the Washington Pos...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Nov 14, 2014, 12:44 PM
>>You seem to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.

I'm not.

>>You also seem to have a misunderstanding about net neutrality yourself.

I understand it perfectly, as I also understand the technology the internet is built on.

>>Att/Vzw and ISPs do not want to charge customers more for 'fast lanes'

But ultimately they will.

>>They want to charge companies like Hulu and Netflix. Personally, Im against this as Hulu and Netflix would certainly raise their prices for the customer in response.

I'm against it because it is unethical to charge them a cent. HULU and Netflix pay a plenty of money for the bandwidth to deliver their content to the internet backbone. THAT is their obligation.

ISP's charge customers for a...
(continues)
...
planethulk

Nov 14, 2014, 4:54 PM
Man, I just don't have the time or energy to go into detail about how wrong and/or completely full of crap you are on this subject. But I will say that your stance that because free markets are being manipulated that somehow a government takeover is required is nonsensical at best. And you seem to also confuse capitalists with crony fascists...yet another of your many misunderstandings
...
Zpike

Nov 14, 2014, 5:59 PM
>>Man, I just don't have the time or energy to go into detail about how wrong and/or completely full of crap you are on this subject.

Because you are entirely wrong. Perhaps if you first understood what net neutrality was in the first place you might be in a better place to have this dialogue. But you obviously do not.

>>But I will say that your stance that because free markets are being manipulated that somehow a government takeover is required is nonsensical at best.

You have not understood my stance or you are purposefully misrepresenting it.

>> And you seem to also confuse capitalists with crony fascists

Any of the so-called capitalists that I have indicated as crony fascists most certainly are. If you think what the likes...
(continues)
...
planethulk

Nov 14, 2014, 6:42 PM
Not only have I worked in the tech sector for many years, I am also an economics major. The fact that you havent even heard of Mises or Rothbard or Rockwell is proving that you don't have a clue about economics or capitalism. Have you even read anything by Milton Freidman?
>>>advocating for a system where these companies are allowed to continue behaving in the manner that they do.

Exactly my point. Are these companies breaking any laws? Nope. Who are you to dictate what these companies do? You are advocating government rules and restrictions instead of allowing the free market to reign.

What you want to do is not Capitalist. It is not neutral. It is not free market.
Seriously read an economics book before you come clowning at me wi...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Dec 3, 2014, 4:25 PM
>>Not only have I worked in the tech sector for many years,

Not sure what you did in the tech sector, but you are certainly wrong about what net neutrality is.

>>The fact that you havent even heard of Mises or Rothbard or Rockwell is proving that you don't have a clue about economics or capitalism.

You're making the inference that since I haven't read three authors you deem important, that I couldn't possibly know anything about economics even though thousands of authors have written about economics over the centuries.

>> Are these companies breaking any laws? Nope.

As an anarcho-capitalist you should believe that any form of government interference in the market is wrong. And yet you defend these companies practices in the m...
(continues)
...
planethulk

Dec 4, 2014, 8:48 PM
This will be my last post to you so don't bother replying. My choice to discontinue this charade of a debate has already been stated. You choose to insult, insinuate and inflame then cry to moderators when someone calls you out. Since you choose to blatantly lie about me and misrepresent what I say, I will set the record "starraaaight" for you one last time.

"you are certainly wrong about what net neutrality is"

No. As the article pointed out, even the guy who coined the term "net neutrality" says YOU are wrong about what it means.

"You're making the inference that since I haven't read three authors you deem important, that I couldn't possibly know anything about economics even though thousands of authors have written ab ...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Dec 6, 2014, 3:10 AM
>>This will be my last post to you so don't bother replying.

You'll do anything to resist an actual debate won't you. Unfortunately, I get to decide if I respond or not, not you. But you can feel free to not respond to me if you like. Besides, I'm not really sure if I'm willing to endure another 30 posts of your insults just to get to another mediocre response like this one.

>>My choice to discontinue this charade of a debate has already been stated.

Wouldn't be the first time you told me bye and continued to post. Oh look, you already have several posts to me after this one, lol.

>>You choose to insult, insinuate and inflame

No, you provoked me. Then I did those things quite intentionally. I honestly prefer rational debate. ...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Dec 6, 2014, 3:14 AM
>>You are the guy who wants strict government control of private enterprise

Now there's a straw man. I want no such thing. There's no in-between with you. Has it ever occurred to you that I actually want very little government regulation, which is quite different in itself from none-at-all and as-much-as-possible?

>>while claiming to be a libertarian and a Constitutionalist.

You got that right.

>>In the Free Market you gte to vote with your dollar

The market is hardly free. But I do vote with my dollar as best as I can.

>>and that is more powerful than your vote on any ballad.

You pounced all over one of my typo's once, and quite rudely. So, I'll take this opportunity to politely point out one of yours. I think you me...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Dec 6, 2014, 3:15 AM
>>BTW, I AM an authority on Capitalism. I have a few high priced pieces of paper that prove it.

So you got a degree. Congrats. Personally, I prefer to claim I'm not an expert. Then if I get myself into a dilemma like the one you created for yourself above I can maintain at least a little credibility.

>>As already stated in the actual definition of Capitalism, the State has control with what you propose and the State is not now nor has it ever been "neutral".

You're mincing words again. What you mean by a neutral state is not what is meant by a neutral internet. Furthermore, you have neither shown that the state is incapable of being neutral nor have you demonstrated that the state must be neutral in order to maintain a neutral int...
(continues)
...
planethulk

Dec 8, 2014, 7:05 PM
Well, look. He is parroting me yet again. Too bad you couldn't do that two weeks ago when we were having a debate about the issue at hand.
I'm so glad you learned to post links. Unfortunately, out of the 11 links you posted, I mentioned you and twitter once? The rest is only an attempt to have them noticed by a moderator and have them deleted.
Let's get to the "points" of your claims here so you can get your rocks off reading them.

1. Neutral State. The State is not now nor will it ever be "neutral". The State's goal is to grow in power to govern and to be the master.
" Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the...
(continues)
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.