Net Neutrality under attack by AT&T

Nope, not in the least. Bypasses for blocking software already exist.

 

you can't bypass changes that happen at the ISP level, they do packet level inspection before it ever arrives at your pc, you know that right

 

Because if Smevins broadband can charge netflix 50 cents per user on their network to stream their content uninhibited, then you might end up with two or three or 4 or 5 ISP's in your community and the added competition would force downward price pressures on your one provider (though I suspect there are more than one provider in most places--it is just a matter of there is only 1 that people think of). Likewise, the added revenue to providers (and increased cost to content providers) would hasten the creation of a true nationwide fiber optic network and help pay for it as well.

Content blocking can be bypassed--it just requires a little effort. TV networks already do this blocking for various reasons with country/region restrictions. For an end user, it is not a big issue compared to it being a big issue for Google, Apple, and Facebook to not want to share their revenue streams that they receive off the backs of the ISP's without whom their ad revenue contracts. In addition, municipalities could then use their monopoly powers to award access to their infrastructure to the companies that offer the best price-content combination for the residents, further containing consumer costs.

 

When the UK ISP's were ordered to deny access to certain sites by their high court, it took all of little effort for people to bypass that restriction. For $5 a month you can subscribe to a VPN that will make all efforts by them futile. ISP's can only effectively block that which originates on their own network. If Netflix isn't hosted in the Verizon network, then Verizon will never be able to completely prevent a work around.

 

but without them and their service, you can't access it....

you aren't paying for the inet, you are paying for the services they provide.

 

I used to do customer service for AT&T. Do they really care about their customers? Hell no.

 

Two things are funny about this topic: Conservatives who seem to blindly defend corporations no matter what (even when they essentially have a monopoly), and the idea that this isn't already happening. Google "load balancing".

 

If AT&T pushes this policy through, every Uverse user in America should protest by refusing to pay their bills until it ends.

Cost the company a few billion dollars and they'll reverse course.

 

then there will be another isp, that will.

i know they passed a law several years back that would allow, the phone company to use cable lines, just like cable companies are allowed to carry phone service.

If an ISP doesnt provide for customers needs, a new isp will get their business

 

LOL. Won't cost them anything. You would be the one paying their late fee and gunking up your credit until you got current.

 

If they don't make a change within a month, keep going. 6 or 7 months of AT&T being paid nothing would get them to change their policies.

 

Methinks you don't know what load balancing is, even after having googled it. And... I'm a conservative and I think this is the worst thing evar.

- - - Updated - - -

Most people are not willing to go 7 months without teh intarnetz to make a point.

 

That might work, until your ISP decides that you have to pay an additional $20 to use VPN services. This isn't all about specific content. They could make customers have to pay extra for VOIP, video streaming in general, gaming, you name it. Working from home and need to join an online meeting? $10. Need to reach your company's FTP server? $5. Remote desktop? $5. It would be like the phone company charging you extra to use a modem back in the 90's. It's awful for customers, and ISPs should be treated like telecoms.

 

That still only works as a pressure if customers have multiple ISP options. Why would Verizon care that Google blocks their customers from YouTube if their customers still have nowhere else to turn for internet?

 

Doubtful they would. All of that stuff requires time and energy and becomes a wash. They will go after the deep pocket providers--nobody else.

 

Won't matter to them. They will just cut people off, sue them, send them to collection, whatever they do in the normal course of business with people who don't pay their bills.

 

If VPN became a popular way to get around the ISP's service tiering, they absolutely would start charging for it. You can't offer that as a viable way to deal with this BS and then claim that the ISPs won't try to countermeasure it. That doesn't make any sense. Also, VPNs would be a problem for things like gaming and streaming. The latency over a VPN is miserable by comparison.

 

Because most of Verizon's customers would have somebody else to turn to for internet--cable.

 

Let's see AT&T do the cost-benefit analysis of whether its more profitable to re-adopt net neutrality or to hire enough lawyers to sue millions of people.

The normal course of business doesn't apply to disobedience on a macro-scale.

 

Sprint/nextel/boost mobie already does, but their service sucks... so weigh out your options. You want good coverage, or unlimited data?

I loved boost... but I had no coverage where I worked, so I switched to straightalk.... also unlimited. However, again, my service was limited in the rural areas I travel through. At home, it worked good, but as I drove to work, crap....


so I had a choice, continue using unlimited services that had crappy service (what good is unlimited if you can't get a tower) or go with Verizon again. I went with Verizon.

so yeah, go ahead and switch in protest.... you'll be back because you have no willpower to not have a cell phone with inet on it. If you could... you'd wouldn't be running into data overage issues in the first place.

 

It is a viable way. Content providers that do not want to be blocked would either pay or replace streaming with some sort of expiring download, but it isn't like Verizon will be able to charge customers or websites by the site and get away with it. People will go elsewhere. That you seldom hear the letters "AOL" anymore in a discussion of internet service is what happens when you fall out of step with your customers' wants and needs.

 

Sorry, but that simply isn't the reality of the situation for many, if not most, people. Even if it was, the percentage of customers who have more than two options has to be abysmal. Personally, I live in the middle of a major metropolitan suburb, and I literally have one option: Comcast/Xfinity. If Comcast decides to charge for different sites and traffic types, I'm screwed. Even if CenturyLink serviced my area, they could do the same and I'd still be out of luck. There are no other providers in the entire city. This is the way it is for most people, and why net neutrality is a necessity.

 

That only applies if consumers have alternative choices. Many don't.

 

Go where? When you only have one or two options, there's nowhere to run to.

 

On a "macro-scale" people are going to be more worried when their phone service gets cut off than they are about Netflix's profit margin, particularly in addition to paying the late fees, the legal fees if they get sued, and the early termination fees, they are going to be the ones coughing up money for nothing.