Perhaps I’m betraying my years, but in Washington policy circles there has always been tension between those interested in solving problems and those who see policy disputes as a test of ideology. I’d readily admit falling into the former camp, and have the policy scars to prove it. To be sure, one must have principles and a philosophy of government’s proper role. But a democracy cannot function when either side lapses into rigidity. Or worse, when political advantage becomes more important than the nation’s best interest.
In our little world, and in my decades of interaction with it, I’ve felt, and still feel, that the FCC has tried to stay focused on solving problems and avoided turning issues into dogma. Every chairman in my memory, including the current one, has faced political stampedes of one sort or another. Yet the agency has always tried to find a middle ground and a consensus win. They’ve understood that a win, unlike a fight, is the product of reaching out to both sides, and working in a bipartisan way to find a solution. A win is the product of compromise, thoughtful policy, and a genuine desire to find the answer to a complex set of issues.
We had such a situation – and a bipartisan win – in the 2010 net neutrality rule. Unfortunately, this was undone by a court decision, facing us with the same situation a second time. Today, an Administration and an FCC that appeared headed toward another bipartisan win on net neutrality were driven instead to a partisan fight. The 3-2 FCC vote, along party lines, for sweeping new regulation of the Internet, is a rejection of the compromise win and an embrace, however reluctant, of the political fight. It’s unfortunate that this single issue, more than any other, has over the course of ten years caused a divisive spirit to spread to an agency that has long sought unanimity on significant long term issues, and generally found it. A 5-0 decision doesn’t leave a lot of room for either side to continue the argument, while a 3-2 decision, particularly on issues of such broad scope, is an invitation to revisiting the decision, over and over and over.
Does anyone really think Washington needs yet another partisan fight? Particularly a fight around the Internet, one of the greatest engines of economic growth, investment, and innovation in history? At AT&T, we’ve supported open Internet principles since they were first enunciated, and we continue to abide by them strictly, and voluntarily, even today. We supported, and testified in favor of, Chairman Genachowski’s 2010 net neutrality regulations. And we thought the approach being taken by Chairman Wheeler in exploring a Section 706 regulatory framework was reasonable, and legally sustainable, as well. We have never argued there should be no regulation in this area, simply that there should be smart regulation. What doesn’t make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of eighty years ago, live under it.
Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation, and the very real potential of having to start over – again – in the future. Partisan decisions taken on 3-2 votes can be undone on similarly partisan 3-2 votes only two years hence. And FCC decisions made without clear authorization by Congress (and who can honestly argue Congress intended this?) can be undone quickly by Congress or the courts. This may suit partisans who lust for issues of political division, but it isn’t healthy for the Internet ecosystem, for the economy, or for our political system. And, followed to its logical conclusion, this will do long-term damage to the FCC as well.
For our part, we will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, even if we are the last voice seeking agreement rather than division. And we will hope that other voices of reason will emerge, voices who recognize that animosity, exaggeration, demonization and fear-mongering are not a basis on which to make wise national policies.
Anytime you have restrictions and government intervention, we create problems, congestion, price increase and creative work-around’s that impedes small businesses to grow. We hope that the FCC understands that we are the growth engine and are fine with our existing program.
I am infuriated by this news. How dare the government step in to protect the interests of consumers over the interests of millionaires, shareholders, and billionaire corporations. Why, with this news, now I will not be able to lower the quality of the product I offer while charging consumers even more in order to pad my bottom line! I only turned a billion dollars profit last year while paying no corporate taxes, how will I and other billionaires gild our houses or fill our money pools with government overreach like this!
Maybe if Corporate America consistently supported free market advocating politicians instead of trying to play the game of currying favor with government to win bundles of corporate welfare they wouldn’t be saddled with the corresponding overreaching government regulations. When you support command-and-control politicians you get command-and-control policies. Plain and simple. Consumers and providers will rue the day net neutrality was passed by the FCC. Of course, the collectivists will just say we need more, smarter regulations once this action starts to destroy Internet service and never concede that life was better before the government’s heavy hand was applied.
@Scrooge: If you turned only a billion dollars in profit, the board of AT&T would be calling for your head.
Profits for FY 2014 were a mere $6.224 billion, a sharp drop from the $18.25 billion given to shareholders in 2013.
Meanwhile T cuts head count every year, cuts benefits and bonuses, and denies raises to employees.
I am soooooo happy I handed in my badge!
“Scrooge” I find it hard to believe that you could have worked at AT&T for any length of time and believe that regulating the Internet as the government has regulated phone service over the past century is good for consumers. Instead of spouting freshman poly-sci tripe, go and investigate how much capital AT&T has invested in network infrastructure. Now tell me that letting the government set prices, rules, and regulations telling AT&T how much to charge is fair? If this ruling stands long term, how much incentive will AT&T (or any other Service Providers) have to invest in infrastructure? The free market has worked pretty well for the Internet over the last 20 years, IMHO. I don’t think many folks understand the level of control the US government is trying to unilaterally assert over the Internet with this move. Oh,and if you want to comment here, use your name and publicly standby your words.
And for these reasons, I will be keeping my money away from both AT&T and Verizon.
@Jim Cicconi: You’ve definitely shown your years and lack of ability to remember that the internet and in turn AT&T directly exist and was able to grow from the rules you are saying are not beneficial.
You have to complete and innovate to remain in the market. Perhaps the focus should be less on getting more from customers and more on improving the infrastructure to be on par with most other 1st world countries. aka, how about some fiber investments for consumers!
I can’t decipher from this post any sort of argument for why these Title II regulations are bad. How would this stifle innovation on the internet? This is a legitimate question; after reading all these reactions today, I still don’t understand Title II opposition, and I want to know if I’m missing something.
Totalitarians on the left don’t understand when the heavy hand of Washington gets involved no one wins. How is the post office, obama care, the VA, NSA spying on americans working for you. If corportations don’t make profit they don’t exist and no one has a job. ATT has had to spend billions to keep up with growing data. This investment will surely dry up when Obama and the other statists get involved in the NET.
A bipartisan win in 2010? You mean you crooks have gotten away with murder, payouts and every other form of monopoly since the first net neutrality argument in 2007.
Forgive us, the consumers, for not having the regrettable sympathy or golden pillows to catch your tears. You greedily take our money every year and hike our rates while give us subpar service every year. This is not just AT&T, this is every ISP that thinks they are invincible.
IT IS TIME that OUR government did step in and put you guys in your place. You DO need someone to watch over you to make sure you are not screwing your customer.
I am sorry but last time I checked, making a combined revenue of 33 billion dollars is pretty good in the business world.
In your eyes a “bipartisan solution” is YOUR solution.
Ming-Tse and @Scrooge, you’re both sooo cruel. Let’s be grateful corporates down own our roads….imagine how fast the rich would travel 🙁
With it being 2015 and AT&T having fiber 1500 feet from my home and still not servicing the area, I’m hoping the combination of rules which transpired today improves the internet for the entirety of your service area. I for one hope this drives the proper investment to ensure the next 20 years of internet access improve for the country, just as the Rural Electrification Act provided power to those that feed America.
I believe Jim Cicconi has chosen his words carefully and as a respected senior leader at AT&T, a man of integrity, and an authority on being government regulated has provided some prophetic words. This decision is a reversal of a 2010 decision that may not last either, but like the 2010 decision it will impact investment in the nations internet infrastructure, but for this decision the impact will be a negative one.
Jim C: Thanks for fighting the good fight for the middle ground. These issues are complex and I agree, that they are best handled in a calm, reasoned, and principled manner. Thanks for all you do for all of T.
Title II is archaic and burdonsome to begin with and now to try to apply it to the internet is stupidity. Free enterprise drives innovation. Government stiffles it. Too many people want something for nothing and they want the government to give it to them. The truth is, no lunch is free, even if it comes from the government. You either give up your tax dollars or your personal freedom or both.
So would Jim Cicconi have preferred a 5-0 vote in favor of net neutrality? There is your consensus solution.
How dare the FCC enforce regulations that make the American people happy! This is an outrage. Nobody in America deserves to have equal internet access!
This isn’t such a bad thing for AT&T and all other corporations. Like all other regulations, they push away competition from smaller and start up companies who can’t absorb the costs like the big corporations can. The real loss is that this will ultimately be used to limit free speech. The government hates that there has been an untethered place where people can say whatever they want. Don’t be so naive people.
I’m trying to imagine how wondeful my life would be if only we would just let the big corporations do whatever they want…it’s only fair.. Doesn’t evryone realize they’re looking out for our best interests…? I mean world domination is a goal we should all strive for. monopoly gets split up…then gets put back together..no one notices..ok with FCC…cetainly ok with execs & board members…after all,someone has to tell everyone how to think.. These are important times for big biz..no time for altruism…
Great response Mr. C. I’m looking forward to the follow up, and congressional response. We need to educate folks on this, because the general public just think us CSPs want to negotiate High pay, High speed deals and don’t believe we are being the good stewards of the internet, and with the integrity that AT&T has always represented.
You claim to be in favor of free and open access to the Internet yet you throttle your customers who have unlimited data plans. That makes sense. Rethink your statements before you blatantly contradict yourself. You only have your own interests in mind. Unrestrict your customers by keeping the promises you made to them and maybe then you won’t need to be strictlyregulated by the government.
If AT&T can’t lead, follow they should definitely GET OUT OF THE WAY.
There has been a conflict of interest in the broadcast/cable/telephone/internet for too long. The internet provides for competition for those who provide cable and telephone services, unfortunately the same people who get revenues by means of television and telephone service also control the majority of the internet. They are the ones who are fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo and continue to abuse their market dominance, even helping to co-write legislature to limit competition. This is why it was vital that the FCC act as they did.
You reap what you sow. This regulation is a reaction to the business decisions of AT&T and its peers.
This was a great decision for the average Joe and a bad day for terrible companies like AT&T. I can’t wait until they are forced to allow my phone to be a hotspot instead of blocking it for no reason. And I’ll be over the moon when they stop punishing me for “using too much data” by bringing my “unlimited” LTE connection down to 2G speeds.
Jim, what goes around comes around. The FCC needed to step in and regulate this before AT&T found a way to manipulate it to who they choose. AT&T has consistently treated its employees like expendable objects with forced reductions, meager bonuses, and insulting individual performance incentives. I’m glad that finally something happened to stick it to this horrible company right where it hurts. Others have to suffer with us, but so be it. AT&T is a horrible company and karma is a mother!
Imagine I’ve been living under a rock & I don’t vote. Now, can someone explain to me why is “Title II” bad for the consumer & the providers?
I’m with you, Jim; I think the government should be solving problems instead of worrying about ideological litmus tests.
Today, the FCC solved the problem that ISP’s were deliberately degrading their customers’ connections to popular websites. Sounds like you’ve got an ideological objection to that.
As an AT&T customer I’m extremely disappointed that the company felt the need to make a public statement on this matter. I expected it of course, but I’m still disappointed. AT&T, while being better than Comcast, still badly overcharges for internet access.
Hearing a company like this tell me that “it’s a complicated issue” while they make money hand over foot is insulting. “The nation’s best interest” lie on the path to true competition in the market, something that doesn’t currently exist. This market needs innovation. It’s time America became a world leader in this area rather than having some of the slowest internet speeds while charging the highest rates for a developed country.
While I agree that it’s unfortunate that this has become a partisan issue I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of companies like AT&T.
OK so all you comments seem to be about politics. For something completely different; My daughter due to some exclusive agreemtn can only get Time Warner Broadband which at peak usage is pathetic. AT&T has service just a few yard away. Will this law mean she can or cannot have choice, competition, something we expected would always be possible when we came to America regardless of who was in power? Please answer the question as I already know who is in power. Thank you
I’m not as educated as others on this thread so help me if I misunderstand. It seems net neutrality proponents assume there is, and will be, unlimited bandwidth for Internet applications regardless of how much bandwidth they require. But of course that is not true so with net neutrality there will be performance tradeoffs. Am I correct that net neutrality requires providers to treat ALL Internet traffic the same. So Netflix downloads which could be slower and buffered will instead impact my Skypen realtime video? Or some new bandwidth-hogging application will delay my over-the-top medical monitoring data? Or delay my security system alert? I’m hoping I misunderstand the implications.
This is just another example of Washington overreach and tearing down our fundamental freedoms, 1 at a time. Until we can elect leaders who have integrity, and not greed as their primary reason for being, we will be in trouble. The open endedness of this “deal” is troubling, as there is no telling what they really want to accomplish here. I guess it is just another example of their “transparency”.
Most of the above comments betray a lack of insight into the issue from ISPs’ perspective. That’s where we’ve failed. There are all kinds of pro-Net Neutrality videos all over YouTube, but none that I have seen that argue seriously against it. As a result, the public has assumed the belief that ISP’s somehow have an interest in screwing their customers, contrary to logic. The battle is being lost in the public forum– and they ultimately hold the marionette strings that move politicians and the FCC.
I find it interesting that everyone is complaining about AT&T wanting clear information and not mixed signals. Or even getting mad about a company makeing money. If you look at the ROI AT&T % smaller companies would fail or their CEO’s would be fired. This company has continued to reinvest in the business to bring customers service in areas that are not even turning a profit. To me this is corperate responsibilty and I would like to see AT&T continuing to reinvest in the network. If SBC did not take on the AT&T name years ago we would not be having such negative talk. Does anyone remember that Verizon was once NYNEX? Everyone remember AT&T and Ma Bell but how quickly they for get the other companies that are doing the same from the same roots.
I have renewed respect for Jim Cicconi after reading his thoughts on the FCC’s vote; a respect which translates into the knowledge that our company will overcome this misguided obstacle placed before us by the current FCC members. I remain confident that our country’s current partisan politics will eventually right itself, as it has so many times in the past, because thoughtful citizens will eventually overcome their partisan ideas and again embrace the ideals of seeking to understand others before insisting others understand you, and living in harmony, with the knowledge that life improves exponentially for everyone as everyone succeeds.
I agree with comments made by Ty Mick. Mr. Cicconi makes a passionate argument that this is a bad decision for AT&T, but does not say WHY it is a bad decision for companies like AT&T and Verizon. What specifically are the objections?
Net neutrality will help small businesses be able to compete on the world market. I thought AT&T was all for helping small businesses. I could have sworn I’ve seen cheesy back patting videos expressing how committed AT&T is to assisting small businesses stay connected. This seems slightly against that mentality.
Over the years I have seen more & more “government protection” in healthcare, finacial institutions regulation, etc.. This “protection” comes at the price of benefiting prefered businesses or donors over others. This is just another example, so called “net neutrality.” There are always preferred benefiaciaries of government policies, thanks to lobbyists & politicians need to be re-elected. That is why the best policies are bi-partisan & benefit the most people, even if imperfect. and don’t expect a government that selectively enforces laws to be looking out for the best interest of we the people.
With this ruling, AT&T’s should stop its CapEx spend into the Public Internet and invest its money in other areas for benefit of its shareholders. Let Omaba and his crew start investing in the Public Internet.
Dear Kim Jong Un
I know you must be upset that people will now have the freedom to visit which site they want, when they want, without you being able to tell them what they can read or watch and when.
It’s dictators like you who will do anything to keep people living in the dark ages, devoid of any and all information you feel is “destructive” to your junta’s interests while insuring only that your few loyal party members have the money to afford such a luxury as the Internet.
Net Neutrality is a win for democracy and for civilized society itself. Deal with it.
The order was just released today so I am a bit confused how AT&T can tell what the ramifications of it will be overnight. Clearly and appropriately Jim has a job to do and he is going to attempt to do it to the best of his ability so his position is not surprising. I think this is the key phrase…”And we will hope that other voices of reason will emerge, voices who recognize that animosity, exaggeration, demonization and fear-mongering are not a basis on which to make wise national policies.” All along AT&T has been right in the mix telling the FCC how terrible any reclassification will be and how devastating the effects will be on the economy because of the ACTION THAT CORPORATIONS WILL TAKE IN RESPONSE TO THIS DECISION. The responsibility for a corporation’s decisions lie with the officers who make them. If AT&T wants to stop capital investment, increase stock buybacks, and get rid of more good middle class jobs to pad their results and their profits then AT&T IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DECISION, not the FCC. AT&T is a very strong company that is positioning itself well for the future and this isn’t going to affect us enough to derail any of our revenue generating plans. We need to continue to invest in our network, our employees, and our company. We are stronger than any temporary policy decision.
The only ones who don’t benefit from Net Neutrality are the big telcos, who now won’t be able to impose slow lanes on content providers like Netflix and Amazon.
This is a win for end users who now won’t see their speeds degraded because they chose to stream from a third party site instead of from the provider’s portal.
In an era of unprecedented technological growth and innovation it is simply archaic to apply an outdated regulatory environment in today’s telecom world. It speaks to how out of touch these members are with the technological landscape of 2015. This ruling not only inhibits further growth and development, but has unforeseen implications for the future of an industry on which the public has become staunchly dependent. It is a bad decision at a critical time.
A proud AT&T employee……..
maybe some are missing the ball here. While some regulation is needed for any service that has grown like the internet has (remember what its first purpose was?), i still dont see where there is enough said about how this vote was done on a bill HELD IN SECRET!!! did anyone have a chance to read the bill? how about debate the bill? Did we have a comment period? Where is our government and its leaders going when bills are voted into law without so much as a glimmer of what is in the text??!! Our FCC chief knows where which he came from.. THIS INDUSTRY! why would he do this to us? was he ordered to? is this a “transparent” administration?
win or lose, this round wasn’t played right, so more tax dollars will be spent by our government as they fight corporations about what is right and fair. I bet they (the government) will lose yet we wont see a refund for the wasted dollars on a lost battle.
This is about control and taxes. Control by the government what we see, what we do, what we say, etc. Taxes, there are currently no taxes on broadband services, just take a look at your monthly bill. With this being passed now the Gov. can collect taxes and add to the $9billion+ they collected on Mobility last year.
I agree with Mr. Cicconi’s statement: “A 5-0 decision doesn’t leave a lot of room for either side to continue the argument, while a 3-2 decision, particularly on issues of such broad scope, is an invitation to revisiting the decision, over and over and over”.
Well it didn’t happen but A 5-0 decision would have put this issue at rest and we could all move on to work with the facts and live with the truth.
One side fears Big Government, one side fears Big Business
“There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people… Religion, Politics, and The Great Pumpkin”
Charles M Schulz
I can see both sides of the dispute here:
Transport truck companies don’t own the interstates and charge competitors one fee for full access and another reduced fee that allows access but only allows competing trucks to move at half the speed of the trucks operated by the interstate owner. That’s while the interstate owner says “don’t use the competitor, they can only complete your shipment in half the time!”
Then again, there has to be a way to allow for carriers to somehow adjust allocated bandwidth based on usage loads of given services.
I think my real gripe is another fabricated act, with politicians being the actors, for the media to put on display.
Those who favor net neutrality favor government surveillance. What will be next – perhaps the government needs to decide if Universal Studios should be allowed to regulate the lines by offering ride-goers, for an extra fee, the chance to skip to the front? Or perhaps the government needs to decide if gluten free and other specialty foods should be allowed to cost more per ounce, by deep diving whether the ingredients justify this? Perhaps the government should decide if department stores that carry the same brands need to regulate their prices so that every garment carries the same price tag? Or perhaps, since after all this is a democratic America, capitalism should reign. Better yet, perhaps the FCC should review some of their own rulings that hamper small businesses from entering new ventures unless they have capital similar to the same large companies that the FCC wagers against.
Capitalism only works when there is room for competition. I am for free market enterprise as long as there is room for established corporations and startups are able to compete freely. Hamstringing the little guy due to fast lanes doesn’t help innovation any more than stifling overreach of a government instituion. I’m concerned that there is a middle ground to be found and few willing to compromise on both sides. This issue should be a conversation and debate instead of an argument or shouting match.
Perhaps everyone should reserve their opinions until the full 300+ page ruling is released to the public. This is a lose-lose for both sides of the argument. All the media reports and would have you believe that this is a “win for the little guy”, that Big giant ISP’s have to treat everyone equally. In a nut shell, I’m sure that is true to some degree, but this is way more than that. It doesn’t take almost 400 pages of legal, technical writing to convey that. Hold the ideolagies and arguments until ALL of the facts are presented. No matter which side of the fence you are politically, we can’t have our government making decisions like this while hiding the information. No branch of government or group should have this much power in a representative democracy. Both sides should be holding our government more accountable…TOGETHER! It’s the common ground on which we can start working together on. The focus and arguments are spent way too much on general ideologies and NOT the facts and merits of the bill or decision.
AT&T provides a service, internet access, to their customers. They then tell content providers that they need to pay AT&T to deliver that content to customers. That is ridiculous and evil. That is the reason Title II was enacted, because of horrible business practices that AT&T and other content providers allowed.
I don’t believe Title II should have been allowed. I wish Google Fiber would just take over. Unfortunately ISP’s have locked consumers into far too few choices, and litigated away most other viable options. You and Comcast would be out of business if we had any real choices.
The govt has absolutely no business legally or otherwise controlling or regulating the internet. The govt (ie:DOD) May have come up with the idea of the internet but it is the providers like ATT that have built up the net and the supporting infrastructure. This is only a move by the Federal govt to extend their hand of taxation and steal from its citizens. In the end, anything the govt touches will be ruined and it’s citizens will be left to pay the bill. If this is not shot down by your Representatives when they vote on it, this move to “Net Neutrality” will only lead to more extensive control and intrusion into our personal lives. There is nothing good about this. It will only harm the free enterprise system of commerce. It will hurt ATT and the working class people who use the internet. It must be stopped!
I’m one that’s actually glad that the ISP providers will not be allowed to determin how fast I should be slowed down when I’m accessing a certain website like Netflix or goggle. It’s understandable why ATT would be upset, they’ve been caught throttling services before.
This isnt so much about regulating busines as it is about regulating and stifling free speech and power grabbing once again. As the name implies; the Internet is being Neutered in order to control the truth. Once the masses approach the 10% rate of being informed to the truth, then the elitists begin to rein in freedom. They know that if 10% of the masses become informed, there will be an uprising. It’s the big picture folks.
I hope whatever decision is made insures consumers have choices for internet. I have one provider that provides internet to my neighborhood. I live in the city and it has been like this for almost 10 years.
“At AT&T, we’ve supported open Internet principles since they were first enunciated, and we continue to abide by them strictly, and voluntarily, even today.”
I beg to differ. When your company’s name was SBC, it lobbied the Federal government for the right to compete with the customers to whom it sold Internet carrier services. Then it competed with my ISP, and I had to find another ISP when mine was run it out of business with unfair competition in the form of sudden rate spikes for no apparent reason other than the desire for its customer base. This was repeated several times until I gave in and went with an independent ISP with the resources to withstand attacks from a huge corporation.
In general, Sir, I recommend against statements that begin with “We have always” because you have not always been in charge. For all I know, AT&T has the same cutthroat practices as it did in the 1990s when its name was SBC. Your company has given me no reason to suspect otherwise. Like Comcast, AT&T does not have the practices of a service provider – both of you are better at denying service in my experience.
An excellent summation of the current political climate. Whatever the economic and social issues are, they cannot be resolved unilaterally. The Internet has grown into a resource far beyond the scope of the original telephone network and the rules that govern it must be based on sound business and economic principles. Appeasing any single group could impede the development of the Internet and burden both users and providers with unnecessary regulations. The issues are complex. The Internet is not a single entity, owned and operated by any one corporation, government or group, so the needs of many different groups must be fairly balanced. I am dismayed that the current administration has created a partisian battle out of an issue that should be decided by concensus, not by fiat.
A win-win is working together in a bipartisan way to find a solution that will keep small businesses strong and growing in America. We hope the FCC understands that small businesses are the “real backbone of America”.
Only the worst people alive would oppose net neutrality. The FCC move was intended to prevent ISPs from throttling and blocking internet traffic. How foolish and evil do you have to be to support ISPs resorting to such measures in order to destroy the Internet for their own profit. Anyone who sides with AT&T over consumers in general should consider themselves among the most evil people alive today.
If your goal is to join Comcast as the most-hated company in America, be my guest.
Those of us in the know regarding technology issues know that your goal is manipulation and subterfuge. You cannot state your actual goals so you resort to lies and misdirection. The problem is–your compnay is doing this in public and your seem to forget that we consumers notice your behavior and that we have our own minds. We will do anything possible to eliminate your companies from our lives. I personally have not been an AT&T customer for years–I will bend over backwards to avoid using your company for everything. In short, you are evil.
I find it remarkable that all here are “for” a free and open Internet. Well and good. Such a nirvana must be paid for.
A video services company – and there are several such over the top providers, i.e. Netflix – cannot reasonably expect to consume 50% of the planet’s available bandwidth without…yep…paying for it.
One can argue…”Gee, Bart, but the consumer pays for that.” Indeed they do, with higher rates…often to support network builds for services a given individual might not use.
The net result, on first blush, of the new Title II legislation will in fact be to SLOW the Internet for everyone….not cause some to pay for faster speeds, but for those who should pay to continue to consume an inordinate portion of Internet resources. The inability of large ISPs to charge for that service will mean slower service and higher rates for everyone.
A pipeline has two ends. Dump what you like in one end….only that allowed by physics will emerge from the other!
This is a self-serving post. AT&T has stated, on the record, that they desire to investigate fast and slow lanes (paid prioritization). That is their idea of “open internet” policies – extort your customer’s actions to make a buck. And have *zero* accountability! This industry deserves what it has gotten in the latest open Internet rules. I’m all for them and hope you are too!
I really don’t understand how a consumer would disagree with this decision. ISP’s already charge you for (x) of download speed. They clog the speed to popular sites unless that site also pays them for your “paid service” to reach their IP. SO if I start a website business & it becomes popular, the ISP’s decide to start charging me because people enjoy using my service. Im already paying for servers, workers, programmers, etc. Taxes, advertisement, etc. To all this rule did was make it fair for a customer to receive the services it paid for without worrying about it being bogged down because my ISP want more $ from a website. Netflix & other content providers are nothing but a website with content avail to look at.